I agree with you. Rating candidates on a preference scale seems to me to be more likely to more accurately predict the actual outcome.

I wonder why you suggest the constant sum approach over a simple Likert scale rating, e.g, How likely do you think you are to vote for x? Not at all likely, Not very likely, Somewhat likely, Likely, Very Likely.

I think that Likert scale questions are easier for respondents to answer. Did you have a reason for suggesting constant sum?

I wonder if there is anyone on this blog who conducts political polls who can address this.

Thanks,

Steve

….there is one major reason the polls are having a hard time. Because pollsters work for clients (such as the press or TV network, a candidate, and their own private polls,) they have to report on public decisions – yes-no, good-bad, like-dislike. So in election polls they ask voters who they prefer. When a person says they prefer Obama or Clinton they are given full credit by the poll – 100% — of being for that candidate. In reality, especially in this Democratic primary, few people are 100% for any candidate. I heard many voters thinking out loud about how they could vote for any of the two leading candidates, Clinton or Obama. I hear conflicted aspects of each person’s decision. A polling technique used in commercial research that is not beholden to decision driven clients would have not been fooled by the Democratic primary process. This approach is called the “constant sum” decision model.

In this approach a voter would be asked preference in two parts — which candidates would be “considered” if they were voting – and among those considered, how would 100 (or 10) points be divided between them (called “constant sum.”) Average the percentage of points given to each by the survey sample, and you get a very close estimate of preference for any candidate overall. No undecided here although you can identify respondents who are partially undecided.

But the real improvement is in the detail given by each voter in the survey. Take two voters considering between Clinton and Obama. Person A gives Obama 100 points and Clinton 0 points, and Person B gives Obama 60 points and Clinton 40. In the traditional preference question both would be for Obama, but if a small thing happened in the campaign that impacted Person B, there might a small switch in preference to Clinton 55/Obama 45. In elections like this small things have big impacts. It is likely that in the early stages of the primary elections there are a lot of voters who were having a hard time deciding between alternative candidates that are acceptable. Movement can occur quickly and must be measured with a micrometer, not a yardstick. (Lately as preference is getting stronger most of the polls have been right.)

This constant sum approach enables the pollster to concentrate on the intensity of preference for each candidate for each voter surveyed and more accurately represent the solidity of the support for the candidate. So the polling industry should not be measuring preference of a voter, but degree of preference.

If they did this they would find that the polling public would better appreciate an approach that takes into account their ambivalence. Results from elections would be more accurate to predict and voters and issues more “in-play” would be better understood.