19 Comments
author

I’ll respond to these because they’re valid concerns, but:

1) Online polls have proven to be as reliable in aggregate than the old school live caller phone polls. In theory lack of representativeness is a concern but in practice they’re fine

2) Sample sizes have been sufficient to get consistently reliable samples, so again, its representativeness holds

Expand full comment

That was then this is now. Pierre has corrupted QP, media, “campaigning” and now polling. He uses every avenue to spread constant disinformation.

We should break the polling model. Pollsters are making millions from our freely given opinions. We should charge pollsters for our answers to each question. Never give businesses anything for free. They won’t give you anything for free.

Coletto was on all major media, CBC Checkup and in the NYT Canada letter in one weekend. How did that happen? How could one pollster get so much media time? Poll results are not real news. The real news isn’t being covered. That is a real problem for democracy.

I recently completed an Abacus survey. There was a trick or ill-worded set of questions that left no choice but to accept private healthcare as a good choice. Who is examining the questions? Who is regulating pollsters.

I guess I am a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t think our systems are up to the threat to them that right wing politicians pose. MSM are still quoting Pierre as if he is telling the truth. No fact checking. Pierre is paying pollsters and then quoting them. It’s dangerous.

We should be asking for more coverage of real news and less click bait polls.

Expand full comment

I agree with your rebuttals. However, I believe that the following two criticisms of polls are valid. They do not destroy the value of the polls, but suggest that we take te results as impressions rather than hard facts.

First, current polls, with some rare exceptions, are not random polls. By a random poll, I mean one where every member of the population being studied has an equal chance of being selected. This was the approach of telephone polls and, before them, door-to-doo polls. Non-responses were subject to follow-up to see whether the non-responders were different from the responders.

Now, pollsters invite people to participate via e-mail o other such tool. We get the opinions of those who participate. We have no idea whether they represent the population at large. Self-selection may work against older people, those less comfortable with technology, those pressed for time, and so on. Do they vote the same way? Who knows?

The second problem is the very low response rate of the typical survey. Indeed, with self-selection, it has become impossible to estimate the response rate. Special studies, combining on-line and telephone queries, suggest that response rates may be as low as an equivalent of 2%. Think about that. You go into a room and ask? "What does everyone want for lunch?" Two people raise their hands and say "chicken sandwich, please." And you conclude that the entire room wants chicken sandwiches.

There are efforts to get around these problems. PEW Research in the United States has been at it for a long time, and their home site has a methodology section discussing the various approaches. What do the Canadian pollsters do? I don't have the faintest idea.

Expand full comment

Polls are cheap filler. And when there is a lot change in voting intentions, they make easy articles that will create some interest. After all, nobody will read a weather report that starts with “the weather tomorrow is pretty much the same as today”.

People complaining about polls are just tired of seeing their favourite team being behind. But it is no different than demanding the score board to be turned off because your team conceded 4 goals in the first 10 minutes. Not being confronted by the actual score is not going to make it easier to catch up. The liberals should be reminded weekly that they are behind and need to do better and work harder. Anything else is just making excuses.

Expand full comment

will get back to you with an analogy or two ..

As well you barely scratched the surface of many key stimuli

No mention re Personal Data, Influence, Incremental Saturation

Combination Propaganda Strategies, Tactics, Tools, Techniques

Embedded Partisan Media - Yellow Journalism - Steve Bannon’s Mantra

Headline Journalism - Things Do Not Exist In Isolation

There is a One Party Illegal Election Campaign Underway

There is a Concentrated Co-Morbid Media/CPC Perception Attack Underway

that even honest journalists find intimidating to speak to bluntly..

oh me oh my.. Poilievre Lied.. how brave to say.. eh

We all saw the savaging of David Johnston .. 🦎🏴‍☠️

Expand full comment

I think as newsroom budgets have been slashed polling stories are making up a larger and larger percentage of political reporting. They’re fast and easy to write and don’t require much external research or outreach, and they feel superficially authoritative regardless of the quality of the content. It’s the perfect recipe for a modern newsroom with a tenth the resources of a decade or two ago.

This leads to the perception that polling stories have actively displaced better reporting, rather than being sucked into the vacuum created by cutbacks. Which makes it easy to blame them for our deteriorating media landscape. Easy to say that if the polling stories went away the better reporting would come back.

It’s wrong, but understandable.

Expand full comment

I’m in a few polls, they never ask me a political question except for who did you vote for in the last election, once in the blue moon

Expand full comment

They are determined to broadcast (alongside their "snapshots") a particular narrative. Some are so bold as to prognosticate about unscheduled events in a minority. And I don't in the past recall this level of conclusory polling, years out from a vote. Finally, the polls are all Trudeau-centric. When is the poll on the effect of the Ottawa Convoy on the LOO's numbers? And let's confront Angus Reid's curated membership...

Expand full comment

Conventional wisdom for decades was that polls only suppressed the vote for the likely winner. You think it's a slam dunk, so you stay home and then the other side pulls out an upset. It's what the Democrats were scrambling to turn out the vote to prevent from happening in 2008 when polling was very favourable for Obama.

Polls are standard practice in virtually every democracy and they're here to stay. If we were to ban actual pollsters from running polls, people would just use shoddy opinion polls or buy into whatever misinformation their preferred party spun about the current state of national opinion.

As an NDP voter, yeah. It's disgusting to see a poll where the Conservatives walk away with 170-200 seats with 40% of the vote where your own party gets 20-30 with 20% of the vote, but that's the reality of first-past-the-post. The information being disheartening doesn't mean it's wrong, biased, or doesn't deserve to be released for public consumption. I don't want to see Poilievre (or anyone, of our current crop of leaders) get a majority government, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know he's primed to get one.

I mean, I don't want to get hit by a hurricane in the summer, but I'd still rather know in advance before it hits my province.

Expand full comment

Oh come on. Tell the truth now. You didn't so much poke the bear of anti-polling Twitter as you did nastily insult a woman who many people consider to be smart and informed when you said she was too mentally unbalanced to drive a car. That's what most of your blowback was about.

Expand full comment