ARTICLE
Does election polling really make a difference in the outcome of an election? This is a political time-honored tradition dating back decades where a well-known national, state or locally recognized pollster would conduct a survey of likely registered voters and place odds on the outcome of the election based on the poll. In 1964, when I was very young (10 years old), my mother signed my brother and me up to relay voter results in selected hand-picked precincts in Nevada and call that information into the national news outlets. The news outlets used this real-time (after polls closed) voting tally to analyze and predict the outcome of that election. I was amazed to return home (the polling station was at a nearby middle school two blocks away). We turned on the black and white TV and watched as the CBS news reporter predicted the winners of the Presidential, US Congress, and US Senate races nationwide. For a small state like Nevada — All I did was relay to the CBS news outlet the final vote tally in two small precincts in Washoe County, Nevada. I thought I had a role in the outcome. Today, polling technology and soon (Artificial Intelligence) will play a larger role collectively in analyzing and potentially picking the winners. Let’s be clear: a poll is a strategic exercise in advance of an election to research and conduct a survey of those likely voters with a mathematical analysis that provides a specific outcome in advance. The point in time counts have a + or - margin of error based on the number of likely voters participating in the poll. The + or - margin of error becomes smaller based on the larger number of voters contacted. The general assumption is that a poll with a reach of more than 500 voters gives an error ratio between + or - 2 to -+ or - 4. The larger polling number, reaching 600 to 1000 participants, can reduce the error ratio. The key to the poll's outcome is to ensure (to the best of the polling information collected) that the candidate or organization is within the margin of error. Keep in mind that most polls are conducted by a candidate, proponent, or opponent of a ballot measure to give the candidate or organization a baseline of information on the likely (positive or negative) outcome of the results. Today’s polling process is a way to hedge your bet on the outcome. Organizations and candidates use the polling theory on relative terms to create a poll based on positive assumptions where the questions asked by the pollster to the likely voter can potentially lead directly to the outcome you seek. RE: Is Candidate A better than Candidate B based on these three assumptions: position on the economy, housing, and environmental protection? As a long-time pollster told me several years ago, “A poll is not rocket science, and the statistical analysis of the information can be influenced by the very questions proposed.” That same pollster further stated, “If you really want a fair and accurate assumption of the voter’s opinion at a given time, you need to ask the hard questions that counter the initial assumption you are seeking. These are called the ‘push questions’ to push the voter’s views to the positive or negative side of the issue at hand — electing a candidate or passing a ballot measure. When a candidate or organization retains a pollster, they want a fair analysis but they are also seeking a positive result for the information collected. In some instances, a candidate will have the pollster conduct the poll, and after reviewing the results, the outcome is not exactly what the candidate wanted to see. RE: your electability is below 50%. I have seen many candidates (and organizations) then question the results and want ‘another poll’ to verify or counter the first poll. This is known as ‘double polling’ to hopefully establish a winning formula before expending money on a campaign that will result in a loss. Timing plays an incredibly important role in evaluating whether it is the ‘right time’ to run for office or attempt to pass a ballot measure. As we move into the last couple weeks of the 2024 November election, we are being inundated with polling information. I won’t spend any time writing about the race for President as the primary focus of those polls is the percentage of difference between the candidates in the swing states. What I can say from seeing dozens of those poll results is that all current polling numbers say the % is within the margin of error. For local ballot measures where the proponents have the baseline resources (money) to buy polling information as a way to establish an assumed outcome — they can conduct an early poll that gives them direction on what are the ‘best’ political or policy campaign arguments to support their case. Those internal polls are seldom if ever, made public, so it is a guess as to whether the poll really has any validation. Nonetheless, in today’s tech-oriented political process, you must establish a baseline of support or opposition. Let’s take a minute to review the polling results from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which for the past 30 years has established a rebuttal non-partisan view of the work. California voters will have an opportunity to vote on five citizens and five legislative constitutional amendments on November 5. According to the PPIC's latest report, “About one in four likely voters (26%) say they are most interested in Proposition 36, a citizens’ initiative (Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes); each of the other nine state propositions