Of Polls and Pundits
By Arnie Guha
June 25, 2004
 |
 |
| Arnie Guha |
|
Modern elections are mostly about two things: polls and
pundits.� Don�t get me wrong. I�m a market researcher by day. I love polls
and occasionally get to pretend I am a pundit. But it somehow appears
that this year, the frenzy of pre-election polling
� from general voting intent to actual seat projection � is not merely
an indicator of the nation�s pulse, but also a driver of it. From where
I sit, this is how it seems to have worked: the pundits
conduct polls, the media
report them, the public reads them, the pundits interpret them, to which
the public responds, and then the pundits conduct another poll.
No wonder then, that the true emerging hero of this year�s Canadian election
is the number �37�, stamped at birth by a �%� sign, attended by its parents,
the pollsters, and its nannies, the pundits, and followed by a queue of
cooing political parties dying to hold it � and hold on to it � with tender
love and care, until Election Day.
Polls
In following the Web sites of Canadian media organizations � newspapers,
radio and television broadcasters, magazines � one cannot but notice the
frenzied adoration of our hero �37.�
Canada.com dedicates an entire
page
to polls on the elections
section
of the Web site. With characteristic directness, the site asks visitors
to participate in the �Horse Race� � �Which party will you vote for in
the 2004 federal election?� � and, with typical betting optimism declares
that the poll �could prove an accurate barometer� of voting intent. Not
surprisingly, �could� is definitely the operative word here as the site
sponsors admit to having �recently reset the poll numbers due to obvious
manipulation of the votes by party sympathizers.�
The challenge to �accuracy� is extended to the rest of the page, which
lists poll-driven and poll-related stories since April of this year, since
just before elections were called. A quick glance at the headlines appears
to explain the choice of the �Horse Race� metaphor: if the numbers on
which these stories are based were to be charted on a graph � with multiple
colours denoting multiple parties � one might think the Canadian public
were conducting an exercise in Abstract
Expressionism.
This is not a random thought. Check out CBC�s Flash-enabled �Tracking the Polls�
feature on its comprehensive polling
page,
and you�d think that the Canadian public and CBC New Media have just colluded
in the invention of a new kind of performance art: the � accidental, but
delightful � interactive aesthetic of the fluctuating lines are not only
visually reminiscent of a Jackson Pollock jazz-smattering of colours, but
seem to be philosophically aligned with an art-school
rebellion against conventional subjects (read �healthcare,� �separatism�)
and styles (read �political parties�), which suddenly seem stifling and
inadequate.
Then, there are the theme polls, a la Omni TV�s
question to site visitors: �Will the Ethnic Vote make a difference in
this election?� I click on �results� to find that some 78 percent of respondents
apparently think the answer is �yes.� What am I to make of this? Who are
these respondents? What would I do with these results? There are no follow-up
questions asking for the respondent�s ethnicity, place of residence or
political association, responses to which � sampling inaccuracies notwithstanding
� might have made the results meaningful or, at least, interesting: e.g.,
�the majority of respondents who said they supported the [party-name]
thought that the ethnic vote would make a difference; [x] percent of them
lived in Toronto.�
Interesting question, this, when you think about it a bit; especially
in light of the earnestness with which it is posed. What do we mean by
�ethnic vote�? The question brings back an embarrassing memory,
which is further emphasized by the stark absence of Mr. Duceppe from the
accompanying graphic panel which comprises pictures of Mr. Harper, Mr.
Martin, Mr. Layton and even Mr. Green (I meant Mr. Harris, but you wouldn�t
have known him). The plot thickens.
But then, CTV�s
Mike Duffy boldly ventures where even pollsters fear to tread: Mr.
Duffy�s page
� on CTV.ca�s Election Section � combines �current poll numbers and our
e-mails� to conclude that �a majority of Canadians favour a minority government�
to keep the government �honest.�� Nice ring to it, but I�d rather refer
to the actual numbers, offered by CTV.ca on its poll-tracker:
a pop-up guide to CTV polls through the campaign.
The best part of CTV.ca is an extremely helpful Issues
section, which summarizes party positions across sixteen issues � from
health care to education � and, commendably, the summary includes five
� not four � national parties. Where numbers confuse, CTV�s Issues section
brings some clarity to voters.
Not to be left behind, Maclean�s conducts
and reports
a whole series of polls, including a poll on polls and polling. On a more
helpful note, Mclean�s carries a Promise
Counter,
which lists pre-election promises made by the Conservatives, the Liberals
and the NDP, bullet-marked and dated, presumably for future reference.
Oh, and before we get off the topic of polls, Zed would like to know: �If you
could go on a blind date with one party leader who would it be?�
Pundits
To the disappointment of many, Frank Magazine
does not have a running poll. But they have the best pundit of all: Dick
Little who writes a blog,
which may or may not be about the election, but asks profoundly relevant
questions like: �What�ll they call themselves? The Reformatories?�
The Globe and Mail, of course, has the Strategists,
in both print and on the Web: Rod Love, Peter
Donolo, Janice MacKinnon, Guy Giorno
and Martin Goldfarb, who bring their own experience in
politics to interpret the nation�s mood. The Globe and Mail also offers
us the Citizen�s
Dialogue Project
in which a group of eight Canadian citizens � of varying age and background
� write passionately and intelligently about their electoral assumptions
and experiences. In this project the Globe and Mail truly holds the mirror
up to the nature of this election. Where pundits falter, citizens clarify.
For more citizens� voices, one could visit Canoe�s CNews
Forums:
while not specifically dedicated to the elections, the forums are almost
always dedicated to issues that will undoubtedly influence outcomes on
Election Day. For even more non-institutional views, one may visit the
Underground Royal Commission,
although, does an endorsement from Canada.com count as �underground�?
The Commission has produced 16 books and 14
hours of documentary programming
about the state of the nation, and on the eve of federal elections, poses
the question, �Does
your vote count?�
In addition to links to the Underground Royal Commission, Canada.com also
offers blogs
by a number of CanWest writers drawn from across the country.
Toronto Star�s David Olive has a Blog,
too, called The Pulse, and the Star offers residents of the Greater Toronto
Area a helpful list of GTA
Riding Profiles.
Talking of blogs, let us not forget the on-the-road stories: Global�s
Kevin
Newman
keeps us posted from the campaign bus, while the Globe and Mail keeps
us up to date by posting on-the-road messages from four
correspondents,
each traveling with a different political party, through the campaign.
Blogs Canada
offers a mixed bag of writers, but it needs some sifting to find the top
ten.
After weeks of surfing, reading, viewing and listening, these fragments I
have shored against my ruins. As well as the idea for a new game: it�s
called �Whack the Bar Chart,� which is what we shall be doing for the
next few months should Election Day yield a hung parliament. Perhaps the
James Gang
can do something with that one?
CBC
does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Links will open in new window.
|
