Building on the Past: A Retrospective
While AmericaThinks believes in and is actively developing a new model of public opinion polling, we value the foundations and contributions of the past as vital to our success in the present. There is no need to tear down the past while building for the future. So we went back to the beginning, seeking to understand the mindsets, purposes, and approaches of those who built this industry.
In our research, we came across a forgotten congressional bill that provides a unique and concise review of the polling as a whole.
By 1971, the public opinion polling industry was about 35 years old and had weathered 8 presidential elections and 16 congressional elections; it was now a mature and thriving trade.
Rep. Lucian N. Nedzi (D-Michigan 14) proposed H.R. 5003—or the Truth-in-Polling Act—a bill that would “provide for the disclosure of certain information relating to certain public opinion polls”. As a part of the legislative process, Rep. Nedzi held a congressional hearing to both educate and advise congressional members about the polling industry in general and to explore whether Congress should have a role in regulating it. The transcripts of this hearing became instantly valuable to us as it provided a concise retrospective analysis and explanation of public opinion polling by the “founding fathers” and experts in the field. The entire document is linked at the bottom of this article for you to peruse at your pleasure. All quotes that follow are taken from these various testimonies.
Polling is, at its core, the science of studying people in moments of time. Decision-makers depend on the knowledge polling provides to govern, to create, to market, to sell, to buy. There is no end to the uses of knowing what people think and feel. That was true in 1971 and it is true today.
This is the story of polling told by those who made it.
Frederick P. Currier of Market Opinion Research firm expressed this quite eloquently:
“Good polling can enlighten the legislature through published polls and allows them to understand the needs and drives for public reform. As I see it is an extension of the reporting process. It is mass society’s town meeting, allows candidates to campaign on issues people want to talk about.”
Echoing this sentiment, Albert H. Cantril, author and Princeton psychologist, said:
“For the more faithfully the public’s view is ascertained and taken into account, the greater is the chance that decisions of those at the helm will be both right and enduring.”
Mervin Field, founder of Field Research Corporation and the California Poll, stated:
“When the voice of the people can be heard more clearly, it is less likely that political bosses can dictate and control as easily. In this manner, polls serve as a check against lobbyists and self-styled interpreters of public opinion whether they be legislators, journalists, commentators, or whoever.”
Louis Harris, founder and President of Louis Harris & Associates, offered insightful commentary on American society and their willingness to communicate with pollsters:
“We live in a lonely society where people like to talk and no one likes to listen. So nearly everyone is talking right past each other. So one of the most flattering episodes in a person’s life literally is to have someone come into the living room, sit down with a clipboard and questionnaire and have the person not only listen but take down every word you say.
It is this kind of loneliness, I think, that works on our behalf. You would be amazed that many times our problem is not to get people to answer questions but how to turn them off on things we don’t want to know about on a particular survey…People do want to talk to people that they feel on the level and willing to listen.”
We at AmericaThinks found this particularly resonant for today’s society where Internet usage and social media has only exacerbated the loneliness Harris observed in 1971.
During the hearing, these experts also testified to what methods they used and why. Earlier on, quota sampling was the favored method of choice. But Dr. George Gallup explains that that quickly became an inappropriate method for obtaining respondents.
“The big reason why quota sampling fails is the interviewer. The interviewer is given the job of picking, let’s say, people who are representative of the white-collar group. Well, that interviewer is likely to pick the easiest to get at, easiest to interview person. In this other system, the choice of the person is entirely removed from the interviewer.”
Dr. Angus Campbell, Director of the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan, agreed in detail:
“Quota sampling does not protect the sampler from bias…You can’t be sure that even if your quotas have been fulfilled properly—and that is not as easy as it sounds—you can’t be sure that the variables upon which you have set quotas are going to remove whatever biases there are in variables which you are asking questions about. The whole rationale of quota sampling is, if you can build a sample which has the right number of men and women, the right number of black and white, the right number of poor and affluent, that then you will have the right number of everything else too and that is an assumption that has no theoretical proof and while it may work on some occasions, it may not work on others.”
Gallup explained that probability sampling was the more reliable polling method because it relies on chance instead of a selective process.
“The theory of it [probability sampling] is that everyone in the universe, everyone has an absolutely equal chance of being selected for the same so it becomes an entirely chance selection.”
Disclosure of methods was repeatedly emphasized throughout the hearing as the only way to ensure trust and accuracy of polling.
Louis Harris:
“A prime rule we follow without exception in all of our research is that of any part of any study we conduct is to surface in the public media, then the entire survey must be released.”
Sidney Hollander Jr., President of the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR):
“Whatever information is made public ought to be as accurate as it’s practical to make it. And most emphatically, those who use such information have a right to know how accurate it is…Disclosure of method is the only practical safeguard.”
Dr. Harold Mendolsohn, Director of Research, Department of Mass Communications at the University of Denver:
“I think there are misuses and abuses of a variety of polls and the only real control that we have over these abuses and misuses is for responsible pollsters to adopt a policy of full disclosure regarding the techniques and methodologies, the limitations and interpretations that are given to any published poll.”
Ultimately, the conclusion by several pollsters is one of admiration and confidence in the judgement of the American people.
Harris: “In fact I would say most people in the establishment tend to consistently underestimate both the seriousness and the intellectual capability of the American people, and this is one illustration of it. People are not sheep, they don’t say, ‘Look, here is a winner and therefore I am for him.’”
Currier: “The American people are much smarter than polls. You can’t fool them. I do a lot of focus group work because I want to keep my feet in the swamp to find out where the action is. They are not fools at all politically. They are absolutely astute and see through communication devices or any sort of trickery absolutely clearly. You cannot fool them. They see races much clearer than analysis does.”
This is our greatest takeaway; in fact, this is the heart of our organization. We believe that through the expression of the combined wisdom and life experiences of all American voters, America will be a healthier and more united nation, ready to take on the challenges of the future.
House of Representatives 93rd Congress—First Session on H.R. 5003