With the proliferation of voter preference and tracking polls, why should anyone bother to vote? Less than half of us do it anyway.
Pollsters are highly-trained, educated, and take our opinion pulse so often that they must be better at this voting thing that we are. Besides, we're busy and don't need another chore to add to our 'to do' list, even if it happens only once every year or two or four.
Look at the presidential race. Gore's got it, all the experts say. The party's over. They base this not only on the nearly one million different polls you see in the daily newspaper but also on historical trends.
Whoever leads on Labor Day, wins. If the economy is good, the incumbent administration wins. If it rains or snows, Republicans win. If the weather's great and voter shuttle services run well in inner cities, Democrats win.
If you're sick of all these generalizations, prognostications, and pontifications, then we, the voters, lose.
I often wonder why polls have become such big business. They're omnipresent. You can't read a paper, watch TV, or listen to the radio without getting the latest pronouncements.
Are polls so pervasive because we need to know or because we need to be told how to vote? The question stumps me.
One thing's for sure. I never wake in the morning with a burning desire to know which candidate is leading going into turn 43 of the campaign. I've never heard a relative, friend, acquaintance or co-worker express such a curiosity either.
My experience tells me that our media have decided we must be subjected to continuing and ever growing stories of who's on first in the latest quest for political placements. The media loves to report this stuff. The increase in polling companies and polls proves that. And with presidential elections only once every four years, the media doesn't want to squander its big chance.
But, I still ask, why?
After listening to my 9 year-old daughter's philosophy on life, I think I now have the definite answer. She always roots for the baseball team that's leading the game. She wants to back a winner. Perhaps folks want to know who'll be the winner so we can vote for her -- or at least not waste the time going to our precinct to cast a meaningless ballot for the loser.
As odious and condescending as this sounds, it may fit. You may recall in recent years that people protested the national network news projecting winners, based on exit polls, even before all polling places were closed. Statistics showed that last-minute voters didn't bother to participate because they felt the enterprise was futile. Networks graciously capitulated and now wait to report results a full 30 seconds after the polls close.
This scenario speaks volumes for the state of our participatory democracy. If the media and polls ultimately control the outcome of elections rather than merely report about them, how healthy is our political system?
What'd'ya think? Let's take a poll.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M. Ed.
Approximately 505 words.
(c) 2000