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
it can have an immediate impact on the way the 2008 race is reported on and run.
~~~~
Then we can get our truthiness only from HuffPo!
The problem isn't the pollsters. The problem is the exaggerated importance focused by the media and the campaigns on the Iowa and New Hampshire results just because they are the first. Together they represent a tiny fraction of American voters and of the delegates for each party, yet their results actually lead to the declaration of front runners and the elimination of some candidates. I am a resident of one of the largest states, one with a primary on "super Tuesday," yet I've already been informed by the media which candidates are ahead or catching up or don't matter any more. It is infuriating that such very tiny tail is being allowed to wag such a large dog.
Great idea Arianna!! I wish there was a way to eliminate marketing polls also. If I have to endure another Cialis or Viagra commercial, I think I'm gonna puke!!!
If we can't even stop telemarketing, how can we stop polling? I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but I am trying to see this realistically. That said, I do think eliminating polls would make a significant difference in our election process.
Arrianna,
I think you have something here. While I lean towards the other side of the spectrum I think this is one subject that left, right and middle all agree for the most part. We are all tired of the poll takers trying to decide elections with their polls that push people to either vote with the herd or not go to the polls as there is no point in voting if their candidate has no percieved chance. I bet if you asked your counterparts on the right wing blogs they would join you in this one. Why don't you try?
An intervention of pollsters isn't the solution. But requesting random audits of EVERY election is. It shouldn't only happen if the results are close. It should be an ongoing effort at transparency and legitimacy.
Especially since so many of the voting systems have been PROVEN to be hackable. This is a no-brainer, and worth our effort. If polls are gone, will that make the results more credible, or should we do something revolutionary and actually COUNT THE VOTES?
This is non-partisan. THIS is what Democracy depends on, not polling.
Confounding pollsters is a good idea not because it will help with election fraud (which is a separate problem) but because it deprives the media, government, candidates, advertisers, etc., of the accurate information they need to manipulate opinion.
However, refusing to take polls is not the answer because it's unlikely that you'll ever get enough people to go along to make much of a difference. The answer is to take the poll but lie. This adds error to the pollsters' data for which they cannot correct.
If 5% of us refused to take polls, we would be a nuisance to pollsters but little more; if 5% of us lied to pollsters we would add significant uncertainty to their data; 10% of us lying would be enough to make most political polls useless.
I always lie.
SAY NO TO DIEBOLD!
OH MY GOD.
Nooooooooooooooooo!
This is EXACTLY what Karl Rove WANTS you to do. If the polls are deemed "unreliable," and the polls say the Democrats are 20 points ahead then somehow mysteriously LOSE in all the diebold states, nobody will listen to all the "conspiracy" theories.
Don't do this. This is NOT a good idea. Think it through.
Furthermore, listen to Keith Olbermann - the polls were 100% RIGHT; the pundits left out the 28% "undecided" in their rantings.
Fun watching everyone trying to wiggle out of a credibility crisis.
If it's not obvious to the media people are going to vote the way they want with or without their help and influence it never will be.
Huffington, do you really think your onto something new? Could it be that this is why the polls in NH were so messed up because a large enough number of the people polled just said, "undecided" . I've done that for several years or just hung up. The reporting of poll numbers must have some impact on the outcome of these elections, either by suppressing or energizing a vote. These polls are not benign.
You loonies out there keep sounding more like Ross Perot all the time. LOL,LOL,LOL. How DARE any of you suggest we ignore or BAN polling. Ninety percent of the voters wouldn't know WHO they were supposed to vote for if the pollsters didn't tell them. Disgusting. Just makes you want to vomit. But true none the less. The train speeds onward toward another Democrat fiasco.
After New Hampshire I had the same idea. They serve no purpose and really should be outlawed. And where were the pollsters on the news shows Wednesday? I was looking forward to interviews to hear their explanations of what went wrong, but nary one to be found.
I will happily sign the petition!
Has anybody the answer to this question:
What are the chances that anyone will be called by a pollster?
I would guess - and it really JUST a guess - that you have more of a chance of being killed in a plane crash.
There is a lot about the presidential primaries that needs changing. Why is this a surprise after the Florida debacle. But is it not a little late?
My concern is how an election season was "ending" after only one caucus and one primary and I NEVER GOT TO VOTE! That pisses me off royally!
We should all vote on the same day.
Sorry to be cynical about this, but it's a little late. And it's miniscule compared to the campaign reform we need. Federal funding, spending caps, equal airtime for all candidates. For starters.
How late?The horses are not just out of the barn, they're long gone. In fact they have lived their lives, died, been hauled away and made into dog food.
We will all begin eating it in 2009.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
