Say "No" to Pollsters!: a HuffPost Call to Action
In 1996, Harry Shearer and I founded the Partnership for a Poll-Free America, a campaign urging people to hang up on the pollsters who are polluting our political environment by dominating media coverage, influencing election outcomes, and turning our political leaders into slavish followers.
We were able to get a few thousand people to take our Say No to Pollsters pledge but, at the time, the Huffington Post wasn't even a glimmer in my eye, and "going viral" was still something that required a visit to the doctor.
In the dozen years since then, the problems caused by polling have only gotten worse.
Today's political landscape is littered with media mavens who insist on treating polling results as if Moses just brought them down from the mountaintop. And reporters have become addicted to the ease of reporting the latest horse-race results as if they were actual news.
Look at the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, when the political conversation (including here on HuffPost) was dominated by polls that turned out to be wildly inaccurate. USA Today had Obama up by 13 points just two days before he lost by three. A sixteen-point swing -- in 48 hours -- is, I trust, beyond the "margin or error." And please don't tell me it was the result of Hillary getting misty.
But even if they had been right, do we want our political debate dominated not by issues but by who is up and who is down, who is hot and who is not?
No wonder politicians have become pathological people pleasers, addicted to the short-term buzz of a bump in the polls, who can't even get dressed in the morning without consulting the latest numbers.
But we can't expect these polling junkies -- both in the media and those running for office -- to kick the habit on their own. We have to stage an intervention. And it's as easy as hanging up your phone. Response rates are already abysmally low -- often dropping below 25%. So if enough of us refuse to answer, the polling data will become so unrepresentative and unreliable even the media would have to admit it was useless.
So I'm asking you to sign our Say No to Pollsters petition.
It's fast, it's easy, and it can be very effective. In fact, if everyone who signs the petition also gets everyone they know in states with upcoming primaries to sign the petition too, it can have an immediate impact on the way the 2008 race is reported on and run.
By just saying "No" to pollsters any time they call, we can force our leaders -- and the reporters who cover them -- to start thinking for themselves again. Starting here. Starting now.
So sign the petition and Say "No" to Pollsters! And send it to everyone you know in Nevada, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida. Remember: Friends Don't Let Friends Talk to Pollsters!
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
the number of people that need to be polled for reliable data is so small that a boycott would have no effect. a complete miss like new hampshire stands out because they are usually so accurate. i'm surprised AH would take the low road attacking pollsters.
the plain fact is that New Hampshire is one of the most conservative states in the country- ppl had no idea how conservative NH is. now they know. it's a case of all the fly-in tv boys talking to each other.
I am one of many New Hampshire voters who simply refused to provide information to pollsters. I don't like people thinking they know what I am going to do before I do it. I am an individual, not a statistic on someone else's spreadsheet. I didn't hear a single pollster report on the number of hang-ups and "refuseniks" like me, but I believe we account in large part for the failure of the polls to get the story right.
i do not accept the notion that the pollsters got it wrong; the tide simply turned, for whatever reason, and the tide can turn quickly in a fishbowl like new hampshire. zogby, moreover, claimed that monday night polling harbingered a dramatic change of course and expectation.
this idea may sound interesting, but eliminate polls and something equally contentious will replace it.
I completely disagree with this targeting of pollsters, even though few could doubt the negative uses to which the plethora of polls are often put. But remember in particular (note the timing here) that when polls diverge widely from the reported results, and this difference includes even many EXIT polls and not just final polls, it's really the only way in this day and age that we can know that an election has been stolen.
In the case of NH, the polls -- above all other evidence I know of -- give the honest and open minded observer much reason for healthy skepticism, or rather a healthy suspicion.
When these divergences surface, many want to blame the messenger, precisely because the process of polling raises serious questions about the honesty of the electoral process. Of course, that may not be the motive of those condemning the polls, but the timing of when these issues come to a head is most significant. Polls are MOST likely to be condemned when they are most doing the work of keeping the democratic process honest. In the instance of NH, it is yet another wake up call that the chain of custody of the ballots has been lost, that the vote, even with a recount, is structured to be unverifiable, and that Diebold with its private proprietary software is not to be trusted.
