Opinion

Polling to the People!

We pay vast sums so parties can poll. Their findings should be made public.

By Peter MacLeod, 10 Jul 2008, TheTyee.ca

Polling clipart

Let us know what they know about us.

In 2004, the Canadian public bought out the party system. That was the year the Chrétien government introduced Bill C-24, which prohibited corporations and unions from political donations and put a price tag on every vote, earning the parties $1.75 per ballot per year.

Today, political parties receive anywhere from 40 per cent to 80 per cent of their revenues from the public treasury, effectively making the Canadian public a majority shareholder in each of the federal parties.

Like it or not, we pay for the bulk of those cranky television ads and gauzy mail-drops. As far as our federal parties go, Canadians pay the rent, employ the staff, run the photocopiers, and keep the coffee warm.

We also drop more than a few pennies in the cup every time the Tories decide to run a poll honing their message or the Liberals decide to dip their toes into the electoral waters.

Ravenous for polling data

For political parties, this thirst for the latest polling data, particularly in the lead-up to and during an election, is insatiable. As we’ve learned in the past few weeks, the appetite is so strong that during the last election the national Conservative campaign may have funneled money to several local ridings for the express purpose of buying polling from or for the national Conservative campaign.

Of course, purchasing election services, including polling, from a party’s HQ is a common and perfectly ethical practice. Washing the money through a riding in order to skirt spending limits and to earn a reimbursed election expense is another matter. Regardless of the letter of the law, this clearly goes against its spirit.

Public opinion research and mass advertising are the engine and wheel of the modern political machine. Both were implicated in the sponsorship scandal and it is no surprise to see them again implicated in the recent allegations surrounding the so-called in-and-out scheme.

Last year, as a consequence of the sponsorship scandal, the respected economist Daniel Paillé looked at the growth of public opinion research in the federal government. In December, he reported that over the past 15 years, federal government expenditures rose by a factor of seven, from $4 million to $31.5 million, while the number of research contracts awarded more than quintupled, from 90 in 2002 to 562 in 2007.

In response, the Public Works minister, Michel Fortier, announced in February that public opinion research expenditures would be slashed this year by one-third or $10 million.

Significantly, Paillé was not asked to review the money that parties themselves spend and no similar data is available.

Yet for years, many of Canada's pre-eminent political scientists have sounded the alarm that an over-reliance on partisan polling diminishes accountability, public participation in politics and the vitality of a party’s membership.

Create a public polling bank

For government departments, however, survey research can be a powerful and penetrating tool that helps to better align policies with the attitudes and appetites of Canadians.

Michael Adams, one of Canada’s most respected pollsters, worries that partisan and non-partisan opinion research has become conflated and sees the government’s recent pique as evidence of this conflation -- with the consequence that federal departments may be less responsive or attuned to the interests of Canadians.

Still, if public opinion research has become as Michael Adams claims, the "fifth estate" of mature democracies, it’s reasonable to conclude that all polling paid for with public funds should be submitted to greater scrutiny.

So here’s an idea that would allow the parties to do more than pay lip service to demands for greater accountability and transparency while also gumming up the gears of the polling-advertising machine.

Create a national polling bank -- an online public repository that is indexed, easy-to-search and maintained by the Library of Parliament.

Already the Federal Accountability Act includes a provision mandating that data collected from government-sponsored public opinion research must be deposited within six months with either the chief librarian or archivist of Canada.

This is a good first step but we should go two steps further.

First, we should shorten the window to three months for government-sponsored public opinion research. Three months is enough time to perform any necessary or explanatory analysis without allowing the scent to go cold on timely and potentially newsworthy data.

Second, we should demand that all political parties in receipt of public funds comply with this regulation, fully disclosing the details of their own public opinion research activities, or of research conducted on their behalf. In the case of partisan polling, the mandatory window would be further reduced to one month or less.

Transparency. It’s popular

In effect, with a polling bank in place, all of the partisan polling that currently goes on off-the-radar but is largely paid for with public funds would be put in full public view. Done properly, it would quickly temper the governing-by-the-numbers instinct and encourage the parties to find better ways to reconnect with their roots and the public-at-large.

The public opinion research industry would be smart to take the lead on this issue and put itself above the fray. Having just lost a third of its federal business to the sponsorship debacle, full transparency is a good insurance policy and in the long term, a much cheaper way to go.

Holdouts will argue that polling, like mass advertising, is an indispensable part of the modern political campaign and that a party’s privacy is sacrosanct. Of course, with cynicism on the rise and voter turnout at record lows, it’s a hard to make the case that the modern political campaign is really working for the people or that parties are ever at their best behind closed doors.

The Canadian public now owns our parties. As principal shareholders, it’s time to start calling the shots.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

8  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Grumpy

    3 years ago

    Polling, a yesterday idea.

    I think polls and polling have had their day as they can be so manipulated, that they will support what the pollster wants.

    Recently I had a polling company ask me about transit. First question: Do you take transit. Answer: No. "Thank you for your time" and they hung up.

    So the people who take transit are now doing the poll, which give a base very positive to transit. Talk about skewing numbers.

    The same is true on just about every other subject.

  • tessa

    3 years ago

    To Grumpy

    You don't know what that poll was about. I've taken a poll that asked that first question, and they asked me my own experiences on public transit, what routes I took, how long I waited, etc., and the pollster said it was done for Translink. If you don't take transit, why the hell would they want to ask you those questions? And the answers aren't necessarily positive to transit.

    That is a perfectly legitimate poll, scientific poll, as are the majority of polls that are done. (not to say there aren't bad ones - there are many, and it's often obvious which ones - but that doesn't mean we paint them all with one brush)

  • Stump

    3 years ago

    questions

    Quote:
    If you don't take transit, why the hell would they want to ask you those questions?

    I suppose information such as where the pollee lived and why they don't take transit would have been helpful.

  • ouhite1

    3 years ago

    to grumpy...

    Yes information like that might be helpful, perhaps they do that in another poll, perhaps they find that out other ways, perhaps they've already done such polls, and perhaps the particular poll Tessa (and you) partook in simply had a different focus.

  • Umslopogaas

    3 years ago

    X

    The only political pole that counts is the one where you put an "X" next to a candidate's name. Don't answer questions about politics - after all how do you know who is really calling?

  • sdgreen

    3 years ago

    Curious

    Polls are an interesting tool to garner an opinion. In the political arena, governments can gauge the cause and effect of a certain policy proposal. Given the current system, where political party discipline does not promote proper debate, polls are really the only tool for the public to make some expression for or against a new or modified programs.

    Letters to politicians are basically useless, as these are intercepted by bureaucrats who generally what ever they are told to support.

    The problem is that polling companies formulate their questions to either extract a solution or in a way that creates more confusion.

    In todays world of technology, it would seem fitting that governments should establish a realtime system with a simple yes or no on a particular subject. Political dogma and philosophy (is there any validity to any of them?) somehow must be extinguished. Voting blocks like the bloody unions and such would need to be outlawed in any government poll.

    Should the poll be made public; maybe, but not necessarily. A whole new process would need to be established within a proposal to allow for amendments or changes, then final cut of the proposal.

  • zalm

    3 years ago

    Polling is strictly about...

    ...manufacturing consent. There isn't a polling firm out there that's doing it's job without a mandate to find out how to get in front of the crowd and lead them to the promised land, corporate or political. There IS no other option.

    It's inherent in the nature of polling. Open-ended polls don't produce the kind of results that clients can construct policy around - the oversimplification of issues reduces the possibility that a coherent and useful policy that satisfies the majority might actually arise.

    All polls are closed-ended and targeted. They begin with a world view, an opinion about the state of the world and in particular, an issue that affects it. The questions are constructed around that issue, regardless of its validity, and the results.... really, there is no truer example of the digital axiom "garbage in, garbage out."

    There is no chance for people to affect the course of their lives by answering questions in a poll. If the poll has been properly constructed, there is no chance for people to determine whether the aims of the poll coincide with the interests of the polled, and hence to interpret the questions so as to give answers that have any hope of contributing to the 'signal' rather than the 'noise'.

    I don't respond, to polls, I tell pollsters why, and I recommend everyone do the same. Democracy is accomplished through the respectfulness of conversation, not the tyranny of the pollster's biases.

  • realisticman

    3 years ago

    A Poll on all their houses

    Can we expect a poll on this subject?

    I wonder how many NDPers want to move closer to the US.

    Quote:
    LAWRENCE MARTIN - Globe & Mail
    July 14, 2008

    Michael Byers, the hard-driven academic from Lotus Land, just joined the New Democratic Party as a star candidate. Already, he wants change, big change, starting with the party's name.

    It's time for the NDP to take on more maturity, he says, and drop the "New." He wants it to be called simply the Democratic Party, which would link it to the U.S. Democrats. "It's something that I'm personally proposing and will pursue," says Mr. Byers. "I've been talking to people. It resonates."

    Getting rid of the "New" would have the paradoxical impact of modernizing the party. As an added blessing, it would expunge from the lexicon the dreary and weary NDP acronym, one that conjures up refugees and communists.

    Just calling them the Democrats would also widen the party's reach, make it sound more accessible. "It will be an indicator of the maturity of the party," Mr. Byers says. He likes the U.S. connection. "In many ways, Barack Obama's platform is close to Jack Layton's platform."

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.