Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Yet the good people at the Field Poll, an organization that claims it is independent from any political party, found it appropriate to conduct a poll of voter preferences in the "down ballot" races by excluding 4 out of 6 "ballot qualified" candidates.

Such polling practices violates the spirit of 1990 Copenhagen Documents, an international agreement signed by the US that requires nations to provide all political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of "equal treatment" before the law and the authorities.

How is it that in each race the Field Poll gave voters a choice between only two candidates, a Democrat and a Republican, even though a majority of those surveyed had no clue who the Democrat or Republican candidates were?

One could argue that the Field Poll didn't know there were other candidates in the race, but that would suggest complete incompetence on their part. A more likely explanation is that the Field Poll is not a non-partisan organization (as they claim), but instead is a biased polling operation dedicated to the sanctity of the two party system.

Nothing else could explain the utter dishonestly of running a quote "independent" poll that only allows people to choose between two candidates out of six.

From a scientist perspective, the results of the "down ballot" poll would be completely rejected by any peer review journal worth its salt. To conduct a poll based on the preconceived bias that our democracy can only support two political parties establishes a pseudo-result that will be misconstrued as fact by the general public.

This is completely irresponsible.

Abandoning the principals of non-partisanship

The Field Poll calls itself a non-partisan organization, as do many polling organizations in the country. The word non-partisan means "free from bias in judgment". Yet their own polling process shows their judgment is full of bias and prejudice against anyone who is not a member of the two officially sanctioned party.

In essence by ignoring all third party candidates, they are acting as an organization that is controlled by America's two corporate parties.

Let us be thankful that the Field Poll was not around before the emancipation of slavery, because Lincoln was a third party candidate (the Whigs and the Democrats were the two major parties at the time).  I can just hear them taking to the Lincoln campaign now, "...well we can't take you seriously because you want to abolish slavery and the two major parties are both pro-slavery. Since you are obviously out of the mainstream there is no justification for us to include you in our presidential poll Mr. Lincoln."

No Opinion is the Real Winner

It is particularly troubling that even when the overwhelming majority of voters have "no opinion" about the major party candidates, the Field Poll still feels justifiable in obscuring the fact there are other choices and presenting the results as meaningful.

For, example in the case of the Secretary of State's race, 72 percent of those polled had "no opinion" about the incumbent Republican, Bruce McPherson, and 84 percent had "no opinion" about the Democratic challenger, Debra Bowen.

In fact, only 10% of those polled gave Bowen a favorable rating compared to19% for McPherson, yet according to the pollsters "voter preferences are closely divided, with Bowen the choice of 38% and McPherson 35%."

In other words, only 1 in 4 voters who favor Bowen have a positive opinion of her while the rest don't know a thing about her. Since the only other choice offered is McPherson, who they also don't know anything about, many probably choose Bowen because they don't like Republicans.  

Talk about a meaningless finding.  

Polls as Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Polls are used not only to "gage" public opinion, but also to shape it. Spurious polls give voters a false impression that one candidate is leading in the race and consequently results in an influx of campaign contributions (especially from wealthy donors) for the perceived leader.

In essence, conducting a poll that excludes candidates outside the Democratic and Republican party is no different than a corporation cooking the books. If investors think a corporation is profitable, they are more likely to invest in that company. They base their investment decision on the premise that the information the company is releasing is actual.

Similarly, if voters think a candidate is leading in the polls, they are more likely to donate money and volunteer for the campaign. They base their decision on the premise that the information the polling organization is releasing is meaningful.

One has to only look at the fact that Ms. Bowen is already using the results of the Field Poll to calm she is leading the race. Of course, she is unlikely to mention the fact she has a favorable rating less that is 1/3 that of George W. Bush.

The point here, however, is not to bash Ms. Bowen.

The point is polling organizations that abandon their non-partisan principles to further the cause of a few candidates over the many, are helping to undermine our democracy and increase cynicism among the electorate.

Excluding "ballot-qualified" candidates from any poll is partisan politics at its worse. It is embarrassing that such a prestigious organization as the Field Poll can't recognize this simple truth.