« The People’s Republic Of Michael Phelps
Book Review: Max Hastings’ ‘Retribution’ & The Pacific War. Paybacks Were A Bitch »
Sabato’s Crystal Ball: Getting More Out of the Polls
Sabato’s Crystal Ball’s James E. Campbell says, Getting More Out of the Polls
Political observers have become more sophisticated in their reading of polls in recent years. They know enough now not to read too much into summer polls. Poll leaders in June are not any more likely to win than their opponents who trail them in the summer polls. By the time of the conventions, though, polls become more meaningful. Since 1948, 12 of the 15 candidates leading in the Gallup poll after the conventions have gone on to win the national popular vote, and by late September the poll leaders have a record of 14 wins and one popular vote loss (Tom Dewey in 1948).
There is more to learn about being sophisticated poll readers, however, than knowing when to take polls seriously. If we compare polls at points in the campaign to the eventual vote, it is clear that a poll lead among registered voters at some point in a campaign is not the same thing as the vote lead on Election Day. Poll leads are, however, related to vote leads in a systematic way, more closely related later in the campaign than earlier, but related throughout the campaign. The question is how are they related? How can we draw the maximum information out of the polls rather than reading them as though the percentages that the polls report are the best indications we have of the vote percentages that the candidates will receive?
From examining the polls over the years, I have two recommendations…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
One Response to “Sabato’s Crystal Ball: Getting More Out of the Polls”
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan