Elections in India have become a trial by fire for pollsters. The ones who get it right are celebrated for their prescience. The rest are seen as outright frauds. If all of them get it wrong, people suspect a conspiracy; or worse, a stock market scam. We also hear demands for banning pollsters sometimes. A spotlight on pollsters at the time of election results is not unusual.
They are in the business of forecasting electoral outcomes. And if the outcomes do not match their predictions, we should question these forecasters. Such questions are also raised in other democracies. Yet, the nature of questioning in most mature democracies is quite different.
Pollsters have faced intense criticism in the US, for instance, for under-estimating support for Donald Trump in three consecutive elections (2016, 2020, 2024). Trump himself has dismissed opinion polling as “fake.” But not everyone there has taken his words literally.
Some commentators have in fact defended pollsters this time since the final vote shares of the candidates are within the stated margins of error. Others have raised questions about a systematic bias in one direction.
They fear that Republican voters may have been less likely to respond to polls compared to Democrats. Still others have questioned whether sampling weights used to adjust the raw polling data have led pollsters astray.
Pollsters will now hand over their raw data to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), a self-regulatory organization of pollsters that investigates polling practices after each presidential election. A sundry bunch of academic, commercial, government and political researchers started AAPOR in 1947 to figure out rules for effective and credible polling.
The organization acts as the conscience-keeper of the polling industry. It ensures that both data producers and consumers follow data hygiene norms while dealing with poll data.
Some of AAPOR’s post-mortem reports have helped improve polling methods over time. Others haven’t. But all of those reports have enriched the debate on polling and American politics.
In contrast, discussions around pollsters in India often tend to be hysterical. The inability of pollsters, academic institutions and media organizations to arrive at shared rules on how to conduct and broadcast polls has bred deep mistrust around polling.
Pollsters in India are often reluctant to disclose methodological details about their surveys. TV channels that partner with them fail to quiz them about how they have conducted their surveys.
Unlike business journalists, political journalists often appear to have a fraught relationship with numbers in India. That seems to limits their ability to ask meaningful questions about polling data.
Most political scientists have also kept themselves away from such issues. Unlike in the US, political science students have historically been discouraged from taking up quantitative studies in India. A richer empirical tradition might have produced more fruitful collaboration between political scientists and pollsters, leading to more systematic studies of political attitudes over time.
Pollsters would have been able to develop better tools to understand what voters think—at the time of elections and also in between ballot exercises. Political scientists would have better answers on what shapes voter preferences and beliefs.
Yet, we have reasons to be hopeful about the future. Compared to a decade ago, we now have many more political scientists who work with electoral data-sets. The past decade has also witnessed the rise of a new breed of data journalists, who have a deeper engagement with election-related data.
What’s missing is an institutional mechanism to regulate and improve polling. Ideally, pollsters should themselves initiate steps to form a self-regulatory organization. It would be a pity if polling rules are framed by a Supreme Court-appointed committee, triggered by a public interest litigation.
Regulating the business of polling should be a scientific and voluntary affair. Bureaucrats or judges shouldn’t be calling the shots on this issue. Nor should politicians.
Media watchdogs such as the Press Council or Editors Guild could help fill the institutional vacuum to some extent by framing disclosure norms. Even if a few big media groups begin following basic transparency norms while publishing poll data, it would make a significant difference.
Any of the leading press clubs of the country could also take the initiative to begin framing rules on the use of polling data. Having basic disclosure guidelines in place would also help earnest editors and honest pollsters protect their reputations.
Pollster ratings, either from media houses or academic institutions, would also help improve the business of polling. Once pollsters know they are being systematically tracked—on methods, transparency and outcomes—they might want to open up much more.
Transparency reforms might drive some pollsters out of business. But the better ones would thrive and probably be able to raise more funds to conduct more innovative surveys. The industry as a whole would gain credibility.
Citizens would understand the nuances of polling better, and be more forgiving of pollsters when they get some results wrong. They would learn to appreciate how opinion polls could go wrong in tight races. Demands to ban opinion polls would die down.
#Heres #rescue #opinion #polling #business #India
