Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootusrootus | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it doesn't really matter much. I mean, sure, we need some amount of polling because it informs decisions such as who gets to participate in televised debates, etc. But other than that, what does the general public get out of polling? It's a spectator sport. In the end, all that matters is the votes, and people should really be encouraged to remember this. I'd think 2016 and 2020 would be a healthy reminder of that.

View on HN

> what does the general public get out of polling?

The laypeople, not much. But for politically active people, not to mention political parties, polls are the best tool to determine where to do what. If you are way ahead in one race but neck and neck in another, it makes sense for parties and activists to focus their efforts and donations to the competitive race. There is never enough resources to focus on every race equally and to the fullest extent. Decisions need to be made. Polls are the best tool to make informed decisions.

> polls are the best tool to determine where to do what

Seems like that may not be the case anymore.

OK, but when some random pollster calls me, what do I get out of it if the parties can allocate their resources more effectively? That's not anywhere on my list of concerns. It lets you campaign more effectively? Great, go bother someone else.

If political parties see, through polls, that their platform is not resonating with the populous, they will change their platform and policies. Decisions about future direction of the parties are not made in a vacuum. Polls are one of the feedback methods determining them.

Yea as someone who lives in a non swing state it occurred to me that being polled would probably give my options the more influence than my actual vote.

> I mean, sure, we need some amount of polling because it informs decisions such as who gets to participate in televised debates

I would strongly disagree with this use of polling data. This is exactly how they justify locking out third party/independent candidates from the debates and preventing them from getting any traction, it's the two party duopoly at its finest (also how we end up with ironic tweets like [1]).

I think a much better system would be that anyone who will be on the ballot in enough states to take the presidency (ie 270 electoral votes) should be included. Requiring being on the ballot in enough states ensures that there is a reasonable base level of support for the candidate (since it's not particularly easy to get on that many ballots) and is also an objective measure vs taking into account polls that might not even have many candidates as options.

Even if that allows some candidates you might consider "unviable" to participate, I still say that's a good thing. At least it allows them to show their ideas for how to address various issues (which may influence the platforms of the larger parties if there appears to be broad support for it) and also allows them to potentially gain more support in the future.

[1] https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/131467950818472755...

Accurate polling is important because it lets politicians and journalists know what is politically possible. But, over-reliance on polls can prevent politicians from doing things that are right but unpopular. A great discussion on the role of polls can be found in this podcast episode https://pca.st/episode/c7683cc8-1031-45ac-ac0c-533aff34557b Especially near the 27-minute mark

> lets politicians and journalists know what is politically possible

Perhaps issue polling is much more useful than candidate polling.

Polling can be used to influence the public. Conduct a poll, ask some leading questions, and publish results that appear to show broad support for candidates or policies. This can be used to sway those undecided voters who are inclined to "go with the majority" or "vote for a winner"

Exit polls were historically used as a method of detecting election fraud, because they've always been very accurate. It's only the last few elections where we've seen such a large disparity in polling and actual results.

Is exit polling no longer working? All of the discussion I’ve seen seems to focus on polling in advance of the election.

Considering the trend for people to be socially canceled, scorned, and shamed for supporting the "wrong" candidate, yes I think exit polling (and all polling for that matter) are not working. People are much more likely to either decline to respond, or they will lie.

> or they will lie

Apparently that isn't a problem. Yet. But non-response is.

I think mail-in ballots are a much bigger problem for exit polling than fear of being cancelled.

I cite no sources, just a hunch.

They are actually both problems. The fear of being "cancelled" due to poll responses is called the Bradley Effect and definitely does apply to exit polls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect#Exit_polling

Exit polling was basically meaningless in this election because mail in votes were the deciding factor.

That is a good point. To the extent that vote-by-mail becomes the dominant choice, we won't be able to rely on exit polls as a check. So it becomes even more important that the other checks we have on the system remain in place.

Yeah, since about 2000 it's been shown to be really unreliable in the US. Heavily weighted towards democrats for much of the same reasons that makes normal polling unreliable now.

The key problem with exit polls (in non-pandemic years) is that they are non-representative until the whole vote is collected and they can be re-weighed.

"exit polls are eventually weighted to match the final results, but that only happens after the election is over. On election night itself, the numbers are reweighted as more data becomes available, but what you’re seeing is still subject to a lot of uncertainty"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/exit-polls-can-be-misle... has a good discussion.

Campaigns and parties buy polling and use it to make decisions on what messages to use, what races to invest in, etc. Those private polls were just as wrong as the public ones. From the campaigns perspective that’s wasted money.

It gives people a better sense of the political preferences of the various parts of the country. In a weird sort of way, it helps validate the election results, even if the numbers are off. If you are a liberal living in SF and see Trump win in 2016, you might have seriously questioned the validity of the election results, if you didn't have numerous polls backing up that Trump did indeed have supporters.

> validate the election results

This is one thing that I considered, but I wonder if exit polls would be a better choice. They're usually much more accurate than pre-election polls, so they serve as a hedge against large-scale fraud.

We do exit polls too.

A lot of the common answers seem to amount to "it helps politicians and activists figure out what to say." Because apparently say whatever tests well is paramount.

i could picture polling having an effect of suppressing the vote such as in 2016. where one side doesnt feel the need to vote since their candidate is the clear favorite.

It's not just for politics. For example, it's used frequently in public health. There have been a ton of polls about mask wearing, whether someone would take a vaccine etc. that help guide public health policy makers and give them a semblance of an idea of where the public is at versus just guessing.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/10/poll-incr...

https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/10/19/covid19-corona...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com