Polls. It seems like some politicians and their consultants can't live with them, and most can't live without them.
Polls are mostly irrelevant, and in some ways are quite destructive of the political process. Polls are the ultimate Catch 22, where instead of leaders offering their courageous real opinions, the polls often lead the candidates who want to get elected as they "tailor-make" their messages and positions to reflect the polls.
There have been polls for decades -- though they only began getting some degree of recognition since the late 1940s. They're not going away, no matter what I or anyone else might write. And in some ways, put into proper perspective, and used carefully and interpreted with both skill and objectivity, polls can serve a positive purpose.
I've done a lot of polling -- writing them, administering them, and coordinating polling efforts. And although I don't claim to be an expert I have studied the process and interpreted a lot of polls. To be anywhere near accurate, a poll has to ask the right questions the right way, they have to be administered uniformly allowing for variants and statistical balance, and just as importantly -- they have to be interpreted correctly.
But do they tell us anything useful? So what if Hillary Clinton is ahead of Barack Obama at a particular time, if 50% of voters say they haven't made up their minds or another 20% who have answered the questions say they're not firm in their answers? What's THAT tell us? The "who's on first" really doesn't tell us anything. It gives bragging rights to someone, and that's about it.
Of late, I think the worst of polls has the on-air real-time bell-curve focus-group instant-polling we've seen during recent debates of both the Republican and Democratic candidates. FOX News and WMUR TV had focus-groups using their hand-held dials to instantly register their "favorable" and "unfavorable" opinions to candidates answers. The bell-curves ran on the television screen right along with the candidates' responses to questions, telling the viewer immediately what listeners thought of the comments, virtually word-by-word.
What's THAT do to "leadership?" I can just imagine a candidate DARING to answer a question about Civil Unions a few years ago. Do you believe gays and lesbians should be able to have a Civil Union giving them all the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of marriage?" My goodness! I bet no candidate would have answered favorable to that, and if they did the bell-curve would be hovering around 30 percent. So, other candidates for other offices would have got the message -- stay away from Civil Unions.
We need leadership on issues like real health care reform, tax reform, corporate responsibility and workers' rights, education, global warming, Iraq and other foreign policy matters -- not just an assemblage of buzz words written by consultants who are interested in just getting their candidates to say what the public wants to hear, word-by-word.
Instant polling gives us only an instant snapshot, a gut reaction of the voter. And polls themselves only give us a snapshot of the voters' judgement at the moment, and gives us little indication of whom really is "on first" for longer than that moment.
Unfortunately, I think, the overemphasis on polls affects the electoral process in ways that harms it. Donations are based on polls. Campaign strategies, and whether or not a candidate sticks to a position on an issue is affected by polls. Even whether a candidate decides to withdraw from a race before votes are cast is based on polls. About the only thing they really do is provide chatter for the pollsters and for the news media and talking heads on TV shows.
I'd like to see an election without polls. An entire election with polls. Wow. Could we at least try it? Well, I can also dream of becoming an astronaut before I die and flying to Mars.
ADVERTISEMENTS 