Political polls are pointless
ONE OF the main reasons for conducting political polls is to try to forecast the outcome of local government and general elections; but this is not their only purpose. It is very important for political parties that opinion polls show that they are ahead or neck-and-neck with the competition, because donors seek to back a winning horse, or at least one that has a real chance of winning. As present, there is little ideological difference between the parties on offer, altruism will play little role in decisions to donate; donors want favours from victors. The most important promises made during a political campaign are not the extravagant ones made to voters, but are the promises made to donors about“what you will get if we win”.
This is why effective campaign finance legislation – including provisions for transparency in donations and the award of contracts – is important to detect and punish influence-peddling. In Jamaica we have neither. We used to have transparency in the award of government contracts, but the gag clause in the Integrity Commission Act put there by politicians makes who-gets-what a state secret. This opens the door for influence-peddling – a common form of corruption – to be rampant in Jamaica.
All the recent polls made public in the media can be used by both major parties for fundraising because they all show statistical dead heats, so to this extent they are not pointless. When the margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points, even a difference of five points between the parties us still a statistical dead heat (three down for one and three up for the other produces a tie).
RUNAWAY LANDSLIDE
In fact, statistically, a five-point difference between the parties with a three-point margin of error could also mean a runaway landslide – an actual difference of eleven points! Any number can still play.
And so getting out the voters is important.
One factor that can render poll results meaningless is the bribing of voters. An opinion poll that shows one party with a comfortable win can be completely neutralised by strategic donations to those likely to vote.
It is an open secret that both major parties offer inducements to their supporters to turn out to cast their ballots on election day; they hire cars to transport voters in comfort from the gates of their homes to the polling stations and back. They will even lift the infirm bodily from their beds to the booths!
But spending large sums of money in this way is risky, for without open voting, there is no way of guaranteeing beside whose name the voter will mark their ‘X’. “Nyam them out and vote them out” is a popular slogan; some electors may take money from one side, and vote for the other; some may take from both sides and vote for their favourite, or spoil their ballot.
A more certain strategy – and (I am told) the one on which more money is spent – is to induce the supporters of the other side to stay away from the polls – traitorous behaviour! If a voter is absent on election day, and his vote is not cast, one can be certain the donor’s money was well spent; one less vote for my opponent is one more vote for me.
I wonder whether recent dismally low voter turnout numbers is because large numbers of electors are being paid to stay away?
SHAM OF DEMOCRACY
But the main point I am making is that no matter what the political opinion polls may say about who people would vote for on the day, extensive vote-buying or vote-blocking will make poll results useless as predictors of election results. Electoral fraud will determine the victor in this sham of democracy, and the political donations will have been well spent (from their point of view).
Venerable pollster Prof Carl Stone always asserted that the difference between his poll results and actual election results could be used as a measure of voter fraud. Hubris and arrogance? Perhaps! But we who love democracy must do everything necessary to force our politicians – who know exactly what is happening – to do the honourable thing and pass meaningful anti-corruption legislation. The loopholy and ineffective legislation they have put in place is intentional. The toothless and powerless political ombudsman is intentional.
You say you want solutions? Who could bring an end to our corruption of democracy? I am sure you see where it all originates: without secret private sector donations the system would break down. The emergence of visionary political leadership – of national hero proportions – could change the system. The media is too dependent on private sector advertising and public sector favours to be a real force for change. Too many in civil society – including the Church – are sellouts to the political parties.
In my view nothing will change without elements in the private sector and civil society putting their collective foot down, but we lack the leadership to make it happen.
In the meantime, we need to to play musical chairs. No side must be in power long enough to get too comfortable.