Polling, Primaries, and Political Decisions: How Can We De-influence the American Vote?

Photo Courtesy: Gage Skidmore

Election validity has become a hot-button issue in American politics, especially as the new presidential election cycle begins to dominate the front page again. The issues of the 2020 election are not only recent in the American mind; they’re once again in the foreground. But the biggest influence on American elections isn’t ballot-stuffing. It’s polling. 

At its most basic level, polling data is found to sway opinions by 11.3%. That’s almost three times as much Biden won (the popular vote) by in 2020. Inundated by news with misrepresented data or even poor polling techniques, it’s difficult to say where voters’ opinions end and those of certain news outlets begin. 

But the effect of polling begins far before voters get to the final election ballot. In fact, it goes back to the stage American elections are in right now: the primaries. To qualify for party debates, primary candidates must meet either poll or donor thresholds. In 2020, both Republican and Democratic candidates had to break 1% in three qualifying national polls or have 40,000 and 65,000 donors. The structural necessity for polling only draws American attention towards it, which is concerning when it comes to the worst effect of all: the dropping out of candidates. 

Buried in their political graves by polling numbers, four major Republican candidates dropped out of the race. Mike Pence said in his final campaign speech, “Now is not my time” in a graceful euphemism for poor ratings. Meanwhile, Will Hurd and Perry Johnson didn’t meet qualifying polls for the debates, and Larry Elder was always dismissed as a “long-shot” anyway. The phrase “failed to gain traction in the polls” tends to follow all these candidates. For a presidential candidate, it’s the equivalent of a death knell, whether announced after a drop-out or during their campaign. 

In light of poor polling practices and misleading data, is it fair for major candidates to drop out based on polling projections? The effect continues long after they exit the political area. Especially with the fragmented Republican party, candidates are expected to endorse another when they drop out. Elder and Johnson endorsed Trump, Hurd announced his support for former UN Secretary Nikki Haley, and Pence is noticeably silent on the matter. Obviously, there is the uneven spread of support favoring one candidate—and the one vastly leading in the polls at 68%. As the primary race narrows, the threat of “backing the winner” increases. With that, so does the threat of Republican moderates swinging towards extremity because that’s becoming the only option available. In this, the Republican party will become an echo chamber where the same majority-rule ideas circulate endlessly. When that happens, it’s an issue concerning all Americans, regardless of party lines.  

The public opinion poll, ingrained as it is in the electoral cycle and American psyche, is difficult to replace. Flawed it may be, getting rid of it is nothing short of impractical right now. In 2020, 1,198 candidates filed with the FEC to run. Someone has to drop out for some reason, and the best reason to give is a projection that they just won’t win. Human nature seems to get in the way of sound political practices. 

For a candidate to drop out because of poor polling numbers seems like the political equivalent of a natural law, but when that natural law gets confounded by artificial influences, artificial measures need to be made to combat it. Major candidates whom the media have dismissed as numerically faltering should remain in the running, least of all for their influence on the election itself. Plurality is the safeguard against an echo chamber, but something has to be the safeguard for plurality.