In Defense Of Public Opinion Polling
-
- 54,99 €
-
- 54,99 €
Descripción editorial
In the 2000 national elections, $100 million was spent on campaign polling alone. A $5 billion industry from Gallup to Zogby, public opinion polling is growing rapidly with the explosion of consumer-oriented market research, political and media polling, and controversial Internet polling. By many measures from editorial cartoons to bumper stickers we hate pollsters and their polls. We think of polling as hopelessly flawed, invasive of our privacy, and just plain annoying. At times we even argue that polling is illegal, unconstitutional, and downright un-American. Yet we crave the information polling provides. What do other Americans think about gun control? School vouchers? Airline performance?
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
On the first page of this engaging and informative work, Warren introduces himself 12-step-style: "I am a pollster." He has in fact been the president of the Warren Poll for more than two decades, and his defensive posture is warranted, he explains, because most Americans hate polls and the people who conduct them. Among other sins, polls are accused of being inaccurate, of undervaluing minority opinions, of being undemocratic in their sway over public opinion and public officials, and invasive of our privacy. But Warren argues that the ubiquity of polls today (it is a $5-billion-a-year industry) shows they must be doing something right: they are, he says, providing accurate and authoritative public opinion information. Yes, there are bad polls that are, as he explains, dishonest in intent and flawed in methodology, but most pollsters are highly ethical and obsessed with getting the details right, from drawing truly representative samples and creating well-designed questionnaires to carefully tabulating raw data and providing thorough analyses of the numbers. In the end, polls are hardly undemocratic, says Warren, but, rather, make it difficult for politicians to ignore public opinion; polls are thus a popular voice in what would otherwise be an elitist debate. Proof of their potency is to be found in their increasing use in emerging democracies around the world. Warren keeps wonk jargon to a minimum and illuminates his argument with specific examples, such as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Polls showed that the more Republicans pilloried Clinton, the more popular he became, and therefore probably contributed to Clinton's decision to fight on rather than resign. Warren's purpose is to educate the public about polls, and 98.7% (plus or minus 4%) will no doubt agree he has done a convincing job.
