Yet again this election cycle,
polling and the polls are a major controversy. The issue is that the polls are
all over the map, or again, will be simply wrong, as allegedly, they were both
in 2016 2020 and even in 2022 during the midterm elections. The real problem
with the polls is not their accuracy. Instead, it is a misunderstanding of the
purpose of polls and the problem of profit-driven polling.
Recent polls, as reported
on sites such as Real Clear
Politics, especially those after the September 10 Trump Harris
debate, seem to be all over the place. Some national polls have Trump up by
three, some have Harris up by four, with others offering different margins.
This has led some
to conclude that this year will again be a mess for polling.
The problem with polling lies both in
misunderstanding what polls are meant to do and in the motives for the polling.
First, remember that polls are snapshots in time. They are not predictors.
Polling is not some type of model that inexorably declares or states what will
happen on November 5 this year. Polls merely tell us on any given day what some
individuals think about some subject, such as, who they likely to vote for
President.
Many black swans, October surprises,
or unknown unknowns have already happened in the 2024 race, and many more could
still occur, thereby impacting the final voting decisions of voters regarding whether they will vote and
for who, Ascertaining who is likely to
vote, which is critical to polling, is not easily predictable and subject to
some guesses and some polls and pollsters are better or worse at doing that.
That is the second point to remember.
There are some polls that are more accurate, and some with more biases or
inaccuracies over time. Casting all polls as of equal value is inappropriate,
and one needs to think about good versus bad.
A third issue is interpreting the
margin of error. Most polls indicate a specific number in terms of polling
results, such as the recent ABC/IPSOs
poll
indicating among likely voters Harris has a 52% to 46% lead over Trump, with a
margin of error of plus or minus two precent. This is a small margin of error.
But for many polls these margins seem to range from three to four to five
points. In part the margins of error reflect many polls using small samples to
reach their conclusions. But to say that somebody has a one- or two-point lead,
according to a poll, with a margin of error of three to four points tells us
very little. It could be that one candidate has a larger lead or a smaller lead
than thought, or that with such a margin of error, the other person could be
winning,
Deciding about who is ahead or who is
behind, based on one poll is insufficient. It fails to provide evidence of
trends. Even if more than one poll is used but if the results in them are both
within margins of error, it still may not be enough to establish a trend.
Polls also have confidence levels.
Confidence levels refer to the issue of accuracy and sampling certainty. These
are questions regarding from a mathematical or statistical perspective, how
likely a sample of respondents might mirror a larger population. Most standard
polls have a confidence level of .05, or 95% certainty. This means that even on
the best days, there is a one in twenty chance that the poll will just be
wrong. But sometimes polls, to save money, reduce the sample size of those
surveyed, thereby reducing the confidence level.
There is then another problem where
some websites or aggregators average out the different polls and to give some
type of composite number with the belief that their average is more accurate. Statistically,
this is not sound practice. Such composites average good and bad polls
together, with different methodologies, dates, and questions. One cannot really
average them together.
Finally, when it comes to polling,
especially national polls for the presidency, ignore them all. We do not elect
presidents by national popular vote, and national polls do not tell us anything
about what' is going to happen in the six or seven swing states that will
decide the election. Here it is 150,000 to 200,000 voters that would be
decisive, and polling cannot be done easily at this level of granularity.
But beyond all these methodological
misinterpretations of polling, there is a bigger problem, and that is profit
driven polling. It is the habit of some organizations to do repeated polling to
make their polls the new stories of the day, as opposed to covering the
campaigns or examining the public policy issues that the candidates are
espousing. Profit-driven polling is meant to create a horse race and to focus
on who is ahead or who is behind.
Profit-driven polling is not about
providing accurate reporting of public opinion, but about making money, or in
some cases, organizations releasing polls to confuse or impact public opinion.
It is possible that the misunderstandings among many journalists or websites
regarding polls is simply a consequence of what polling can and cannot do. But
it is also possible that all this misunderstanding is more intentional in terms
of seeking to maximize profits from polling.
No comments:
Post a Comment