This is the quadrennial
season when we get weedy about political polling. This is also the season when, because it is
political polling, some mug feels obliged to question the authenticity of the
polls. The polls are subject to the same
defamation that infects most political discourse these days. There are voices that expect a certain blind
yassuh-boss gulping-whole of whatever drivel they’re selling.
Cynicism is easy. Uncomfortable facts, we think, can be
explained away. Facts are not like
that. Facts are stubborn and ignored at
our peril.
All we need is a little
perspective. Perspective in this case requires
that we paid attention in math class and have a nodding acquaintance with the
rules of logic.
That’s a tall order. After all, ignorance is honored on many soap
boxes and is a prerequisite to membership in some political movements.
That said, everything
we need to learn is available to us stress-free. Neither is it something we can’t learn in an
afternoon. Not that it comes cheap. You don’t get to criticize if your basic
knowledge is informed by half-assed opinion, wishful thinking or the utterances
of those who aren’t clothed with expertise in the topic.
Terms like Margin of
Sampling Error, Push Poll, Shy Tory Effect, Bradley Effect, Social Desirability
Bias and Weighting will get you a long way.
Similarly, logical fallacies such as Post
hoc ergo propter hoc and her kissin’ cousin cum
hoc ergo propter hoc are useful principles as
well. They mean that just because events
happen sequentially or at the same time doesn’t mean they can be linked. In the
world of political slander these adages
rank highest among the fallacies manifestly deserving of caution.
While we’re at it, correlation is not causation. It’s the first thing one learns in logic class
and the one thing least honored in the world of political gibberish. Pundits have a way of filling-in-the-blanks
between facts. Two irrefutable facts
thereby bookend a narrative of refutable humbug.
Take a look at this chart. It appears to be all sciencey comparing the age
of Miss Americas and homicide by hotness.
Maybe it is a silly example but you can easily see how false equivalence
and mean spiritedness can conspire to produce an elegant lie.
When properly designed, polls do not lie. Pollsters lie. Poll respondents lie. Poll analysts lie. Polls do not lie. The adage attributed to Mark Twain is
particularly apt here: “Figures don’t lie liars figure”.
Here is an analysis of poll data that I call The
Bowel College. It purports to show one
Electoral College victory path for Mrs. Clinton. Mighty goofy but solid design by Nate Silver,
It is included here because polls can be fun too.
So … armed with the healthy sort of skepticism
and some basic knowledge, we can trust the polls. With that trust, the news can be more about information
and less about being hoodwinked.