Politics: Polling, Voting and Unintended Consequences

Two must read items for political news junkies or those even mildly interested in politics.

First, an item on why polling data is less reliable these days than in the past. Excerpt:

At this stage of the campaign, pollsters try to screen their respondents and report only those who answer a series of questions in ways that suggest they are actually going to vote. Many polls find that a higher proportion of Democrats than Republicans pass the screen. .... But pollsters of both parties will admit that polls do a poor job at projecting turnout.
.........
Serious pollsters concede that there are some problems with polling. Americans have fewer landline phones than they used to, and the random digit dialing most pollsters use does not include cell-phone numbers. Larger and larger percentages of those called are declining to be interviewed.[ed. note, emphasis mine]

Cell phones technology which makes us more communicative has had the unintended consequence of making people less accessible to pollsters. Likewise, the overflowing number of pollsters trying to get more information from voters may have the unintended consequence of making people less willing to be polled.

Bottom line: Ignore the polls and vote for the candidate of your choice especially if your candidate is reported to be behind ... it might not be so!

The second item is on the problems of voter fraud and confusion with our voting systems. There is the problem of confusion on the handling of absentee ballots which are growing in number. Excerpt:

This year more voters than ever will cast ballots early. The result may be that we get the final election results late. It's possible we won't know which party controls either house of Congress for days or even weeks because of all the disputes and delays caused by absentee ballots.
........
In some supertight races, a flood of absentee ballots could delay the results for weeks. "Anytime you have more paper ballots cast outside polling places, the more mistakes and delays you're likely to have," Bill Gardner, New Hampshire's Democratic secretary of state, told me.

The other problem with absentee ballots is the potential for voter fraud and coercioin. Excerpt:

It's certainly true that voters like no-excuses absentee voting for its convenience. "Forcing voters to go to the polls to cast their ballots is an antiquated, outdated, absurd practice," says Oren Spiegler, a Pennsylvania voter. But it comes at a price. Simply put, absentee voting makes it easier to commit election fraud, because the ballots are cast outside the supervision of election officials. "By loosening up the restrictions on absentee voting they have opened up more chances for fraud," Damon Stone, a former West Virginia election fraud investigator, told the New York Times.
............
Absentee voting also corrupts the secret ballot. Because an absentee ballot is "potentially available for anyone to see, the perpetrator of coercion can ensure it is cast 'properly,' unlike a polling place, where a voter can promise he will vote one way but then go behind the privacy curtain and vote his conscience," notes John Fortier, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in his new book, "Absentee and Early Voting."

The article ends with the following suggestion on how to balance the preference for early voting and protections against fraud.

The AEI's Mr. Fortier has some suggestions on how to retain the convenience of pre-Election Day voting but with a lower risk of fraud and intimidation. He suggests that states expand hours at polling places for early voting, but only during the 10 days before the election. New computer software can be used to match signatures on absentee ballots with registration records and flag those that raise concerns. States could require that every voter enclose a fingerprint or photocopy of some form of identification, not necessarily a photo ID. States should hire independent investigators to interview a sample of voters about potential coercion or intimidation.

Anyway, once again the law of unintended consequences: efforts to increase participation by absentee ballots may have the effect of raising the opportunities for fraud and post-election confusion and litigation.

In my years of voting, I have almost always voted in person. I feel a certain sense of history in the physical act of going to a polling place to vote. As for polling, I think only twice in my life have I gotten a polling phone call and I did opt to answer their questions. I wonder how many times does the typical American get a polling phone call in their lifetime and whether my experience is typical?

In any case, whomever you vote for, do so with conviction!