I’m not
a professional pollster, so perhaps I don’t know the methodology, but
here’s my take.
National polling is
paradoxical. Because it’s not possible to survey everyone in a national poll, a
pollster can only survey a sampling of the electorate. So he must make a
preliminary decision about what sample group is representative. He must make an
educated guess about voter turnout. Yet that, itself, is a prejudgment about
the future election.
In that respect, it’s not the
poll that predicts the election, but the pollster. In other words, the polling
results aren’t simply predictive of how voters will vote. Rather, they reflect
back on the pollster’s anticipation of voter turnout. So there’s a circular
element to the procedure. In a sense, the pollster had to get ahead of himself.
Prior to the polling results is his chosen sample group. In that respect, the
polling results aren’t direct evidence of how voters will vote; rather, they
are evidence of how the pollster predicts they will vote, considering which
sample group made the cut. In a way, he’s having to predict the answer in
advance of the answer. He must have a hunch of how many voters will answer the
question which way before he even poses the question. Select the respondents in
light of the anticipated response.
At that level, pollsters are
in the same boat as other political junkies. Their accuracy depends on having
their ear to the ground.
This also raises the question
of whether posters are right because they made a good guess, or because they
made a lucky guess. After all, psychics and astrologers sometimes get it right,
but when they do, we chalk that up to luck. (Mind you, I allow for the
possibility of precognition, but right now I’m thinking of charlatans.)
I expect that when they get
it right, that is sometimes due to the fact that, as political junkies, they
have a good feel for the political mood of the country apart from polling. But
I also suspect that in some cases, they just got lucky.
In the nature of the case,
we’re more impressed by accurate predictions than inaccurate predictions. Since
we know the future is unpredictable to some degree, it doesn’t surprise us when
the prediction is off. So mispredictions are quickly forgotten.
Don’t these polls basically
tell you that Republican respondents will probably vote Republican, Democrat
respondents will probably vote Democrat, and which way independents lean? The
key is getting the proportions right.
...something unscientific I was thinking about yesterday about Fox News being the "highest" rated program of the cable news networks and the basic news networks is the fact that their predictions were not spot on about the outcome of the election causing a lot of pundit spinning.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that makes sense to me is the fact that most likely the ratings being accurate indicate "who" is watching that network making it a fact.
What in contrast is possible because we now know the outcome of the election is those folks who were voting were a majority of voters near or below the poverty line and are the most to gain from the entitlement programs of the current and future administrations? These folks have to work and cannot afford to sit in front of their color t.v.'s (big screen)during prime time because they are out working to make ends meet or or or???
If Romney is right about that 47 percent that they are the baseline that will grow so that more and more will be brought nearer and nearer to the poverty line and more will drop below it thus increasing that power of their voting block and so most likely IT will trend towards all branches of government being more for them than for that high end rich conservative "majority" Fox News watchers who now according to one of the pundits of Fox News says has fallen to become the white minority?
Hey, what about us Natives? I guess our minority doesn't factor into his equation then? What a pundit! :)