This house believes that opinion polls harm the democratic process.

In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections.   Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda.  Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.

Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced.   When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue.   Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion.  The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]

[1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999, http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/1999/7/article12.en.html

Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition.  They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed.   The stifling of debate does not occur.  So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.

The observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates.  The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made.  Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion.  The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle.    Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls.  We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public.  That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.

Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question.   A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans,[1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way.  For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’.[2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims.   Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results.   For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc.   These measures are usually not published.  Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation.  One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.  Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur.[3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions.

[1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/266932/latest-ap-poll-sample-skews-democrats-17-points

[2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010, http://qmss.columbia.edu/files_qmss/imce_shared/Abroff_Thesis_01_06_10.pdf

[3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004,  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters.   Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation.  The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused.  Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences.  Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade.   To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions.  It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician.  The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.

Tactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome.   When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed.    This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions.  For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory.  However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won.  It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’.[1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls.  The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.

[1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aggmwi1lPpAC&source=gbs_book_other_versions p.202

The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur.  However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process.   Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome.  Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes.   Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not.   Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.

This would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting.   This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time.  For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted.  Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls.  There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice.  Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions.  Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.

The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election.  However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published.  The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy.  Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point.   Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression.   We have no facts about the size of this population.   The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm.    If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely?   The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.

When opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy.   Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data.  Voters become the consumers of political marketing.  The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive   dialogue.   Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement.   Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus.  The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.

Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope.  Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature.   Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself.   And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer.   Opinion polling is not unique.

And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue.  There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy.   The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing.  To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion. 

In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections.   Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda.  Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.

Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced.   When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue.   Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion.  The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]

[1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999, http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/1999/7/article12.en.html

Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition.  They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed.   The stifling of debate does not occur.  So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.

The observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates.  The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made.  Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion.  The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle.    Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls.  We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public.  That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.

Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question.   A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans,[1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way.  For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’.[2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims.   Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results.   For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc.   These measures are usually not published.  Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation.  One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.  Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur.[3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions.

[1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/266932/latest-ap-poll-sample-skews-democrats-17-points

[2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010, http://qmss.columbia.edu/files_qmss/imce_shared/Abroff_Thesis_01_06_10.pdf

[3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004,  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters.   Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation.  The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused.  Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences.  Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade.   To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions.  It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician.  The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.

Tactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome.   When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed.    This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions.  For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory.  However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won.  It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’.[1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls.  The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.

[1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aggmwi1lPpAC&source=gbs_book_other_versions p.202

The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur.  However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process.   Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome.  Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes.   Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not.   Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.

This would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting.   This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time.  For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted.  Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls.  There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice.  Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions.  Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.

The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election.  However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published.  The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy.  Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point.   Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression.   We have no facts about the size of this population.   The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm.    If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely?   The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.

When opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy.   Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data.  Voters become the consumers of political marketing.  The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive   dialogue.   Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement.   Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus.  The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.

Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope.  Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature.   Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself.   And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer.   Opinion polling is not unique.

And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue.  There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy.   The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing.  To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion. 

They publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech.   Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas.  Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard.

Restricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech.   For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period.

Democracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging.  Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally.  In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists.   These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.

The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied.  Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist.   There are restrictions related to the public good.  The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited.  Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society.

Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning.  Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.

Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency.   However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process.  Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.

Opinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making.   This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible.  The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis.

Additionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms.  There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability.  Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility.  The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability.  Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention.   For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition. 

A well conducted poll can be very accurate.   It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points.[1]   Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research.  There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions.   It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls.   The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals.  Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals.

[1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/mef/mef03/mef03c

Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue.   Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public.  First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms.  There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention.  Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.  

Second, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters.   This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.

It is their right to select the criteria for making decisions.   Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation.  However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote.  Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance.   Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others.  However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote.  Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.

There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices.  We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens.  This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue.   Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice.  The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address.   We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria.  Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged.   The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.

The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting.  In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face.   Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use.   To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically.   That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product.  Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need.[1]

[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx

Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur.  These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned.  Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous.   Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy.  Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not.   That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well.   Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.  

They provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process.  Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived.   Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections.  Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable.   Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.

It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public.  The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”.  Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful.  Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held.   Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends.  Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs.  Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls.  The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed.[1]

[1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx