Appearing on Bourque is this Montreal Gazette headline; Confessions of a Pollster. A title like that doesn’t not get the attention of those who work in the industry.
In the sixty or so seconds it took me to move my mouse over the link, click on it, allow the page to load, and read enough of the story to get the gist of it, I was entirely conscious of the fact I was expecting something worse, much worse.
No, I wasn’t expecting a story about a number-crunching propeller-head who’d figured out how to lure unsuspecting victims using reams of data as sultry foreplay. However it did occur to me how someone may finally be fessing-up to how, everyday, survey data is used and misused to tell one version of a story or another.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw a survey-backed story that somehow didn’t feel right, and upon review of the methodology including especially the sample or questionnaire design discovered a bias – accidental or otherwise – I’d be, well, a little bit richer. But that’s another story for another day.
Despite the attention grabbing title, the Gazette piece turns out to be nothing too salacious or incriminating. It’s an interview and a peek-a-boo look into the polling perspectives of the well-respected Christian Bourque of Quebec based Léger Marketing. Léger & Léger as I used to know it, is a great firm that includes in its claims to fame, some of the most accurate polling data money can buy, especially in Quebec.
The interview is a good piece, a recommended read, and I can relate to many portions of it. The assertion that politicians who say they don’t pay attention to polls being liars is especially true.
However, where I slightly differ in opinion from my colleague is on the matter of governments not governing by polls. Mr. Bourque says “…fortunately for all of us, governments do not govern by poll. They will use public opinion to help them fine-tune and find the best timing to talk about a policy initiative. But if people governed by polls we would have never had the GST, we would pay no taxes, etc., etc.”
Polls maybe, but public opinion absolutely governs the way governments govern. Just because some polls miscalculate or don’t catch early enough the full impact of public opinion, is a knock against the science of polling that purports to measure opinion. It does not mean that public opinion isn’t the principle guiding factor that ultimately shapes the way governments govern, especially today and even more so in the future.
Two factors didn’t exist in 1991 when the GST was allegedly foisted upon Canadians; first, the Internet, and second what one can do with public opinion using the Internet if one knows what he or she is doing.
To prove my point, examine a recent issue that erupted and consider how it might have played out in 1991. A few weeks ago Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty tried to introduce legislation which, had it passed, would significantly restrict the freedom of young drivers. Almost overnight thanks to what highly charged and motivated opinion can do using, among other tools, Facebook, the legislation has been drastically rewritten if not abandoned altogether.
This never would have happened in 1991. In 1991 Mr. McGuinty’s legislation would likely have passed without much objection or fanfare.
Was public opinion about young drivers any different in 1991? If anything, it was likely more lax. Today, the only difference is how public opinion – if it is sufficiently massed, charged-up and motivated – can be made to bite a politician’s behind before he/she knows what hit him.
The recent case against Steven Harper is not much different. The difference is once the full impact and realization of Mr. Harper’s mistake was served to him on a platter, Mr. Harper knew how, with a little think time – and trust me, with mountains of public opinion data – to fully exploit the situation and completely turn the tables on his opponent. Mr. Dion still doesn’t know what hit him.
In a matter of one week Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion have gone from the very real prospect of trading places, to Mr. Dion, late fuzzy video and all, is no longer able escape the long-ago case against him as shaped and measured by public opinion.
This is why Liberal’s will choose Mr. Ignatieff over Mr. Rae. Not because Mr. Rae isn’t a great guy and charismatic, he is. But Liberal’s now understand how the negative vs. the positive aspects of public opinion about Mr. Rae can and would successfully be used against the Party if Mr. Rae was chosen leader. Liberal’s aren’t about to make the same mistake twice. Mr. Rae can only ad to the carnage if he, like Mr. Dion, doesn’t immediately move to accept reality.
For decades, the youth of our country have been labeled voter apathetic. In the recent Federal election the efforts of young adults such as Peter Cleary didn’t pan out as they hoped. However, I predict that during 2009-2011, if not sooner, we will see a turn-around in younger voter apathy including the impact this group has on the way governments govern. It’s already happening.
More to the point, garnered public opinion doesn’t just shape the way governments govern around election time. Indeed, election day is heretofore only to be known as judgment day for those who think to govern against the tide of public opinion.
What does this spell for visionaries and initially unpopular but worthwhile initiatives such as the GST, NAFTA, or even graduating licensing? Going forward, the ability to shape public opinion in advance, of which polls are only one part, will be a great deal more important to the way governments govern than simply reactively using polls after-the-fact to measure public opinion in order to figure out what to do next. By then, it’s way too late.
This is both an art and a science, especially of the opinion that forms subconsciously, that will define the battleground between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff. Mr. Harper has a slight head start both in terms of historical data mining and money. Mr. Ignatieff, if he chooses the right combination of methodology and strategy, could very quickly catch-up.