By james art 
Chris Talgo: Polls provide data voters need to make informed decisions
Days before the 2024 election, pollsters are working overtime to determine the state of what appears to be a very tight race. Throughout modern history, polls have played an essential role in the electoral process, providing real-time information that helps voters and candidates. However, polls have come under increased scrutiny in recent years mainly because they have failed to accurately measure the pulse of the nation.
Even though the vast majority of polls in 2016 and 2020 miscalculate voter sentiment, that doesn’t mean all polls are unreliable and therefore worthless. A more nuanced view shows that polls that track issues instead of candidates are still significant.
For example, according to most polls heading into the 2024 general election, the top three issues are inflation/cost of living, illegal immigration and crime.
Information like this is useful because it provides context for voters and candidates alike. It can also bring to the fore in political discourse issues that would not otherwise be highlighted. And, perhaps most importantly, polls like these provide much-needed feedback to candidates so they can focus on the issues that matter most to voters.
In addition to polls that track specific issues, general polls that measure candidate popularity are still worthwhile. This is especially true in primaries, where several candidates, many of them unknown to the public, are running in hotly contested races.
A survey that tracks the position of these candidates can provide valuable information to potential voters, most of whom know very little about these future officials.
In recent years, research has emerged showing that early voting is relevant on several fronts. According to the study, Are Polls and Probabilities Self-Fulfilling Prophecies?, by Stanford University professor Neil Malhotra, some voters see the polls as an insight into the “wisdom of the crowd.”
In this way, less informed voters can at least have an idea of the masses’ position on the election, which may influence their vote one way or the other.
As Malhotra notes, “Majorities can merge, which is not good if we want to preserve minority rights or worry about the herd. But we see that people are also seeking information and trying to learn from the wisdom of crowds.” Moreover, “The main reason why people adhere to the majority opinion in the political sphere is that they perceive that there is information about the quality of policies in learning about mass support,” concludes Malhotra.
Professor Juni Kuha of the London School of Economics and Political Science has also studied the effects of polls on people’s voting habits. Like Malhotra, he found that “polls act as a feedback mechanism that can influence the policy choices of parties, while closer to the election they are a feedback mechanism on how the campaign is going.”
Kuha also cites the wisdom of crowds, or what he calls the “gang effect.” He is also careful to emphasize that pollsters should not try to sway the electorate by swaying polls in favor of their preferred candidate.
This is a problem that has become apparent in the era of Donald Trump. In 2016 and 2020, most polls were way off the mark, in part because of the Trump-shy voter phenomenon, but also because pollsters deliberately oversampled Democrats.
In those two elections, Trump was down significantly until Election Day, according to the vast majority of polls routinely cited by the media. Interestingly, some pundits believe this was done deliberately to reduce support for Trump, while others claim it was nothing more than an accidental oversight.
This year, most polls show Trump and Harris in a close race nationally and in key swing states.
Given this set of circumstances, I can’t help but wonder if the pollsters have learned their lesson after getting it so wrong in the last two presidential elections, or if we’re in for a massive political realignment.
Regardless, I’ll continue to pay close attention to the polls, especially the consolidated averages, which have been the most accurate lately.
Editor’s note: Chris Talgo is the editorial director at The Heartland Institute. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcome [email protected].