Every hack loves
Polls, as does the public. Who doesn't want to peer into the future? My advice:
don't take them too seriously. There are many reasons why they will have no
relationship with the outcome of the May 16th General Election.
Context is found in the
latest Poll from Abacus Data, giving the PCs five percentage points over the
Liberals. A week earlier, an MQO Poll gave the Liberals a 12-point lead (among
decided voters, 48% to 36%) with a 39% undecided factor.
In a campaign that is
as dull as a debate over whether Dwight's or Ches' hair colour is darker,
change hardly seems a disruptive influence. Yet a couple of days later, a third
survey — the Forum Poll — gave the PCs a 2-point lead over the Liberals. Forum
even went so far as to predict how many seats would be won by each Party
despite offering no regional breakdown — hardly a nod to statistical science. Even
if it were, in the world of statistical analysis, the “regional” breakdown of
the number of eligible voters questioned (the sample size) would be too small
to have a meaningful level of accuracy.
The truth is that statistical
basis of Polls is really the only constant in the survey process. The process
of achieving statistical accuracy is actually very difficult. It relies as much
on art as science. In particular, privacy issues; the reluctance, especially in
urban areas, to share personal information (long a problem and getting worse);
the reduction of land-lines in residential homes; and caller I.D., which enables
the screening of nuisance calls, are reducing the probability that a survey sample
of potential respondents is representative.
MQO's VP, in
providing a regional breakdown of his data results, urged “caution in some
areas dues to limited samples available.” That was prudent because the margin
of error that results when the sample is reduced to regional representation, as noted, can
completely distort the result. A bigger question, I suggest, is whether the
margin of error applied even to the whole sample fully reflects the challenges
of modern-day polling practices.
The public might also
inquire if recognized Pollsters are associated with one political Party or
another. For example, Wikipedia confirms Tim Powers, a Tory strategist and
Nalcor Consultant, as Abacus Data's Managing Director. The evening before the Abacus
Data Poll was released, he tweeted this comment to NTV's Michael Connors: “Our
@abacusdata will be out tomorrow. Again watch for sample size, dates of
polling, trends. MQO is a good firm don't question their data.”
Don't question their
data? Shouldn't ostensibly independent Polls have a degree of separation or two
from partisan hacks? (Tory Organizer John Laschinger should kick his ass for this!) Is there no difference between “our” and “their” data? Of course, Abacus has a foot in both Camps. Its Chair is Bruce
Anderson, father of Liberal PM Justin Trudeau’s director of
Communications. Look deep enough and you'll likely find that at least some of the other Polling firms have similar relationships with the political Parties.
For those reasons and
others, when pollsters and political analysts talk about Poll results as if
they were the holy grail, people should take a deep breath and give a nod to John
George Diefenbaker.
That is not to
suggest that Polls are worthless. True, many given prominence in an election
campaign are attached to the latest Campbell's Soup survey, gathering only
limited data on voter intentions and leadership likability. They return a
relatively superficial snapshot of current voter thinking.
The real artistry of political
polls — no differently than those conducted in other fields — is found in those
that assist a political Party to define its support, taking into account gender
and demography as well as geography when defining voter preoccupations and
assessing trends. This deep-dive into the public's political preoccupations requires
a lengthy and detailed questionnaire and extensive cross-referencing of data — all of it overlain with traditional and
current voting patterns, or some other set of statistics that helps produce an
informed narrative describing voters' thinking.
In contrast, the “Poll
Results” offered up for free from any of the commercial pollsters — all
liberally broadcast by the media — are little more than titillation for the
masses. During elections, they are intended to influence “outcomes” far more
than to make a contribution to the democratic electoral process. For the larger
analysis, the political Parties pay big bucks.
A final point. Even
more than the relatively high disapproval rating ascribed to the Party leaders,
voters should be concerned about the huge “undecided” factor — which, i n addition to voter turnout, threatens a far larger impact on the election outcome than the results of any highly
questionable Poll.
So, if you are
tearing your hair out over whether the biggest Polling guru is MQO, CRA, Abacus,
Forum or one of the others that will likely vy for your attention in the coming days, relax. Treat all of them with
a larger-than-average level of scepticism.
And if you have been
counting on Polls to help you avoid “losing” your vote —
a matter over which a select group always seems preoccupied — be content that
you exercised a cherished right. Any sense of post-election loss will disappear
the next morning in the amount of time it takes to down your first cup of Tim’s!
