Just Say No...To Pollsters

In the wake of the "stunning" failure of public-opinion polls to predict accurately the result of the Democratic New Hampshire primary, perhaps it's appropriate to revive a cause Ms. Huffington and I championed, about a decade ago: boycotting polls.

Whether you look at the entertainment industry or the news business or our political culture, it's hard to see a beneficial effect that the ubiquitousness of this technology has had on our society. Cooperating with pollsters, and giving them more and more detailed information about ourselves, has at the very least abetted the rampant slicing and dicing of the population, the divisiveness which so many now bemoan. And certainly the incurable obsession of the MSM with the horse-race aspect of our presidential elections -- clearly on view today -- is fed, if not led, by the incessant drumbeat of daily polls, nightly tracking polls, exit polls, etc.

So what can one person do? Refuse to talk to pollsters, ever, anywhere, for any reason. You know now, after having heard the expressions of interest in your call from a million telephone-tree voices, that they don't care about what you think. They're just trying to find a new, better, more effective way of selling you a show, a product, a leader. So give it up. Go cold turkey. If you're approached at a voting location, tell 'em your ballot was secret and it's going to stay that way. If you're called, treat 'em like telemarketers -- pollsters are, in fact, the other end of the same slimy stick.

Arianna reported some time ago that conflation with telemarketers (they all call at dinnertime) was driving response rates down, thus compromising the accuracy of "random" samples. Let's finish the job. It doesn't take everybody to do this. Depriving pollsters of a certain cohort of the population -- like, say, readers of left-leaning blogs -- is enough.

And it's something you can actually do, by not doing.

Will it hurt? Can't say for sure, but, hey, it couldn't help.
UPDATE (1-10): To the commenters claiming that exit polls are a necessary corrective for a fraudulent vote, two things: one, this piece from the Daily Kos, which seems to invalidate the notion of vote-tampering in New Hampshire (http://dhinmi.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264/85/434176),
and two: so that's why Gore and Kerry ended up winning? Using a flawed technology as a corrective for an allegedly flawed vote is like using a psychic to catch an embezzler.

Comments

[koolwoman]

I too think we should refuse to answer polls. I am going to tell them that, who I vote for, is just as personal as the balance in my bank account. Go Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!

[cactusJohn]

AGAIN, THE QUESTION: WHAT THE HELL GOOD ARE POLLS ANYWAY?
LOOK AT THE 2000 DEBACLE FOLLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT'S AWARDING THE PRESIDENCY TO THE CHENEY / BUSH-LEAGUE PACK OF INCOMPETENTS. WHY NOT LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT PER THE RULES AND TRADITION--AGAIN THE HYPED-UP MEDIA MUST BE SATISFIED. "IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID" IS JUST AS POIGNANT AS " IT'S THE CONSTITTION, STUPID!"
WE ARE STUPID, NOT JUST IGNORANT; STUPID IS WHERE YOU -LIKE- BEING FILLED WITH UN-REAL EVEN FALSE STATEMENTS MASQUERADING AS KEEPING YOU FROM BEING IGNORANT --I.E, THE MEDIA.

[realistic2008]

And a new group of experts has been created to analyze the other experts. Someone was asked a couple nights ago, is polling a science or speculation, he responded both. My take on the subject is that polling is not a science the statistical analysis is for it is not bias as polling is, particularly when these guys are paid to influence an outcome, just like the administration did with all the lies following 9-11

[ContraAccount]

"The group counting the votes is more important than the group casting the votes." -- Joseph Stalin

[ContraAccount]

Here's the answer: The corporate controlled media-and-pollsters were trying to rig the voting. They spun the polls in an attempt to sway voter to vote for Obama, and when it didn’t work - they misreported to exit result in order to doubly confuse and cover-up the issue.

[TMIDGE66]

WHEN THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CAME OUT ON THE EXIT POLLS SAYING THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA WHEN IN FACT THEY VOTED FOR HILLARY, HERE IS THE REASON. VOTING IS SECRET, PRIVATE AND NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT THE VOTER. THAT IS THE MESSAGE THEY WERE SENDING.I ADVISE EVERY VOTER NOT TO REVEAL THEIR CHOICE OF CANDIDATE; CAST YOUR VOTE AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. POLLSTERS BE DAMNED.

[TOOO]

Now, let me get this straight: if the exit polls vary widely from the actual results in, say, Ohio in 2004, it must be voter fraud!

But if there's a discrepancy in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire... the polls are wrong?

What's wrong with this picture?

[GrouchoMarxist]

The best way to deal with pollsters is to say, "Sure I don't mind answering a few questions, if you don't mind me lying my ass off."

Gets 'em every time.

