Truck and Barter: Voting Incentives Question

August 31, 2004

Voting Incentives Question

By Ian

When I read articles like this one on the numerous and subtle shifts in leads among candidates, I'm always left wondering if the writers (and the pundits and campaign pros they discuss) are really getting what's happening when a poll starts to show a "shift".

So I'm torn. Are people changing their minds as new things come to light? Or are polls picking up a solidifying base of people that were either 1) motivated to answer a poll since it's close enough that folks aren't going to respond with the "how early do we start celebrating Christmas" sensation, or 2) getting a larger and more accurate response rate from "likely voters" because people are becoming solidified in decisions that were not yet set? Or some factor not mentioned?

(The above is referencing an amount of people big enough to register as a shift in repeated polling. Certainly, some people are changing their minds.)

I'm rather adamant in my belief that polling is highly flawed largely because of their prominence. They tend to affect the people their meant to sample, the responses are far from accurately given, and the questions are often far from neutral.

I'm just not convinced that much of the campaigning is "swaying" voters from one side to another, so much as it might be inspiring enough to get people to answer "yes" when the monotone voice says "are you likely to vote in November." If this is true, then it might indicate that negative campaigning plays a bigger part than we'd like to admit. Maybe I'm off-base, but I tend to think outrage over an issue might be a bigger motivator than mild indifference. And if that is so, then the best place to start investing money in the campaign is wherever it appears you could motivate a group by giving it something to vote against. (For instance, announcing pro-choice candidate votes in highly conservative areas. Or highlighting spending profligacy to those who consider themselves highly fiscally responsible.)

The old adage is that the only way to make the choir sing is to preach to them. In this election year, when the outcome is expected to be close, each vote is more and more dear (as the decisive group gets smaller and smaller in expectation, each vote nears the point where it is viewed as pivotal, and indeed may well be), a lot of money is being spent on "shoring up the bases" on both sides. But perhaps the real gain is on those people who haven't yet heard something pro or con about a candidate in their particular area of interest?

I know commenting isn't frequent here (and that's perfectly fine as long you come back -- we like having you, loud or quiet) unless you want to talk about Iraqi Dinar, but if anyone has some thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them...

Posted at August 31, 2004 02:43 PM

Comments

From what I have heard from listening to interviews with political strategist, the negative ad is not intended to get a voter to change his/her mind, but rather to make a voter apathetic enough about his/her choice so as to stay home on Election Day. Perhaps the converse is true for the positive ad, that is, it is not meant to sway a voter's decision, but to pump up the base so there is a strong showing at the polls.

There is a lot of talk about how much money is being spent on advertising to the small group of undecided-voters this year, but in the light of the above theory, this may not be the case. Rather, the money is being spent on pumping up/deflating decided voters in order to try and have the best turnout for the given party. Given the large number of non-voters compared to the small number of undecided-voters, it would make sense, even in a close election like this, to focus on increasing turnout than changing minds.

That said, I myself am technically undecided, although not undecided between Kerry and Bush, but rather undecided between voting 3rd party or for a major party. If it is looking close, then I may be forced to break my third party voting streak.

Comment by Rob at September 1, 2004 02:32 PM | Permalink

The 1980 Reagan victory over Carter did not show up in polls. Only after the Republican Victory did pollsters say that the shift was beginning to show, and happened, in the last couple of days.

I could never accept this explanation. Far more likely than massive shifts would be the idea that the polls did not accurately measure Reagan support at all. Reagan had spent 15 years as a poster child radical nut case in the media. I think your average subject of a poll was circumspect in revealing to a poll taker an opinion not respected by the establishment.

There is probably some of that going on with Bush, and it is only as the Republicans effectively state their case that his supporters become less likely to hide their opinions. Therefore what we are currently measuring is more the degree to which Bush supporters feel comfortable in revealing their intentions than actual support.

Luckily we have a secret ballot, so there is no such effect on voting day.

I personally never participate in any poll or survey. I do this for a number of reasons: I enjoy my non-participation contributing to the lack of accuracy, I suspect that a great number of polls are really SUGS (Selling Under Guise of Surveying), and for the stupitidity of the poll design and polltakers.*

*Try this the next time you get a survey. Answer several questions and then decline to answer, say question 7. Very often there is no way for the poll to record this response. The poll taker will cheat and make your response for you or perhaps drop you all together.

Comment by Larry at September 4, 2004 01:17 AM | Permalink