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.
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
Polls are about selling ad spots. They play on people's anxiety about the outcome of elections and often influence votes. They allow candidates to change their stories in order to win instead of standing for what they believe in. They should be banned during elections.
I'm also saying no to today's ubiquitous stories on "how the press got it so wrong in New Hampshire.
Nope gonna lie and make fools of them for asking. Nosy azzes.
Is there a reason no one wants to speak about the voting machines anymore?????
Is it part of the plan to let them steal another election?
HARRY SUGGESTS: Perhaps because of the increasing number of states passing legislation requiring a paper trail?
My experiences from college and the lower level eschelons of the workforce have me presuming employees of poll organizations (inclusive of MSMs) give up actually contacting 'real' people after a week of employment, thereafter polling only their friends and facebook contacts. Either that, or it's the same handful of people culled from the candidates' donors lists that get the national calls.
I'm looking forward to the day I can say I'm voting for the candidate fluent in Klingon. Not that I am so fluent, but Rove et al hasn't tapped that market yet, and after Obama's Iowa caucus :loophole: it seems to be just a matter of time...
Did the hackable optical scanning system, proven very hackable by many computer science professors, help Hill because the corporatists want her to win because they feel they can defeat her?
I do not trust any vote after listening to a professor of Computer Science on a radio show. He explained how all of the Diebold and other computer voting equipment is so easily hackable. It was so stupid of the Dems to go along with the republican plan to computerize the voting. Corporations, and the corporatists now control our vote! How insane is that? They won't show their source softare? Insane.
The saddest thing about the MSM's obsession with polls is that they think that is all the coverage we want and expect from them. That is why they don't invite candidates who aren't polling well to televised debates, which a grave disservice to the process. Some of those candidates are counted out much too soon due to polls. The only people I can think of who are well served by the horse-race type coverage are those who are placing their "bets" in the form of campaign contributions. I like the idea of placing a limit on how close to the primary/ca
P.S. Harry, I love Le Show and look forward to downloading the podcast every week. It's always the first thing I listen to. Good luck with the Grammy nomination!
Commenters here have me thinking lying is a better idea than boycotting.
In fact, I wonder if -- ORGANIZED LYING -- isn't the best way to start throwing off poll accuracy? This might have a greater effect than either random lying or boycotting. If we focus the "wrongness", the disinformation, in a unified direction, maybe we could start throwing polls farther and farther off, ideally reducing their value to the point of worthlessness. Maybe we could take away their tool!
Blogs could participate in spreading the word - maybe even across party lines. "Anyone who gets polled in Georgia, no matter who they support, says 'Guiliani'. Anyone who gets polled in Minnesota says 'Edwards', etc."
Maybe a little statistical anarchy could show the "science" of the polls to be what it is, a "news" generating tool. It would be very difficult for pollsters to attempt to calculate and offset the degree of intentional disinformation.
For Americans of any political stripe who are fed up with endless, meaningless campaign entrail-gazing at the expense of real discourse, it would be a way to talk back to The Media and the election carnies without leaving home or spending a cent. When a pollster calls, it need not feel like an invasion of privacy, it could be an opportunity to help hasten their demise. :-)
Judging from the tenor and volume of comments in this thread, I bet we could do it! I bet lots of folks would be happy to give a standard lie to pollsters if that might help ruin the effectiveness of polls.
If only we had an influential blogger to get it rolling ... Harry - ?? :-)
Or lie to them outrageously causing their information to be meaningless.
Of course if I lie plus and you lie minus then they have the same answer?
I answer no questions period to any pollster and haven't for about as long as Huffington has been alive.
during the barrage of calls leading up to the Iowa Caucuses, my daughter answered saying, thank you, but were not interested, which basically they aren't looking for as an answer and throws them enough so you can hang up....
Just got some shocking news!!
States west of the Mississippi have been without power for a few days, here are the polls for Nevada
Edwards-42
Obama-21
Clinton-19
Richardson- 3
I know, I can't believe it!!
MSM will decide who the nominee is....
If pollsters could be included under a do not call-solic
I like it when being polled! i lie to them,!Why would i tell anyone how i voted or will vote? Does anyone ever poll the lobbyists? i want to see which laws will be enacted this year, and which ones don't have a chance! Bribery at its finest! the best elected officials money can swing,We have the means to replace all the rats, let us vote on bills on line! at least something will get done!
Boycott them or lie with great abandon. This should be a nonpartisan movement, all Americans should cut these pollsters off and watch them fade.
The polls benefit the pollsters and the media, not the citizens or the candidates. Part of the problem is the data itself, another part is the way the media spins that data. They never talk about percentages of people who back a candidate but may switch to another, or those who are flat uncomitted. There is a huge difference between a solid 'I'm all for Dennis all the way' and a 'I like Dennis, but Edwards also has my attention, so I'll say Dennis'.
Nuance is everything in such a process, but in the reporting nuance is nothing, in fact they act as if the polls are equal to snapshots of a horse race showing win place and show at various legs. They imply fact where there is only conjecture.
First of all, the modern human is incapable of sustained boycott. In case you didn't notice, that's a period at the end of the last sentence.
Secondly, assuming my first sentence could be reliably amended with a "but," I just can't believe that pollsters are beyond fudging (lieing) if they don't already. I mean, if I don't believe in the veracity of the vote tally itself, I sure as heck don't buy the accuracy of the polling, regardless of who does it and when.
Maybe there was a time...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
