A friend of mine wrote in her blog: "When I first voted in the U.S. national elections in 1976, the League of Women Voters was where you turned to get fair, unbiased explanations of ballot questions, biographical and issue information about candidates, and basically a solid education of the upcoming elections." Unfortunately, today it seeks to deceive and misinform, if a "national opinion survey" which I have twice received from it is indicative.
When you receive a "poll" from an issue organization or political party, you take it for granted that the results are intended to promote its goals rather than to gather objective information about public opinion. No one takes the published results seriously. But the League of Women Voters is riding on a reputation for objectivity; its use of rigged polls betrays a trust it once deserved.
Let's look at the techniques of distortion in detail. They start with the cover letter:
Wall Street's casino capitalism wrecked our economy.
The U.S. Supreme Court okayed voter identification laws that trample on our democratic rights, then turned around and gave corporations the green light to secretly spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.
Meanwhile, disasters like the BP oil gusher off the Gulf Coast are grim reminders of what happens when our elected officials let corporate special interests police themselves.
This is no way to run a democracy!
Keep in mind: This is a letter introducing an opinion poll. The letter attacks the free market, presents a highly loaded characterization of the Citizens United decision, and implies that industries are insufficiently regulated. What effect does this have on the people receiving the poll? Those who disagree with those conclusions are likely to throw it out. Those who waver in their views may be pushed into a frame of mind favorable to expansion of governmental power.
The cover letter is designed to bias the responses received. Even if you agree with those evaluations, you should recognize that using them to introduce a poll is inconsistent with getting an unbiased measurement of public opinion.
The poll's introductory page looks very official, headed "NATIONAL OPINION SURVEY," with a survey number, a bar code, and survey instructions. It also has a block headed "RESPONSE DEADLINE," which in my copy contains the words "10 DAYS."
What kind of deadline is "10 days"? There's no date of issuance on the form. I don't know how many days it took for the envelopes to be stuffed and the mail to reach me. A "deadline" consisting of a number of dates to respond rather than a specific date is characteristic of dubious junk mail trying to create a sense of urgency, not of a survey with a specific closing date.
This is the second time I have received this survey. Unfortunately, I don't still have the one I received a few months ago, so I can't check for consistency between the deadlines. Maybe it really said "90 days" the first time.
Now let's look at the questions themselves. To avoid bloat, I'll cover only the questions that have obvious problems.
1. How would you describe your political views? The choices are "Conservative," "Moderate," "Liberal," and "Other" with a space to write a response.
This is a
limited choice, excluding libertarian, socialist, communist, anarchist, fascist,
progressive (for those who distinguish it from liberal), and many others. The
selections offered assume a linear spectrum of views. But at least there's space
to fill in an alternative. This is only a minor problem compared with what follows.
6. In your view, what is the single bigest problem with elected officials in Washington, D.C. today? The choices are "They are out of touch with regular Americans," "They are under the influence of special interests," "They only care about their political careers," "They are too partisan and unwilling to compromise," and "All of the above."
There are several problems
here. First, why an "all of the above" choice?
There's no prohibition anywhere
on checking multiple items. More important, the choices offered are closely related to
each other while excluding many other possibilities — and "none of the above" isn't
an option. All of the proposed answers are ways of saying the elected officials are
too insulated from the voters. This excludes many other possible answers, such as
"They have too much power," "The electoral system favors incumbents and discourages outsiders,"
or "The prevailing political philosophy is bad." No matter how you answer the
poll, you support a conclusion within a narrow range.
7. In your opinion, what is the best way to limit the impact of special interest money on the political process? Please choose one answer only. The choices are "Public financing of congressional elections," "Lower limits on the amount individuals can donate to candidates," "Better disclosure requirements for all political contributions," and "Other" with a space to write a response.
This is even worse. The three choices all are increases in governmental control
over the political process: to make candidates more dependent on the government,
to limit the ability of people to mount challenges to incumbents, and to intrude
on the privacy of political donors. That's a very narrow sample of the
possibilities. Why, for example, is term limitation not
listed as a choice? Granted, write-in responses are allowed, but it's difficult
to tabulate free-text write-ins even if the LOWV intends to, and listed alternatives
always have an advantage over write-ins. At this point the poll has reached the
level of blatant dishonesty.
8. Do you support or oppose the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat political candidates? The choices are "Strongly support," "Support," "Oppose," "Strongly oppose."
There should also be a "don't know" response, but that's a minor problem compared
with the wording of the question. When asking a poll question about a Supreme
Court decision, a minimal requirement of honesty is to label the decision in a
recognizable way, to make sure people know what decision is in question. For
instance, in asking a question about Roe vs. Wade, you would identify the
decision as Roe vs. Wade, not as "the ruling that lets doctors murder
unborn innocent little babies." The question is presumably about the case
commonly known as Citizens United (more formally,
Citizens
United v. Federal
Election Commission). The formulation of the question is distorted to the
point that some people might not correctly identify the case in question.
Since the decision in fact does not affect direct donations to campaigns, the
question is clearly designed to misinform and mislead the
person responding.
9. In view of the Supreme Court's ruling, would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns? The choices are the same as for question 7.
A congressional effort to override Citizens United would have no effect unless
it was in the form of a Constitutional amendment. Why doesn't the question
mention this?
12. Do you support or oppose laws that require voters to show photographic identification before casting their ballots? The choices are "Support — These laws help combat voter fraud," and "Oppose — These laws reduce turnout and disenfranchise youth as well as ethnic and racial minority voters."
Remember that cover letter? It said the Supreme Court
"okayed voter identification laws that trample on our
democratic rights." The pollster is agitating for a preferred response. Also,
a poll shouldn't attach specific explanations to a yes/no question. People might
support or oppose such laws for entirely different reasons. And again, there should
be an "undecided" or "don't know" response."
13. Do you support or oppose laws that allow people to register to vote and cast a ballot at the polls on election day? The choices are "Support — These laws help increase participation in our elections," and "Oppose — These laws increase the likelihood of voter fraud."
Again, explanations should not be attached to choices, and being undecided should be an option.
14. Which of the following issues is the most important to you? Please rank from 1-12 with "1" being the most important issue to you. The choices are:
It's impossible to produce an exhaustive list of issues people may be concerned
with, so the LOWV could get some slack if it had been halfway honest, but there's
a bias in the list. "Tax fairness" is mentioned but not "tax levels."
"Homeland security" is mentioned, but not "governmental surveillance." Governmental
deficits and debts aren't mentioned; allowing that as an important issue might derail the
message that "casino capitalism wrecked our economy." Conservatives could
legitimately object to listing "reproductive rights" rather than a more neutral
term such as "abortion issues."
At the conclusion of the poll is a check box: "Yes, to help strengthen our democracy and put political power back in the hands of the American people, I will join the League of Women Voters. Enclosed is my contribution in the amount of:" (etc.)
Soliciting contributions within a poll is the hallmark of a dishonest survey, particularly when the questions are loaded to begin with. It creates the suspicion that if you don't contribute money, your responses will be ignored, and thus further biases the responses of those who don't agree with the organization.
In summary, the League of Voters has sent out a poll whose clear aim is to create a false image of public opinion.
Original post May 15, 2011. Last updated May 15, 2011.
| Return to Gary McGath's home page |