Musings on Political Polling
Created | Updated Nov 11, 2002
It would seem that politics are a hot topic in our society, along with religion, finances, and what we think of our relatives. We politely sidestep the issues, or blatantly ignore them, that we may not offend or be offended.
This avoidance of the issues, this fear of confrontation, simmers within us like too much water in a pressure cooker, ready to explode at the slightest provocation. So it is we yell at the editorial section of the newspaper or engage in heated debates with those we love, even though they nearly always agree with us. It is similar to the way grown men bet crazy things on the outcome of a football game, or women won't speak to each other for several days because one implies her children are smarter and more attractive.
Into this maelstrom of pressure and political aggression enter those brave souls, the telephone pollsters. Cousins to telemarketers, but soliciting opinions instead of selling insurance or water-softeners, the courageous pollsters call into the fray and seek opinions from the discontented populace.
The great majority of people are unwilling to share any opinion. Some deep-seated fear that their opinions are inferior, or less important somehow, drives them to slam the phones back into the cradle, and return to their busy lives;watching whatever the most recent television craze may be. Of those, some may be induced to answer, when they are convinced it is only a few questions, none of their nosy neighbors need learn they participated, and their answers will never be connected to them personally, in any way.
This fear is ironic, because with few exceptions, after being induced to share their opinions, they will tell the story to their friends, including how they responded. "Oh, yes, the pollsters called my home yesterday, and asked a few questions. I was busy, (a practical excuse), but they said it was only two minutes. I said I was voting for Johanssen in the house race, that I'm a Democrat, and what was the last one? Oh, that I'm pro-choice, but it doesn't affect how I vote. It really was a short survey. I was surprised."
Then there are the aggressive few, those who always want to answer, because the pressure boils within them and it seems the only escape. What risk can there be in shouting politics and rhetoric at the pollster? He lives far away, has no form of retribution except possibly calling back (which of course the laws protect you from), and is told by insistent supervisors never to hang up on you. And it is shouting politics, not arguing politics, because the pollsters don't argue. It seems they are opinionless, or magically bound into silence, with now and again a futile attempt to break the tirade and continue with the survey.
In this capacity, the pollsters make their greatest contribution to society. We usually think of their greatest impact being to fuel the politicians, or worse yet, the pundits. It is generally understood that opinion polls alter and control the world of politics. In truth, their greatest contribution lies in defusing the growing pressure of those who so desperately need that outlet, before they do something really drastic.
I wonder how things might be different if a pollster had called Timothy McVeigh, Klebold and Harris, or the Unabomber? What if German pollsters had called Hitler and dutifully noted his anti-Semitism and disappointment in the collapse of the Second Reich, before internal pressure drove him to attempt a coup? Would he have spent six months in prison writing Mein Kampf and making plans to redraw the maps of Europe? I am grateful though, that no pollsters defused Jefferson's charismatic energy, or that of Washington or Lincoln.
Perhaps then, pollsters' contributions may cause greater harm then good. If we had pollsters in the Eighteenth century, would there have been a Thomas Jefferson, a George Washington, or a Benjamin Franklin? If we had pollsters in the Nineteenth century, would there have been an Andrew Jackson or an Abraham Lincoln? What great leaders has the Twentieth century lost, because of the intrusion of pollsters? Worse yet, is it the presence of pollsters in the Twentieth century that created the Hitlers, the Stalins, the McVeighs? Would the complete absence of pollsters have diverted Klebold and Harris, and the multitude of copycats?
Can the accurate assessment of public opinion do more harm than good? The answers assuredly lie somewhere within that 2-5% area. They aptly call it the margin of error!
