Conflicting Messages: With so few publicly available opinion polls being conducted in this country, we really do need to know how one reputable polling agency can put National on 46 percent, while the other puts it on 37 percent. Nine percentage points is a hell of a gap – well beyond the usual statistical tolerances. The public is entitled to know what happened – and which one of them got it right!
IT WAS ANDREW COOPER wot won it! Or so might the Brexiteers
have crowed, paraphrasing the Sun’s famous headline of 1992, when its
concerted assault on Neil Kinnock turned what looked like a dead cert for
Labour into a surprise win for the Tories’ John Major.
Who is Andrew Cooper?
He was the chief pollster for the “Remain” campaign. The man whose
assumptions, about how many Britons would turn out to vote in the European
Union Membership Referendum of 23 June 2016, lulled Prime Minister David
Cameron into a false sense of security. Allowing the “Leave” campaign’s chief
wizard, Dominic Cummings, to steal a victory his enemies had, quite literally,
not seen coming.
That’s the thing about polls. It’s not simply a matter of
assembling the data: whether by calling landlines, mobile phones, or, acquiring
people’s opinions online; it is also about how you go about interpreting the
data. What are the assumptions you make about how the hundreds, or thousands,
of people you have interviewed will behave when the time comes to cast their
votes – or not.
That was Andrew Cooper’s big mistake. According to Tim
Shipman, author of “All Out War: The Full Story of How Brexit Sunk Britain’s
Political Class”, Cooper assumed that the same percentage of Britons would sit
out the 2016 Brexit Referendum as had sat out the General Election of the year
before. Take these ‘can’t be arsed’ voters out of the equation, and – Bingo! –
“Remain” emerges as the referendum winner every time.
He was, as well all know now, quite wrong in that
assumption. The turnout for the Referendum was well up on the 2015 General
Election. Cumming had successfully mobilised the forgotten, the marginalised,
and the very-bloody-angry. The Britons who had given up voting, because, after
Tony Blair, the largely indistinguishable politicians of the Tory and Labour
parties always won. This time, however, said Cumming, their votes would count.
This time, they could deliver an almighty “Fuck You!” to the entire British
Establishment, and there would be nothing – absolutely nothing – they could do
about it. “Take Back Control”, bellowed Cumming’s inspired slogan. And, they
did.
It is something like this. Something in the interpretation
of the raw data. Something about the assumptions they’re making, that explains
how Reid Research and Colmar Brunton were able to come up with such wildly
different descriptions of New Zealand’s current political landscape. And that
‘something’ is very important. With so few publicly available opinion polls
being conducted in this country, we really do need to know how one reputable
polling agency can put National on 46 percent, while the other puts it on 37
percent. Nine percentage points is a hell of a gap – well beyond the usual
statistical tolerances. The public is entitled to know what happened – and
which one of them got it right!
But, is that even possible anymore? Getting it right? After
Brexit, Trump, the British snap-election of June 2017, and the Australian
Federal Election of May 2019, can “The Polls” be trusted to tell us anything at
all reliable about the voting intentions of the public?
Is it possible that opinion polling, like black-and-white
television, was something peculiar to a particular historical era? To a time
when everybody had a landline telephone; read the same newspapers; watched the
same shows, at the same time, on television; and were limited to a choice
between two very large and broad-based political parties?
Back then, when people still had a huge amount of faith in
the political system, polling struck many people as a welcome, and highly
scientific, addition to the process of determining their electoral preferences.
When a pollster called, the person picking up the phone felt under a heavy
obligation to co-operate fully. To refuse, was tantamount of declaring oneself
a bad citizen. Answering the pollster’s questions honestly and comprehensively
was the randomly chosen interviewee’s civic duty.
How things have changed. Fewer and fewer voters have
landlines. As a consequence, the phonebook is no longer sufficient to the task
of preparing a statistically valid survey. And, unfortunately, there is no
handy, publicly available, register for cell-phone subscribers. Even if there
was, the dutiful citizenry required to make the survey truly representative has
largely disappeared.
Because, while the pollsters were learning every little
quirk about the voting (and buying) public, the public was also learning a
thing or two about polling. What it was for; how it was being used; and by
whom. With painful slowness, more and more voters realised they were being
used. That what they were participating in wasn’t a matter of civic duty. It
was a marketing exercise, impure and simple. They were helping the politicians
to manipulate the electorate – i.e. themselves. Clever “communications
specialists” were persuading them to buy back their own opinions.
This is the reason why polling agencies have so much
difficulty in persuading the people they contact to participate in their
surveys. For every one person who agrees to be interviewed, there are dozens
who refuse. So many, that in statistical terms, the participating subjects have
become unusual in themselves, and their opinions have to be weighted
accordingly. Then, there are the respondents who deliberately mislead their
interviewers. The “rat-fuckees” who become “rat-fuckers”.
Confronted with these formidable obstacles, opinion polling
is becoming less and less a science, and more and more of an art. The trick now
lies in assessing how much of the sample to write-off as tricksters; how many
as atypical political junkies; how many as persons who enjoy being asked for
their opinions, but who will never make it off the sofa on election day. These
questions cannot be answered scientifically, they can only be guessed at. Those
guesses will be guided by experience; by ex post facto analyses; and,
crucially, by intuition.
One pollster will say: “Oh sure, people love Jacinda – but
will they turn that love into a bona fide ballot paper stuffed into a
ballot-box? Young people may revel in Jacinda’s stardust, but its old people
who vote. We need to be conservative in our assumptions about the relative
weighting of these two groups.”
Another pollster might say: “Normally, I’d apply a pretty
heavy discount to the under-25 preferences. But, you know what? I’m betting
that, in 2020, the under-25 vote is going to spike. I’m looking at all those
secondary-school kids on the street demanding action on climate change. I’m
thinking about the influence they’re going to have on their big brothers and
sisters. Heck! The effect they will have on their parents! That’s why I’m
assuming a significantly higher turnout.”
The first pollster might predict a solid vote for National.
The second, a game-changing surge towards Labour and the Greens. They both
can’t be right – but I’m hoping that more than 50 percent of voters would like
to see the second prediction proved correct.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Tuesday, 11 June 2019.
WE are none the wiser.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems must be that it's largely us old people that still have landlines. Mind you, it's also us old people that vote. But even I've been tempted to give up the landline given that it really only gets used for people to ring me up and try to sell me stuff. I can't remember a time when I was actually rung by a friend on it come to think of it. In the last dozen calls have all been from "Microsoft" about a problem with my computer, or "Spark" about a problem with my computer. In fact I hung up on one of them the other day in disgust, and he rang me straight back and told me off for doing it. :) I used to waste their time by pretending to want to know what they were talking about but failing to understand, but it's too much of a job these days and I can't be arsed – life's too short.
ReplyDeletePolls are also misused as a defacto democracy, as when Nigel Latta says: 89% want to live in a multicultural society.
ReplyDelete..........
The poll shows 62 percent of voters want tighter restrictions on immigration, while only 35 percent say leave it.
David-Cunliffe-blames-migrants-for-housing-crisis
and
Only a third of New Zealanders feel immigration levels are too high, according to a Herald-DigiPoll survey, while a majority feel the flow of migrants into the country is "about right".
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11287953
..........
Time for direct democracy
As both of our main Social Democratic political parties are fair, humane and respect election results, we need not get too upset about what opinion polls can reliably predict or not -
ReplyDeletebecause in the long term financial prudence and responsibility will prevail over excessive speculation and welfare consumption on credit - for which there is no capacity or willingness to keep up an adequate repayment rate -
or civilization will descend to a lower level of average consumption or perhaps collapse altogether ?