Polling has become a cornerstone of modern democratic processes, revealing public opinion on political candidates, policy preferences, and societal trends. Polling has become indispensable because of its role in shaping elections, legislation, and commercial strategies. But the story of polling, from its crude beginnings to today's sophisticated methods, is also a story of improving accuracy and methodology, as well as public trust.
The Early Days of Polling
Informal surveys, known as 'straw polls', were first conducted in the early 19th century, and are generally credited as the first forerunners of polling in the United States. These early attempts at gauging public opinion were not scientific by today’s standards and were often conducted by newspapers or political organizations. There’s a famous example of an early straw poll in the 1824 U.S. presidential election when a Delaware newspaper predicted that Andrew Jackson would win the popular vote. The poll correctly predicted Jackson’s victory in the popular vote, but he lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams because the Electoral College worked that way.
Straw polls were still popular in the 19th century, although they were rarely reliable because they were not representative sampling. Usually, these polls were of a small group of voters—typically wealthier, literate folks more likely to respond to such surveys. That meant early polling efforts were more of an interesting experiment than a reliable forecaster of electoral outcomes.
The Birth of Modern Polling
In the 1930s, the science of polling took a major leap forward with the work of George Gallup, Elmo Roper, and Archibald Crossley, all of whom are considered the fathers of modern polling. In particular, George Gallup revolutionized the field by introducing random sampling, a sample designed to be a microcosm of the broader population. This was a game changer because it was to reflect the views of an entire electorate as opposed to convenience samples.
Gallup’s breakthrough came in 1936 when he challenged the Literary Digest, a popular magazine that did large polls. Millions of questionnaires sent out by the Literary Digest to its subscribers had correctly predicted previous election outcomes, and in 1936 it predicted a landslide victory for Republican candidate Alf Landon. However, Gallup said the magazine's methodology was flawed because its sample was weighted toward wealthier Americans who were more likely to own telephones and automobiles and thus to receive the magazine's surveys.
Gallup conducted his poll using a smaller sample, but one scientifically chosen, and correctly predicted that Franklin D. Roosevelt would be re-elected. Gallup’s success and the Literary Digest’s failure turned the tide on polling’s history. From then on, political polling was based on random sampling, and Gallup’s techniques formed the basis for modern polling methods.
Challenges and Innovations in Polling Techniques
Throughout the 20th century, polling methods evolved as technology and statistical techniques improved to allow for more accurate and efficient data collection. The most significant development was the shift from in-person interviews to telephone polling in the mid-20th century. Pollsters were able to reach a greater portion of the population in a more timely and less expensive manner through telephone surveys than through in-person interviews. Telephone polling was the dominant method of political survey by the 1970s.
Random digit dialing (RDD) became a solution to make sure that telephone surveys were as representative as possible. This allowed pollsters to randomly generate phone numbers to make sure they called into households of all kinds, including those without listed numbers. But in the 21st century, the prevalence of mobile phones and the decline of landlines presented new challenges for pollsters. The increasing number of people who exclusively use mobile phones, coupled with federal regulations prohibiting unsolicited calls to cell phones, have made it difficult to create representative samples.
Pollsters have increasingly turned to online polling and mobile surveys in response. The advantages of online polling include lower costs and faster data collection. But it also brings new difficulties, including how to make sure that respondents are representative of the larger population. Because of internet penetration rates, age, and technological literacy, online surveys can be biased, and weighting techniques are required to adjust for underrepresented groups. A newer innovation is mobile polling, which involves smartphone apps and SMS surveys to engage younger, more mobile populations. Mobile polling has the potential for real-time data collection and higher participation, but technical issues like variations in screen size and user experience can affect how respondents interact with a survey.
Polling Accuracy and High-Profile Failures
Improvements in polling methodology have not always been accompanied by improvements in polling accuracy. Widespread skepticism about the reliability of polls, especially in political contexts, developed following several high-profile polling failures.
The 1948 U.S. presidential election was one of the most famous polling blunders. Almost every major poll had predicted a Republican victory by Thomas Dewey over incumbent President Harry Truman. This miscalculation was made in part because polling prematurely ended weeks before the election and because of an overreliance on quota sampling (which often underestimated working-class voters). The reevaluation of polling methods following Truman’s unexpected victory resulted in the large replacement of quota sampling with probability sampling.
During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, another notable polling failure took place. Most polls had predicted a Hillary Clinton win, but Donald Trump shocked the world and won the presidency in an electoral upset.
Despite winning the popular vote, Clinton’s victories in key swing states Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania defied pollsters’ predictions. This polling miss had several reasons, including underestimating rural and non-college-educated voters and not factoring in late deciders who swung to Trump. The phenomenon of "shy" Trump voters — people who were reluctant to tell pollsters they backed Trump but voted for him in private — was also cited as a possible reason for the gap between poll predictions and the results.
The Role of Polling in Modern Elections
But despite these setbacks, polling continues to be a critical tool in modern elections, helping to shape campaign strategies and media coverage. Polls aren’t just about who’s winning, they also tell us what voters care about and what they’re worried about. For example, issue-based polling can tell you which policy issues (such as healthcare, the economy, or immigration) are most important to voters at any given time. This data is used by campaigns to target their messages and resources to certain demographics and regions.
But in recent years, pollsters have been more careful, using new ways to deal with the problems of the past. For instance, some polling organizations now do multi-mode surveys, which combine telephone, online, and in-person interviews to make sure they reach a wider cross-section of voters. Pollsters are also watching more closely for the nuances of voter behavior — for example, early and mail-in voting — that can alter the way polls are conducted and interpreted.
Conclusion
Polling is a history of continuous evolution, from the unscientific straw polls of the 19th century to the sophisticated data science methods of today. Polling has had its share of problems and controversies—especially in close elections—but it is still an essential part of the democratic process. Pollsters are always trying to refine their methods to stay on top of new technology and change voter behavior. Polling may not be perfect, but it remains a critical tool for understanding what the electorate wants and values. Polling will continue to be a powerful tool for understanding the complex dynamics of public opinion as long as it is interpreted with caution and nuance.
Comments