WSJ: Technology Prevented Accurate Election Polling
The days following last week's GOP sweep of the Congressional elections have been quite interesting to watch. Pollsters, politicians, and talk show hosts have repeatedly asked why nobody was able to predict the power-shifting outcome of the election, and the various reasons for their collective blunder.
Some media outlets, like Salon.com, have adopted rural rednecks in Georgia as one of the untapped groups, for they were upset over the Governor's stealthy removal of the confederate battle flag from the right half of the state flag. (Read "Cracker Jack" at brushstroke.tv for another Georgian's perspective).
But inbetween all the noise and finger pointing, I found in the Wall Street Journal what is to my mind the most logical, probable answer to the missed predictions - cellphones, and Caller ID.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks blocks [for pollsters] is declining cooperation from people who simply don't want to be bothered. Many Americans use Caller ID telephone technology to screen out calls from survey takers. Others hang up in exasperation because they are tired of calls from telemarketers. Twenty years ago, two-thirds or more of Americans were willing to accept calls from interviewers...today, that proportion has been cut in half. - Wall Street Journal, Nov 8 2002
And then there are the cellphones. Voters under the age of 40 are increasingly unplugging their land lines and using cellphones for all their communication needs. Because these numbers are often unpublished, and users change providers and numbers regularly, and entire demographic is virtually invisible to pollsters.
What is the most likely reason - mass hordes of country folk ticked off about a flag, or a increasingly mobile, technologically savvy populus of soccer moms, corporate professionals, and college students? With the rapid acceleration of technology and an increasingly mobile culture taking hold in American society, truly accurate pre-election polling could quickly become a relic of the past. What a shame.
Comments
I feel like pre-election polling could help our votes/voters ratio. Maybe if the media wasn’t trying to give results before voting periods expire, more Americans would have the sense of “My vote might make a difference!”. But hey, I’m no politician or statistician. What do I Know? (c)
Posted by: Josh at November 13, 2002 1:24 PM
Completely true perhaps. I don’t own a land line. Neither do most of my friends. We all own cellphones in part because we’re all peeved with SBC Ameritech and the crap they force down your throat, but mostly because I think people enjoy being mobile. People are always on the go. And thus having a land line is just another non-used expense that becomes deemed unecessary.
Posted by: Naz at November 13, 2002 1:30 PM
is it a shame? pre-election polling also serves to kill off possible voters... both thinking “hey, why even go, my candidate is so far behind in the polls”, as well as “my candidate has a comfortable lead, no need for me to go and vote”.
in the end, i don’t see voters dropping off because pre-election polls no longer exsist. Nor do i think there will be a huge increase in voters. However, in my opinion, i think pre-election polls pose more harm than good, (what is the reasoning behind trying to find the political pulse of the country before an election?), and think they should be abandoned outright.
Posted by: p auL at November 13, 2002 1:51 PM
It's great to see the pollsters and the media get a black eye, my feeling is that if there were no polls, more people would vote.
As for why the polls were wrong, the WSJ article makes sense. People lead mobile, fast paced lives, and while technology provides more avenues for solicitors and pollsters to bother us, it is also allowing us more effective communication filters (skipping commericals, caller id, etc.)
I don't have a landline either, and I can't understand why anyone would have a landline in areas where mobile service is available. Think about it: when you buy a mobile phone you can pick your phone, plan, service provider, and a wide spectrum of features and options (plus the whole mobility thing). When you buy a landline you get...a landline.
It's my off topic economic hobby horse, but state sanctioned monopolies are way more insidious than a 'natural' monopoly like Microsoft. Natural monopolies are still subject to market forces, and they still must innovate, but a state protected monopoly like the local telco never has to answer to the most democratizing force of all: the consumer dollar.
Posted by: nathan at November 13, 2002 3:32 PM
I won't miss pre-election polling at all. It's the bane of any other party except the big two. And most newspapers are bias.
Posted by: briguy at November 16, 2002 1:47 AM