[laocoon]

Exit polls are an established method for determining if there is reason to suspect irregularities in the election. I am concerned that when the general election comes and the exit polls show the Democratic nominee 10 points ahead but the Diebold tallies show the Republican with a victory we will hear about how that shows zero--- just look at NH. We are being conditioned so the major news sources will disregard any discrepancies between exit polls and election results. Dont feed the beast. Everywhere else in the world this sort of discrepancy raises suspicions.

[JonathanDS]

I wanted to vote for Nader but not if it meant electing Bush because Gore needed my vote but if Nader had been way up in the polls me and many others who didn't vote for him would have voted for him. So it's complicated. This scenario comes up over and over, just with different people. No polls, and we're going in blind; certain polls and we're going in with distorted perspective.

If our electoral system could just find a way to solve the "I'd firstly vote for Candidate A unless it would be throwing my vote away, in which case I'd settle for Candidate B" conundrum, instead of this you-only-g­et-to-bet-­on-one-hor­se system, then the polls would be rendered comparatively impotent.

[anotherbozo]

Harry, read Andrew Kohut in today's NY Times. According to him certain voters DID refrain from co-operating with pollsters-­-blue-coll­ar white voters, in fact, and it was because (he fears) they were going to vote for the woman for the wrong reason, because they were uncomfortable with the race of the leading male candidate. This seems the most convincing reason yet why the polls were so far off in NH. In Iowa, Kohut reasons, Obama wasn't yet the front-runner, and (for reasons I don't comprehend) because a caucus is different from a primary. Certain white voters can be comfortable voting for a black man so long as he's in no danger of actually WINNING--but if he is? Kohut goes on to discuss the big difference between exit polls in NYC when Dinkins was running for mayor, and the actual vote--far narrower than predicted, even though Dinkins won.
Your advocacy of stiffing the pollsters is totally justifiable, Harry, but meanwhile we've got the problem of selective non-cooperation. A half-accurate poll isn't accurate at all: should be good if everyone is skeptical from now on.

[BruddahChrispy]

I treat them the same way I do telemarketers... I keep them on the line for as long as possible, without letting them actually accomplish their task. My reasoning is that the call centers track the time of calls and measure that against the results produced. I'm attempting to make it as unprofitable as possible for them to continue the practice. A quick call in which the person hangs up doesn't even register for them. Just my little bit to help out the world. :-)

Besides, it's kind of fun. I don't get angry, I'm just as uncooperative as possible in as friendly a way as possible. I usually explain what I'm doing and then go on to steer the conversation towards anything that might engage the other person. I once spent a half hour having some guy from Bangalore explain the rules of cricket to me. :-) They're not allowed to hang up unless you become abusive, so they usually try to steer you back and when that fails they punt you to their shift supervisor who is allowed to hang up.

[asterix99]

Whenever somebody calls me, tell them my consulting fees are $53 per hour. Then I see how long I can keep them on the line arguing about it.

I figure my opinion is worth at least as much as Bill Kristol's and I should be adequately compensated.

[SolarPowerGuy]

Hey now, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Those telephone polls which precede an election? Surely, I see little value in those. I have only participated in one such poll, for a minor local election. And it was an accident -- I picked up the phone instead of letting my answering machine get it first. For whatever reason, I went along. I would have stopped immediately if I had been asked a "push-polling" question.

But the exit polls, which are taken as people leave the voting booth? I see real value in those, and we should all answer truthfully. We need the exit polls to corroborate -- or to question -- the honesty of the official government results.

It infuriates me that the 2004 Ohio elections did not get the attention they deserved. The exit polls there diverged VERY strongly from the official outcome. There is good reason to believe that vote fraud took place, and that electronic voting machines were involved.

After Florida 2000, the statisticians were on the ground all across the United States, looking for discrepancies. Have you read this report?

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the Electoral College vote. Yes, Kerry would still have lost the popular vote, but that's exactly how Bush squeaked by in 2000. With two elections of this kind back-to-back, we could now be having a serious discussion about reforming the antiquated Electoral College system.

[Thinbossom]

Is it just me or doesn’t anyone else see the difference between voting in Iowa and voting in New Hampshire? In Iowa people actually stood in place and/or wrote on paper to indicate their vote. As a result, there was little or no room for controversy. A true picture of what the Iowa electorate wanted was portrayed.
On the other hand reports of miscounts, fraud and malfunctions began to surface before the polls even closed in New Hampshire. (Honorable mention also went to Diebold's easily hacked and otherwise flawed voting machines). One can only conclude that the election rigging alluded to in NH will be seen in the general election in November.
The bottom line is the methods used in the Iowa caucuses speak strongly to the need for paper ballots come November. Tell this to your congressional representatives ASAP,