had far fewer mentions. Proposition 36 receives the most support, followed closely by Proposition 3 (Constitutional Right to Marriage).” After reading the Proposition 36 ballot title and label, 71% of likely voters say they would vote yes, while 26% would vote no. There is broad—and bipartisan—support for Proposition 36. That is an alarming % difference from what we heard discussed during the past spring legislative session, where the Legislature passed 10 specific bills related to crime, and the Governor signed them. The legislation was viewed as a more favorable approach to reducing crime with less putative language than is in Prop. 36. At this time, it appears the voters disagree. There are two $10 billion bonds placed on the November ballot by the state legislature receiving majority support at this time. After reading the ballot title and label, 54% of likely voters say they would vote yes on Proposition 2 (Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities); 44% would vote no. There is majority support across regions; support is higher among younger, more educated, and less affluent likely voters. When asked to rate the importance of the outcome of the vote on Proposition 2, 19% say it is very important, and 49% say it is somewhat important. Similar shares of those who would vote yes (21%) and those who would vote no (16%) say the outcome of Proposition 2 is very important. The second bond measure—Proposition 4 (Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks)—receives more support. After reading the ballot title and label, 65% of likely voters would vote yes (33% no). Partisans are deeply divided, with 83 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents in support compared to 35 percent of Republicans. Across regions and demographic groups, majorities of likely voters would vote yes. Three in four likely voters say the outcome of Proposition 4 is very (32%) or somewhat important (43%). Those who would vote yes on the measure are far more likely than those who would vote no to call it very important (42% to 15%). Here is a summary of the other state ballot measures: Proposition 5 (Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval). Likely, voters are divided on this legislative constitutional amendment, with 49 percent saying they would vote yes and 50 percent saying they would vote no. Proposition 6 (Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons). Likely voters are slightly more likely to say they would vote no (50%) than yes (46%) on this legislative constitutional amendment. Proposition 32 (Raises Minimum Wage). Likely, voters are divided on this citizens’ initiative, with 50 percent saying they would vote yes and 49 percent saying they would vote no. Proposition 33 (Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property). Voters are slightly more likely to say they would vote yes (51%) than no (46%) on this citizens’ initiative. Proposition 34 (Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers). A slim majority of likely voters would vote yes (53%) on this citizens’ initiative, while 43 percent would vote no. Proposition 35 (Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services). A solid majority of likely voters would vote yes (63%) on this citizens’ initiative, while one in three would vote no (34%). Set caution to the wind; no matter what your views are or who you support or oppose, polls are just a point in time assumption. But your vote is a point in time action that can produce an election outcome.
Does election polling really make a difference in the outcome of an election? This is a political time-honored tradition dating back decades where a well-known national, state or locally recognized pollster would conduct a survey of likely registered voters and place odds on the outcome of the election based on the poll.
In 1964, when I was very young (10 years old), my mother signed my brother and me up to relay voter results in selected hand-picked precincts in Nevada and call that information into the national news outlets.
The news outlets used this real-time (after polls closed) voting tally to analyze and predict the outcome of that election. I was amazed to return home (the polling station was at a nearby middle school two blocks away). We turned on the black and white TV and watched as the CBS news reporter predicted the winners of the Presidential, US Congress, and US Senate races nationwide. For a small state like Nevada — All I did was relay to the CBS news outlet the final vote tally in two small precincts in Washoe County, Nevada. I thought I had a role in the outcome. Today, polling technology and soon (Artificial Intelligence) will play a larger role collectively in analyzing and potentially picking the winners.
Let’s be clear: a poll is a strategic exercise in advance of an election to research and conduct a survey of those likely voters with a mathematical analysis that provides a specific outcome in advance. The point in time counts have a + or - margin of error based on the number of likely voters participating in the poll. The + or - margin of error becomes smaller based on the larger number of voters contacted. The general assumption is that a poll with a reach of more than 500 voters gives an error ratio between + or - 2 to -+ or - 4. The larger polling number, reaching 600 to 1000 participants, can reduce the error ratio. The key to the poll's outcome is to ensure (to the best of the polling information collected) that the candidate or organization is within the margin of error.
