Pollcalypse: The Collapse of the Poll Industrial Complex

Pollcalypse: The Collapse of the Poll Industrial Complex
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

I first wrote this just after the conclusion of the Republican and Democratic Conventions, and reviewing it now at the end of October, I remain profoundly terrified.

According to every poll, most people I know, Republican and Democrat, and almost every metric available (not including the astrological), Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. In spite of the current scandals and worrying trends, the election is over. No need to be afraid of the possible Wall across the US-Mexican border, or mass deportations. However, there exists a disturbingly different possibility.

Temporarily residing in London, I frequently have to explain our system of governance. This includes our efforts to dismiss 18th century European systems of autocratic rule as contrary to our Founding Fathers’ intentions. In fact, they set up a system designed not to work well, or to work well only when compromise was achieved. The bottom line: it was and is supposed to be hard.

Applied to presidential elections, hard meant not simply that the victor had to win the most votes. That would be too simple: winning the presidency requires winning enough votes in each state to win 50% plus 1 of the electors. Four times in American history -- 1824, 1876, 1888, and of course, 2000--candidates who won the popular vote did not become President of the United States. While the 2016 election cycle has been quite a roller coaster ride, I think it’s very unlikely to have a similar challenge.

David Daley wrote a book entitled, “Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy” and appeared on “Fresh Air”. He explained that while the Democratic National Committee was trying desperately to keep its majorities in the House and Senate during the 2010 election cycle, it completely missed the State Legislatures. Every 10 years after the census, each state reapportions its congressional districts. Since majority rules, when the GOP won majorities in many State Legislatures in 2010, those GOP-controlled states were able to redraw congressional districts for 2012. Worse, though, they were able to change voter access laws.

My friend, Ari Berman, recently published a brilliantly-received book, “Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America”. Here, he outlines the various methods used to suppress voters, primarily poor and minority voters. The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law Center cited 15 states with new laws affecting voting (http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016). The states among the 15 are 8 of the 14 states that the website 270 to Win identifies as deciding factors in the 2016 election (http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-election-battleground-states). Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Virginia, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, and New Hampshire, plus one district in Nebraska and another in Maine--all with new voter access (i.e. restriction) laws. Fortunately, the courts have blocked many of the most oppressive laws, but confusion remains and has a distinct possibility of affecting the outcome of tight races, most likely in all the battleground states.

When good polling companies call, they first ask if the person answering the phone is registered and likely to vote. If the answer is yes to both, then that person is considered a “likely voter” and is counted in the overall results. So, let’s say a polling company calls me and asks those questions. Since I’ve voted in every election but one since turning 18, I would answer in the affirmative and be considered a “likely voter.” On November 8th I go to my polling location but am told, for whatever legal reason, that I’m not allowed to vote, and due to whatever reason, I accept that declaration and do not vote. Now, I was a likely voter but I did not vote. I was counted from a statistical perspective, but was not able to actually vote. In theory, this is why we see a plus or minus 3-5% as a margin of error.

But what if the margin of error, due to the new voter laws, ends up being much, much higher?

This means that the result of the 2016 election is highly likely to be very different from the published polls. Polling aggregators such as Five Thirty Eight and Real Clear Politics have developed sophisticated algorithms to account for these discrepancies, but at the end of the day, these are simply educated guesses. Very well-educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. There are simply too many states, critical to the outcome of the 2016 election, with changed voter access laws, and it’s these changes that have the potential to make November 9th a very surprising morning.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot