3 ms·

> Are opinion polls actually representative of what public opinion is Yes. > and more importantly, how the public will vote? No. And you touched on the key p

by smt88 4y ago

> Are opinion polls actually representative of what public opinion is Yes. > and more importantly, how the public will vote? No. And you touched on the key problem. It's impossible to poll how people will vote because voting differs in key ways: - tribal (party affiliation) component - secret - different wording - more fear of consequences (meaning that fear of "something going wrong" affects a vote but not a survey) - lots of other things I haven't personally researched So the key is for elected officials to figure out how to market a policy/candidate so it connects to the issue polled, and few of them are good at that.

whimsicalism 4y ago
The first two do not seem different for polling vs. voting in a referenda.
- smt88 4y ago
  That's not really true because referenda usually become partisan. One of the parties is often the one initiating it and choosing the verbiage, which means it's often presented extremely misleadingly, too.
zosima 4y ago
There is also an art of making opinion polls say what you want them to say, e.g. by asking a biased question, sampling a demographic known to skew a certain way or using a method that largely may exclude certain demographics. (E.g. internet polling) On top of that, there will be selection bias in what polls are published. If the poll you've paid for does not support your narrative, there is no reason to publish it. Polls are therefore often skewed one way or another, and should probably only rarely be used as support for what the general population wants. At least when the margins are small. Especially if paid for by an organization with stakes in the question.
ryandrake 4y ago
Don't forget: - voter suppression[1] It doesn't really matter what percentage of the public favors X, when people who might vote for X are systematically blocked, coerced, or dissuaded from voting. And when one party tends to benefit from low voter turn-out, as is the case in the USA, it should be no surprise when very popular politicians or proposals that poll well, fail due to voter suppression. 1: https://www.votingrightsalliance.org/forms-of-voter-suppression https://www.votingrightsalliance.org/forms-of-voter-suppress...
- rayiner 4y ago
  One party doesn’t consistently benefit from low turnout, not anymore. Trump won almost exactly half of new voters in 2020. Also, “voter suppression” is a myth, just like “voter fraud.” Isolated instances but studies consistently fail to show any material effect. (E.g. no effect from voter ID: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v...)
gruez 4y ago
> > Are opinion polls actually representative of what public opinion is >Yes. No. According to "Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2018", 69% of people polled in washington state supported taxing fossil fuel companies. In the same year, a ballot initiative to enact carbon taxes failed 43% to 57%. Granted, they're not asking the same question, but it seems doubtful that 26% of people were for "taxing fossil fuel companies" but were against "pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants ". [1] https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1631 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_163...
- random-human 4y ago
  That measure specifically exempted fossil fuels. According to that wiki link [1] > Others opposed the measure because section 9(c) specifically exempted "Fossil fuels directly or eventually supplied to a light and power business for purposes of generating electricity" from the carbon tax.[3] This meant that coal, gas, and diesel power plants would not directly be responsible for paying the carbon tax. Also, midterms have a much lower voter turnout and in Washington it was 58.9% in 2018 vs 75.71% in 2020 [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1631#Opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_163... [2] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elect...
  - gruez 4y ago
    > That measure specifically exempted fossil fuels. This statement is highly misleading. Fossil fuels are exempted, but only for a limited number of circumstances. The wikipedia article you linked only mentions fossil fuels being used for electricity generation being exempted. Furthermore, you failed to quote the rest of the paragraph, which mentions fossil fuels make up a minor part of electricity generation in Washington. "However the majority of electricity generation in Washington state is derived from renewable sources. [...] The same analysis further indicated that only 4% of Washington's energy comes from burning coal, [...] Natural gas currently accounts for only 10% of Washington's energy generation, according to the Washington Post analysis. " >Also, midterms have a much lower voter turnout and in Washington it was 58.9% in 2018 vs 75.71% in 2020 [2] Except that the 2018 ballot measure wasn't the first time Washington tried instituting a carbon tax. They tried 2 years before (not a mid-term year) and that failed even harder, 41% to 59%.

by smt88 4y ago

whimsicalism 4y ago

The first two do not seem different for polling vs. voting in a referenda.

smt88 4y ago
That's not really true because referenda usually become partisan. One of the parties is often the one initiating it and choosing the verbiage, which means it's often presented extremely misleadingly, too.

zosima 4y ago

There is also an art of making opinion polls say what you want them to say, e.g. by asking a biased question, sampling a demographic known to skew a certain way or using a method that largely may exclude certain demographics. (E.g. internet polling) On top of that, there will be selection bias in what polls are published. If the poll you've paid for does not support your narrative, there is no reason to publish it. Polls are therefore often skewed one way or another, and should probably only rarely be used as support for what the general population wants. At least when the margins are small. Especially if paid for by an organization with stakes in the question.

ryandrake 4y ago

Don't forget: - voter suppression[1] It doesn't really matter what percentage of the public favors X, when people who might vote for X are systematically blocked, coerced, or dissuaded from voting. And when one party tends to benefit from low voter turn-out, as is the case in the USA, it should be no surprise when very popular politicians or proposals that poll well, fail due to voter suppression. 1: https://www.votingrightsalliance.org/forms-of-voter-suppression https://www.votingrightsalliance.org/forms-of-voter-suppress...

rayiner 4y ago
One party doesn’t consistently benefit from low turnout, not anymore. Trump won almost exactly half of new voters in 2020. Also, “voter suppression” is a myth, just like “voter fraud.” Isolated instances but studies consistently fail to show any material effect. (E.g. no effect from voter ID: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v...)

gruez 4y ago

> > Are opinion polls actually representative of what public opinion is >Yes. No. According to "Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2018", 69% of people polled in washington state supported taxing fossil fuel companies. In the same year, a ballot initiative to enact carbon taxes failed 43% to 57%. Granted, they're not asking the same question, but it seems doubtful that 26% of people were for "taxing fossil fuel companies" but were against "pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants ". [1] https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1631 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_163...

random-human 4y ago
That measure specifically exempted fossil fuels. According to that wiki link [1] > Others opposed the measure because section 9(c) specifically exempted "Fossil fuels directly or eventually supplied to a light and power business for purposes of generating electricity" from the carbon tax.[3] This meant that coal, gas, and diesel power plants would not directly be responsible for paying the carbon tax. Also, midterms have a much lower voter turnout and in Washington it was 58.9% in 2018 vs 75.71% in 2020 [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1631#Opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_163... [2] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elect...
- gruez 4y ago
  > That measure specifically exempted fossil fuels. This statement is highly misleading. Fossil fuels are exempted, but only for a limited number of circumstances. The wikipedia article you linked only mentions fossil fuels being used for electricity generation being exempted. Furthermore, you failed to quote the rest of the paragraph, which mentions fossil fuels make up a minor part of electricity generation in Washington. "However the majority of electricity generation in Washington state is derived from renewable sources. [...] The same analysis further indicated that only 4% of Washington's energy comes from burning coal, [...] Natural gas currently accounts for only 10% of Washington's energy generation, according to the Washington Post analysis. " >Also, midterms have a much lower voter turnout and in Washington it was 58.9% in 2018 vs 75.71% in 2020 [2] Except that the 2018 ballot measure wasn't the first time Washington tried instituting a carbon tax. They tried 2 years before (not a mid-term year) and that failed even harder, 41% to 59%.