As part of our series on polling, this article looks at their often poor questions and answers. I don’t mean to criticize the polling organizations- they’re doing well, I think, given their resources and their limiting traditions.
A big problem in polling on issues is the answer set. A typical question may pose a statement and then ask if you agree. I encountered some recently that had 5 answers: Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree. The question asked about whether I thought the salary of the head of the local hospital should be capped around $300,000 instead of the current salary of $600,000. I wasn’t sure. I feel CEOs are often vastly over-payed. They often take credit for work and brilliance they didn’t contribute. While a CEO can make a huge difference, so can others at a company. At the same time, mediocre (or lousy) CEOs can have a huge negative effect (and still get a high salary!). On the other side, $600,000 is competitive for a hospital CEO. So if they had an answer of “Slightly agree”, I would have chosen that one. I chose “Neutral”, but it felt wrong. I would have preferred two scales of 1..10. I would have given about an 8 of support for capping at $300,000 and a 7 of support for a competitive salary. More interesting would be paying someone $400k to do the job and paying a good assistant $200k, to learn the ropes and make the job easier? Many, many polling questions need better answers.
Another problem is that many polls need better, and more, questions. Here’s an example from PeopleCount.org, in the Tradition Energy political profile. In general, when someone asked me about nuclear power, I was against it, as are most Americans. Why? The polls don’t tell us.
There was a lot of news about the dangers of a reactor melt-down after the disasters in Japan in 2011 (see question #2), so one big reason is the danger of melt-down. I’m also concerned about the danger of the huge amount (75,000 tons) of radioactive waste our existing plants are producing. This is a large, dangerous, expensive problem. It’s a target for terrorism as well as a constant challenge to keep it from polluting the land, water and air.
The problem with polls is they simply ask us about “nuclear energy”. For instance, here are three, from Pew, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and Gallup. (I did find one more interesting ITimes poll, but no one had answered it, as of today…)
One of the questions on the PeopleCount.org profile asks about nuclear reactors that produces little radioactive waste. Why haven’t polls asked us before about this technology? Another question asks about a kind of nuclear reactor that can consume existing radioactive waste! Why do polls lump all of our opinions together about nuclear power, instead of separating these other, interesting questions? Are Americans interested in these new technologies that could power the country for years with little pollution or even solve the huge radioactive waste problem we have no other solution for? (80% of PeopleCount users say yes.)
Perhaps polls don’t ask us because we aren’t familiar with these technologies. If I had first heard about these in a telephone poll, I would have probably said “no”, just because I think nuclear technology and its waste problem are dangerous. But encountering these in a PeopleCount profile is different. I can click on a link to get more information and read a bit before answering. And the answers aren’t just yes or no, they also allow me just to give support for a pilot project.
What would happen if all Americans logged onto PeopleCount.org and supported this? In a few days or a week we might express a groundswell of support and Congress would have the confidence to act quickly.
Polls are designed to answer a pollster’s questions. PeopleCount.org profiles are designed for citizens to guide our government to solve problems. Our government is meant to be of, by and for the people. Polls are not sufficient. With your participation, PeopleCount.org can be.