Political polling, AKA "please tell the candidate what to say"

[kranky]

Three times in the last few weeks I got a phone call from survey outfits under the guise that my opinion is very important. I won't answer any personal questions (income, party registration, age, etc.) and many times they won't continue if I don't.

But if I have a little time to kill and they are willing to keep going, I like to hear what they are asking about since it inevitably reflects what candidates are concerned about. While political polling used to be simple - what candidate do think you'll vote for - looks like the data miners have evolved into using polling to mold the candidate into someone that polling says people will vote for. It's not about the candidate's position, it's about what does the candidate need to say/do so you'll vote for them.

Yesterday I was waiting for my ride and got one of those calls. The rundown was
- how likely are you to vote in the next election (this is a weed-out question - if you aren't going to vote, they don't care what you think and will politely tell you something like "we have all the responses needed in that category, thanks for your time.")
- What party are you registered with
- your positive/negative opinion of some politicians (state governor race candidates, Trump)
- Then came a series of questions asking things like "John Doe is a candidate for State Representative in your district. For each statement, tell me if it makes you more or less likely to vote for John Doe. First, John Doe does not support Trump's policies and will fight for increased diversity in local neighborhoods."
- Next, "John Doe will fight for more funding to fight opiate addiction and create more treatment centers"
- Next, "John Doe supports our law enforcement agencies and will work to put more policemen in our neighborhoods."
- etc. etc.

Have to say this really turns me off. I would rather hear what John Doe thinks or intends to do, and not help his campaign decide what positions they need to take to win the election. I suppose John Doe would just say he's trying to learn what's on the voters' minds, but that's not what the questions were about. If they were, the questions would be more open-ended. These were questions about "what do I have to say, what kind of person do I have to claim to be, to get your vote."

I wonder if we'd all be better off if everyone refused to answer polling questions.

 

[woolfe9998]

I understand your concern, but this kind of polling is useful IMO. Certainly for any democracy. How else would we know what people think on issues? You can't tell by who people vote for, because candidates take stands on dozens of issues. One can vote for candidate A and disagree with candidate A's position on one or more issues.

So far as the candidates tailoring their positions based on polls, I'm fine with that so long as they follow through on their positions when in office. I don't care much what a candidate really thinks privately. I only care what they do while in office. And if they change their policies once in office, that is a problem which has nothing to do with opinion polls. It's an ethical issue for the candidate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Democracy is dead. It serves the interests of the one percent whose job it is to make sure Americans stay asleep, that only trained monkeys ever go to the polls and as the rage and anger that builds among the masses as a result is redirected to internal division between the have-littles and the have-nothings and the fuck-you-alls. I will vote for him or her in whom I sense some real desire to serve others over self and calls for that from others.