When in the Ukraine, there is a divergence between the polls (final and/or exit) we rightly conclude, without difficulty, that the elections have been stolen. But somehow (as in the critique of human rights abuses, especially underground abuses) the US is, like Caesar's wife, supposedly above suspicion. Outrage from the likes of Dick Morris and others accompanied the 2004 election. Silence greeted the issues of Ohio 2005, reported on Huffpo.
Let's not trash the polls until and unless a TRULY trustworthy election system is in place. The polls are our eyes and ears for much that is important, and if media pundits misuse them, then blame the pundits and not the pollsters
Brava! Polls do little or nothing for voters. They help pundits, most of whom you don't like, retain their (completely undeserved) feeling of superiority, and they help politicians, most of whom you don't like, figure out what lies you might want to hear. Why should anyone want to volunteer their time to help these people?
AND IF YOU DON'T ANSWER PHONE SURVEYS...
You have a great excuse for not getting sucked into sales pitches DISGUISED as phone surveys. I always just tell ANYONE who calls saying their doing a survey that I don't answer phone surveys. I'm sure it's saved me many times from having my time wasted by some salesperson trying to sneak up on me with a product or pitch....
I live in Nevada and so far have been blessed by only one political call. I look forward to more. I have found that if you ask them to kiss your frilly dilly, they will hang up. It also works on all 800, 888, 877 etc. calls. It's really kind of fun. A vicarious thrill equal to, but not surpassed by, sending other people's children to their deaths for your profit and ego. They can all kiss my frilly dilly! Better than hanging up.
How does polling effect the underdog candidates such as Obama (or at least Obama at one point in this race)? Does it help them or hurt them?
This is a much more useful idea than screwing with the Michigan primary. I'm in.
It almost seems like a good idea, but the truth is that as long as politicians and pundits see value in polls, the phone calls will continue. Furthermore, refusal to take part in a process doesn't influence that process. How many people don't vote, and then complain about who gets elected? The same principle applies here.
Want to make polls go away? If/when pollsters call, LIE to them. Who am I going to support? Gee, Chris Dodd looks like a winner to me. I'm going with DODD! Yeah, or Ron Paul! Whatever's going to skew the results into crazy-land. Make polls useless, or at least perceived to be useless, and they'll have less of an impact.
what will the fallout be if the nh recount shows the polls were correct?
Turning your phone off, blocking calls by using a caller i.d. to screen calls, replying to pollster by using a foreign language, saying that you're a servant & have strict orders not to discuss anything about your employers & the caller must contact your employer's in writing-always refuse to give an address to anyone seeking to get the address over the phone can be used to get rid of pollsters. If a pollster makes a face to face contact-refuse to respond to any questions. The pollsters are used to being dismissed as nuisances.
if we are to say no to polling then what's to stop us from saying no to online pundits, bloggers and 'journalists', such as the ones on this site, who often have just as much (if not more) influence on public perception of the issues? i see scant difference in the two. i feel safe saying that every blogger on this particular website has used poll numbers to back up her premise when it was convenient. your proposal sounds a bit like shooting the messenger.
i'm just playing devil's advocate here.
I like the polls, especially when they show Hillary ahead.
It is not the data collection method but it's misuse that can be a major problem. To avoid polls would be to throw out some of the better, and often the most valid, data the public can get. I would not trust a Fox News Poll. I would trust census data and poll data from some of the older and well known polling sources. One should not forget that political polling is opinion measurement and is not a direct measure of a future vote. Nonetheless, polls tend to be much more predictive of elections than the expressed opinions of our most popular media pundits. Don't throw out the polls but don't forget that the organization that provides the poll should be well scrutinized by a public that has done its homework.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
