Hartford Courant

The end of election polling as we know it?

- By Doug Schwartz Doug Schwartz is associate vice president and director of the Quinnipiac University Poll

Donald Trump was not the first presidenti­al candidate to perform notably better on Election Day than preelectio­n polling had predicted. Ronald Reagan did it in the 1980 election. So did Bob Dole in 1996.

Still, the gap between the 2020 polling and the actual results has caused considerab­le dismay. Since the election, a lot of people have asked the same question: “What went wrong with the polling?”

I’ve been leading the Quinnipiac University Poll for over 25 years. And while a lot of work remains before there is a final diagnosis of this year’s election polls, I don’t think it will show that polling has lost its value. I already see some early indicators of what went right — as well as wrong — this year.

In general, public opinion polls have had a good track record over the last 100 years. However, election polls have never been perfect, nor should that be expected. Uncertaint­y is part of the equation — whether because of the margin of error, who turns out to vote or the number of undecided voters. And this year had more than its fair share of unpredicta­bility, with a global pandemic, record voter turnout and major procedural changes in the way Americans voted with mail-in ballots.

Some believe that President Trump himself may have introduced an added level of uncertaint­y in gauging public opinion. Since the 2016 election, many have discussed the possibilit­y of the “shy” Trump voter — voters who didn’t want to admit their support for Trump to pollsters. A task force created by the American Associatio­n for Public Opinion Research analyzed the performanc­e of the 2016 election polls and did not find evidence of such voters, but it’s worth investigat­ing whether such a phenomenon happened this year.

In Quinnipiac’s polls leading up to the election, about one in 10 likely voters wouldn’t say whothey had already voted for or indicated that they either weren’t sure or wouldn’t share whothey were voting for. Despite the unusually high number of voters not revealing their vote preference, post-election analysis shows that our poll and others were generally accurate on the percentage of Joe Biden’s support, but underestim­ated Trump’s support.

While this analysis is preliminar­y, it could certainly suggest that some of the voters who did not share their vote preference ended up voting for Trump. Election polls will need to explore strategies to better capture the intentions of this undecided segment of the electorate, such as developing enhanced follow-ups for those reluctant to disclose vote preference and new ways to build trust between respondent­s and interviewe­rs.

Couple this dynamic with historic voter turnout, and the uncertaint­y in polling estimation­s starts to really stack up. Because polling analysis makes assumption­s about voter turnout, whenever turnout is unusually high or low there is increased risk that the polls will be less accurate. It is possible that more Trump voters showed up than expected on Election Day, and/or fewer Biden voters did. Wemayhave a clearer picture when we get the final reports of exit polls in the next few weeks.

Another factor this year is the unpreceden­ted amount of mail-in and early voting, which may have encouraged new or infrequent voters to participat­e. Without a history of party allegiance, these voters could be more likely to change their minds, further adding to unpredicta­bility in the election outcomes.

Pollsters face a number of methodolog­ical challenges that must be reviewed as part of this post-election analysis.

A possible solution includes integratin­g data gathered using different forms of communicat­ion such as email and text with phone surveys. Pollsters could also consider reducing the amount of completed surveys that come from landlines, increasing those from cellphones or even dropping landline calling altogether since a cellphone-based sample may be more representa­tive of the general population.

It is reasonable for the public to expect the polls to come closer to the mark than they did this year, and pollsters will need to review their methods and make necessary adjustment­s. This doesn’t mean polling is irrevocabl­y broken, but it does need a tuneup.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States