Pollsters Can Stop Telling Me What I Think.
Posted on Sunday, January 08 at 11:25 by BC Mary
We're kidding ourselves if we think the pollsters don't understand exactly the results their employers hope for. The pollsters are kidding themselves if they think they aren't bending the polling process to please their employers.
One outrageously erroneous poll changed the outcome of the last B.C. election. It was a blunt instrument about as subtle as a tire iron. It predicted that the LINOs (Liberals In Name Only) were 13% ahead in the polls on the eve of B.C. voting day. Next CanWest waded in with a "rumour" that B.C. Teachers were sneakily planning a strike vote as soon as the New Democrats were re-elected. Not true. Both of these gems were not true. "Ooops!" said The Globe and Mail after the votes were counted. "Ooops!" said CanWest. Why did they do it? In my opinion, because the New Democrats were coming on strong. Is that true democracy? No! But the people were stuck with the results.
Pollsters appear on the National News, as Spokespersons for the Nation, for heaven sake. They pontificate about what you and I and maybe 1,500 others like us, are thinking. Who are these pollsters? What are their credentials for these influential positions at election time?
Truth is, we know little or nothing about these pollsters. Is there a Pollsters School? Can anybody walk in off the street, start counting citizens' thoughts, and sell them for a fat fee? Or what?
Whatever their authority, they have the audacity to claim that they -- they alone -- have created a snapshot of our nation. What nonsense! That's our job -- yours and mine -- on voting day.
Are polls necessary? No! Do they help voters? No! They manipulate and confuse the voters.
Canadians can look, listen, learn, decide how to vote ... and vote. It's easy. No need for dudes to keep counting us. No need to explain us to ourselves. Certainly there's no need to keep telling us what we think. We'd prefer to listen to the candidates, thank you very much.
Let the pollsters learn to polish the windshields or check the oil or change tires on the campaign buses or something useful like that during an election campaign. Just puh-leese get them off centre-stage.
And pssst! Wanna know how I'm gonna vote? Well, take a hike. In a parliamentary democracy, it's none of your darn business.
By BC Mary.
7 January 2006
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on January 9, 2006]
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
I just find it hilarious that people are suddenly offended (especially on this site!) by the pollsters now that the Conservatives have jumped ahead in the polls. Where were you when the Liberals were ahead? So predictable...!
---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw
<br />
<br />
One of the things political experts from all sides agree on is the astonishing, even shocking level of public ignorance concerning political, moral, and social issues. So low, it is off the screen. So it is not certain at all that more public deliberation is the answer to a wiser polity. The governing classes realize this, and so prefer to govern with polls and spin doctors and courts rather than via sincere public and representative or direct democracy.<br />
<br />
William D. Gairdner<br />
<br />
<br />
I have stated this before and will again-<br />
In order for registered voters to cast a ballot they must be required to , first be educated through the education system and then required to write an examination which a 85 PERCENTILE AT MINIMAUN MUST BE REACHED IN ORDER TO CAST A BALLOT. I apologise for the use of upper-case alphabet and some emphasis is required to drive the point home.<br />
<br />
The electorate are ill informed and far to many do not care<br />
<br />
… and Mary, it is no secret you who will cast your ballot for is it?<br />
Unless of course all your drum banging’s are red herrings.<br />
I care about as much what you need as you do in regards to me.<br />
<br />
As a retired editor and writer you have an advantage and an obligation to share your knowledge, in regards to political thought, but perhaps you do.<br />
Speaking of ill-informed, it's ironic that someone who can't spell the word 'minimum' is claiming that lack of education is what's wrong with democracy.
As to the examination you speak of, setting a high score doesn't guarantee that only 'smart' people will pass... one could easily write a test that almost any person with a minimal level of literacy should score perfect on.
Futhermore, 'percentile' does not mean the same as 'percent.' Your proposal would actually mean that only 15 percent of the population would be allowed to vote. (Look up 'percentile' in the dictionary.)
Lastly, although general awareness of political issues is a problem, lack of education is not. It's ego-boosting to assume that people who vote differently than ourselves must be less intelligent, but if you ask around, you'll find that there are well-educated people supporting every party on the ballot.
The issue you raise is valid, but the solution you propose won't accomplish what you believe it will.
I appreciate your taking the time to validate my point perhaps you can join in and offer improvements.
I see these forums as brain-storming sessions as well as vehicles to teach and learn.
Please build on that which you see valid and chuck the rest, That way more folks may benefit.
Would we be any worse off not hearing about who is in the lead? I say not at all.
Worse yet, most of these craporate polls don't even ask about the other parties. It's as if small parties or independants don't exist. And for the most part they never will if the media keeps pandering to the old line three.
