Let’s face it: People are impatient. And as the future’s chances of significantly changing people’s lives increases, the more impatient people become. Election results in November could push, or violently shove, America in the wrong direction for the next four years, which is why Americans look to presidential polls for a glimpse into what the future holds. The problem is that presidential polls are becoming as legitimate as the candidates themselves.
Before the Democratic National Convention, news channels were reporting presidential polls that showed Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in a close tie, which seemed surprising no matter how unlikeable Clinton can be at times. Then it hit me: I’ve never been polled. I mean, I’ve never even gotten a call to turn down the survey to poll me.
One would think as technology makes interpersonal communication easier, polling organizations would gather accurate information more efficiently. But alas, polling organizations are still behind on technology. According to an article from The New York Times, even the survey organizations, like the Pew Research Center, conduct one landline interview for every two on the cellphone. However, because cellphone polling is more expensive, sample sizes are also shrinking considerably, making it more difficult for organizations to capture accurate results.
Another problem with survey polling is the surveys themselves. Surveys have skewed results that incentivize more passionate responders to partake in the survey, limiting responses from those whose opinions aren’t as strong. The growing number of apathetic voters is revealed by presidential polling response rates as low as 8 percent for even the more legitimate organizations. This explains why some polls showed Trump winning a couple of months ago and Trump now closing in on Clinton’s lead this week, even after the numerous mistakes he’s made lately. Although there are different opinions on who should be the next U.S. president, there is no discrepancy between which candidate has more dedicated supporters. While Trump rallies gather supporters fueled with rage and testosterone, support for Clinton can be represented by the slogan “Hillary! I can live with that.”
News channels are as much at fault as the polling organizations themselves. As politics become more polarizing, so do the news outlets that are supposed to hold an objective voice when educating Americans on the world around us. Instead, news channels have substituted legitimacy for ratings.
As Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig reported in his book “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It,” viewers will pay more attention to more extreme news outlets that lean the same way they do politically. But what kind of world would we live in if news channels just reported what people want to hear? The Washington Post gathered data on how the media reported presidential polls in the past, and the results weren’t pretty.
In 2008, the average results of all presidential polls had President Barack Obama predicted to win. However, the individual polls that showed Obama and John McCain tied received the most air time. This election cycle, no matter how many times Trump insults different groups across the board, polls somehow almost always show a close margin between Trump and Clinton. I guess the truth is taking a backseat when analyzing what could be a deciding event in this country’s future.
The illegitimacy of presidential polls is rooted in the obsolete manner in which polling organizations gather views. And until polling organizations can provide more accurate results with higher response rates and randomization, media outlets shouldn’t report illegitimate polls. Reporting on the everyday events of, say, Trump and Kim Kardashian may be low-brow reporting, but almost anything is better than reporting inaccurate results to the American public.
Joshua Udvardy is a UF environmental engineering sophomore. His column usually appears on Thursdays.
