Gordon L. Weil
Note: My column this week will focus on the reasons to
mistrust the polls, because this is a different election, one that may escape
normal analysis.
The New York Times/Sienna poll, considered one of the best,
was just published, and it shows a 48%-48% tie between Kamela Harris and Donald
Trump.
It touts the closeness of the race, but also reveals at
least a couple of factors that can raise serious doubts about its reliability.
And, like other polls, it fails to mention one.
To arrive at a sample of 2,516 responses, the number needed
to bring the margin of error down to 2.2% when the sample is used to forecast
the entire universe of voters, the pollsters made 260,000 calls to 80,000
voters. It’s likely that many chose not to participate.
Unlike the earlier days of surveying, when it was possible
to contact a random sample of voters, the net has to be cast much wider and the
results have to be subjected to an analysis according to the pollster’s
concepts. Each pollster may use a different questionnaire and a different
set of screening standards, but that is lost when polling averages are created.
These are the adjusting factors used by the Times/Sienna
poll:
Sex, age, educational level, home ownership, marital status,
party, race, region, voting history and intent to vote.
The net result is supposed to present an accurate profile of
the American voting population, while recognizing that a sample of this size
will have a margin of error around each of the major results. That means
that candidate A could be off by 2.2% and, at the same time, candidate B could
be off by 2.2%. At the extreme, the survey could really be showing a 4.4%
gap between the candidates, i.e., it could vary significantly from the message
publicized. A difference of this magnitude between the forecast and the
result has happened.
The reported results for each candidate leave 4% unaccounted
for. Some of that would go to other candidates, but maybe this includes
some truly undecided voters. Even one or two percent going one way or the
other could make a big difference.
The unstated factor? The forecast margin of error is
only assured 19 out of 20 times. The operation of the statistical method
cannot do better. This may not matter, but the average person is not told
about this factor.
None of these observations suggest the Times/Siena poll
produced a biased result between Harris and Trump. It does suggest that
this is a close race, because of the manner in which the data is managed and
reflecting the decisions of the pollsters. My column later this
week will question that assumption. And it also suggests that voters are
invited to pay too much attention to polls.
That said, here is a personal observation on what people may
tell pollsters.
In the Times/Sienna survey, a Wisconsin woman is quoted as
saying that her concern about illegal immigration is what has determined her to
vote for Trump. This is a statement about how a single issue decided her.
Suppose you asked her how she could overlook some of Trump’s
promises to take extreme action on matters ranging from high tariffs to
arresting his political opponents. Perhaps she would say that he should
not be taken seriously, but that such statements are merely the way he
talks. Nobody really expects he would or could do such things.
Such thinking ignores two points.
First, the Supreme Court has given the president a blank
check for the exercise of their powers. The only real checks would be a
Congress that could override their veto or impeachment and conviction.
Second, the person most likely to believe Trump is Trump
himself. While voters might not take his extreme promises seriously, if
he is elected, he could well say, “I told them what I would do, and they gave
me a mandate.” It takes only one person to take him seriously – himself –
and any thinking that he would not go to the promised extremes would not
matter.