Electoral reform in regards to taking corporate money out of our political system was a good start. Unfortunately corporate media still influence elections legally through their manipulation of polls and surveys or just plain not covering or even talking about other choices. Consider that most media in Canada is corporate owned and also own other non-media companies as well.
Democracy should be free of corporate influence. Corporations are not people.
In the current campaign I can't see that there would be all that many undecided voters. True I wonder if my vote should be thrown to CAP or the Greens again, and there might be some BCers wondering if their vote should go NDP or Liberal as the best bet to keep out the ReformaTories, but is anybody really trying to decide between a corrupt Harper or a corrupt Martin? Can millions of people be so stupid they are waiting for a poll to tell them whether they should vote neo-con or neo-liberal?
On a side note, today an old friend said he was contacted last week by a polling company and was asked "will you be voting?" and "will you vote Conservative, Liberal or NDP?" WTF?! - was his answer as his party of choice was not even asked for, and when he tried to volunteer it, they said that was not what they were interested in! So even if you do say you are voting for someone else they don't count it! So just how accurate are these bought and paid for polls? They try to lead you into an answer, when you don't give it, they ignore what you said. Pretty useless stuff if you ask me.
Is it wrong for me to be surprised at how pathetic their campaign has been thus far? I mean, as much as I loathe the Liberals, I gave them more credit when it comes to campaigning. I guess we'll have to wait and see what they pull at the last minute this time around. But Paul Martin's campaign sums up his time spent as prime minister. High expectations, but shockingly lame.
That's pretty bad about the poll. I noticed yesterday that when going over polls on the air, the talking heads always dissect what the numbers mean for the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc and then at the end cut to split second shot of the Green Party logo next to a 5% and dead air before going on to yet another shooting in Toronto or a water skiing squirrel or something along those lines.
I think despite how the media is treating them, the Green Party should pick up a solid 5% nationwide. Hopefully with gains in Ontario, but some definitely in British Columbia. Although it would be nice to see them pick up a seat there. I'm hesitant towards the Greens for a number of reasons.
The system is the problem in this country, so we need a party to come in and straighten things out. But in order to do so we need a party to run within the current system and refrain from becoming identical to the other parties in the process. It's the chicken and the egg scenario. What comes first, a new reputable party or a reformed system that was reformed by a new reputable party?
---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw
However, no poll has ever been done on just how much pollsters are believed, the last stats I saw rated polling companies as trustworthy as politicians and lawyers, who all rated lower than car salesman.
Of course misspelled words and logical fallacies have nothing to do with voting preference, and in defence of this site it is FAR from being biased toward liberals. The Fairvote people have been pushing representational change for decades, and were as present during the messed up majorities of the liberal years, the difference is that only in the last eight years has the internet been used as a tool of political expression, so before you may not have heard the complaints.
While I was previously quite opposed, I think FORCING people to vote, as Australia does, may actually have merit. Particularly from my point of view as I think a very large percentage of those votes would go to NDP and smaller parties, who at least propose something different than the 'new liberals' or 'liberal-conservative collusionists'. From my point of view it would serve well on the way to direct democracy as it would instil a 'culture of voting' rather than the current one of apathy, far from being a complete plan, it would be a step along the way. Of course thats also probably the reason we'll never see it.
Nice. So, rather than being arrested, people who are un-informed or too lazy to vote would likely favor your point of view:) Just kidding. Well, maybe not.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who hasn't made up their mind yet hasn't made any effort to do so, or doesn't care (as is their right). If the mob of "undecideds" can be led by push polls, pre-scripted so-called debates, fear campaigns and last minute bribes - then I'd just prefer they stayed home and didn't vote at all.
While I disagree with many of the views on this site, at least they seem to have been spawned by a serious effort to be informed and concern for our nation and who/how we are governed. I don't think you should take solice in the fact that, if you held a gun to someone's head, they would vote in a similar fashion as yourself. In fact, it may give one cause for reflection. N'est ce pas?
YES! We are not much different than animals when they will follow each other even in death. Millions of people can be really stupid... look at the last US election... millions reelected Bush... how stupid can they be?
The interesting feature of Canadian elections is that it is becoming far more complicated to get through the spin and most Canadians do not have the time and/or are not educated to cut through both party and media propaganda. It is getting more and more difficult for voters to make informed decisions. There is a whole new vocabulary being adopted that is meant to deceive voters into believing that one thing is being said when it is actually something quite different. This double speak has become very effective.
Politics comes down to who will win the propaganda war.
Agreed. And the reverse is also true. Apparently the Toronto Star had a poll showing a Conservative majority yesterday but sat on it - because it would be "irresponsible" to release it on a debate nite. What a croc? Now they are going to increase the sample size. I guess if the Star doesn't like the results of a poll they can ask more people or not publish the results. In this case they have done both.