Keep in mind that most polls are conducted by a candidate, proponent, or opponent of a ballot measure to give the candidate or organization a baseline of information on the likely (positive or negative) outcome of the results. Today’s polling process is a way to hedge your bet on the outcome. Organizations and candidates use the polling theory on relative terms to create a poll based on positive assumptions where the questions asked by the pollster to the likely voter can potentially lead directly to the outcome you seek. RE: Is Candidate A better than Candidate B based on these three assumptions: position on the economy, housing, and environmental protection?
As a long-time pollster told me several years ago, “A poll is not rocket science, and the statistical analysis of the information can be influenced by the very questions proposed.” That same pollster further stated, “If you really want a fair and accurate assumption of the voter’s opinion at a given time, you need to ask the hard questions that counter the initial assumption you are seeking. These are called the ‘push questions’ to push the voter’s views to the positive or negative side of the issue at hand — electing a candidate or passing a ballot measure.
When a candidate or organization retains a pollster, they want a fair analysis but they are also seeking a positive result for the information collected. In some instances, a candidate will have the pollster conduct the poll, and after reviewing the results, the outcome is not exactly what the candidate wanted to see. RE: your electability is below 50%. I have seen many candidates (and organizations) then question the results and want ‘another poll’ to verify or counter the first poll. This is known as ‘double polling’ to hopefully establish a winning formula before expending money on a campaign that will result in a loss. Timing plays an incredibly important role in evaluating whether it is the ‘right time’ to run for office or attempt to pass a ballot measure.
As we move into the last couple weeks of the 2024 November election, we are being inundated with polling information. I won’t spend any time writing about the race for President as the primary focus of those polls is the percentage of difference between the candidates in the swing states. What I can say from seeing dozens of those poll results is that all current polling numbers say the % is within the margin of error.
For local ballot measures where the proponents have the baseline resources (money) to buy polling information as a way to establish an assumed outcome — they can conduct an early poll that gives them direction on what are the ‘best’ political or policy campaign arguments to support their case. Those internal polls are seldom if ever, made public, so it is a guess as to whether the poll really has any validation. Nonetheless, in today’s tech-oriented political process, you must establish a baseline of support or opposition.
Let’s take a minute to review the polling results from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which for the past 30 years has established a rebuttal non-partisan view of the work. California voters will have an opportunity to vote on five citizens and five legislative constitutional amendments on November 5. According to the PPIC's latest report, “About one in four likely voters (26%) say they are most interested in Proposition 36, a citizens’ initiative (Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes); each of the other nine state propositions had far fewer mentions. Proposition 36 receives the most support, followed closely by Proposition 3 (Constitutional Right to Marriage).”
After reading the Proposition 36 ballot title and label, 71% of likely voters say they would vote yes, while 26% would vote no. There is broad—and bipartisan—support for Proposition 36. That is an alarming % difference from what we heard discussed during the past spring legislative session, where the Legislature passed 10 specific bills related to crime, and the Governor signed them. The legislation was viewed as a more favorable approach to reducing crime with less putative language than is in Prop. 36. At this time, it appears the voters disagree.
There are two $10 billion bonds placed on the November ballot by the state legislature receiving majority support at this time. After reading the ballot title and label, 54% of likely voters say they would vote yes on Proposition 2 (Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities); 44% would vote no. There is majority support across regions; support is higher among younger, more educated, and less affluent likely voters. When asked to rate the importance of the outcome of the vote on Proposition 2, 19% say it is very important, and 49% say it is somewhat important. Similar shares of those who would vote yes (21%) and those who would vote no (16%) say the outcome of Proposition 2 is very important.
The second bond measure—Proposition 4 (Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks)—receives more support. After reading the ballot title and label, 65% of likely voters would vote yes (33% no). Partisans are deeply divided, with 83 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents in support compared to 35 percent of Republicans. Across regions and demographic groups, majorities of likely voters would vote yes. Three in four likely voters say the outcome of Proposition 4 is very (32%) or somewhat important (43%). Those who would vote yes on the measure are far more likely than those who would vote no to call it very important (42% to 15%).
Here is a summary of the other state ballot measures:
Set caution to the wind; no matter what your views are or who you support or oppose, polls are just a point in time assumption. But your vote is a point in time action that can produce an election outcome.