Clinton Or Trump Lawn Signs?
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Well, it's complicated. Congress could indeed enact legislation that would all but prevent exit polling, and the media knows it. Beeecuz the Supreme Court said so. But the Supreme Court has also written (in other contexts): "The First Amendment directs us to be especially skeptical of regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good." Boom. That's precisely the "more transparency of the process" of which you speak. All things considered, I absolutely agree that if you're gonna err, it's way better to err on the side of transparency, especially when it comes to the government. And exit polling is actually a very important way to verify that elections are being conducted legitimately. It's why the US government actually finances exit polling by NGOs and other monitors in countries all over the world, including former Soviet republics and satellites to ensure votes are counted accurately. But exit polling, and in particular the media projections based on that polling, has an interesting history.
The First Amendment would, of course, generally preclude Congress from prohibiting the media from interviewing voters after they exit the polls. It would likewise also preclude Congress from prohibiting the media from reporting the results of those polls. Congress, could, however, ban voter solicitation within a certain distance from a polling place, and would be able to include exit polling within such a ban (virtually all states have such bans in one form or another, except for the media and the exit polling part). It would also be able to deny media access to ballot counts, either when the polls have not closed in the jurisdiction whose votes are being counted, or when the polls have not closed across the nation.
The media knows this because of Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), where the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee statute that prohibited the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. The Court recognized that this statute both restricted political speech, to which the First Amendment “has its fullest and most urgent application,” and “barred speech in quintessential public forums,” the use of which for assembly and debate “has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.” Further, the statute restricted speech on the basis of its content, as it restricted political but not commercial solicitation, and therefore was not “a facially content-neutral time, place, or manner restriction.” So, the Court, as is usual in First Amendment cases, applied "strict scrutiny," which usually results in a statute being struck down. Strict scrutiny means, of course, that it requires the state to show that the regulation serves a compelling state interest and is necessary to serve the asserted interest, and must be the least restrictive way to do it.
In the Tennessee case, after applying strict scrutiny, the Court concluded “that a State has a compelling interest in protecting voters from confusion and undue influence,” and “in preserving the integrity of its election process.”
(Incidentally, statues that ban such speech within 300 feet and more have all been struck down by the courts (one big case in 1988 struck down by the 9th Circuit). Apparently 300 feet crosses a line that 100 feet does not. That goes back to the "least restrictive" part of strict scrutiny.)
OK, so knowing all that, knowing that exit polling has not been banned, nor is it likely to be, and knowing that reporting projections based on exit polling is also not banned, nor is it likely to be, but both could very well be if the media abuses it and it results in voter confusion and undue influence, or undermines the integrity of the election process, keep that context in mind.
This all started really with the first major exit poll that was done in 1967 by the legendary polling pioneer Warren Mitofsky when he conducted the first major exit poll for a network during the 1967 Kentucky governor's race. And by the 1970s, exit polling had become an industry practice. Polls were taken and the results were announced, projections were made and then reported.
But then, in 1980 (cue ominous music), NBC reported Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory over Jimmy Carter nearly three hours before polls closed on the West Coast, leading to a large-scale examination of exit polling and Congressional hearings on whether it depressed voter turnout (it did, by a really, really lot). Congress made noises of restrictions, but backed off when they got promises from the media. The networks vowed not to project a state's winners until polls there are closed, and that they would make it unambiguously clear that any projections made based on exit polling were in fact projections and not official results. This was based on comments made by Supreme Court Justices in other rulings and in casual statements where the Court's (almost certain) consensus would have been where voters who hear or read such projections presumably know that they are only projections, and that their votes could still make a difference in the election. And if they decide that that difference is not significant enough to make it worth their while to vote, then they have made a free choice.
In the 1990s,all the major news networks and the Associated Press formed a polling consortium called Voter News Service (VNS) to cut costs and eliminate the redundancy of reports from multiple sources. But then 2000 happened when VNS (and the networks soon afterward) loudly and proudly declared the race for Al Gore around 8 p.m., only to switch to George W. Bush at 2 a.m. and declared the race locked at "too close to call" two hours later. Whoops. Congressional legislation not required. National embarrassment was plenty enough.
A nasty and embarrassing computer glitch in 2002 killed the VNS consortium. It was shut down soon after and replaced by a different set of pollsters, with ironically more redundancy, that serve the new consortium called the National Election Pool. Almost immediately, in 2004, more consortium scandal when exit poll data was leaked online around midday on Election Day, prompting bloggers to declare John Kerry the presumptive winner. Congress was making noises again.
In 2006, the National Election Pool pollsters began quarantining representatives of the NEP to prevent such leaks from occurring. So far so good. NEP members are behaving themselves. Of course, non NEP members can conduct their own polling and report their own projections, but the NEP uses a carefully constructed and somewhat complex methodology to survey voters after the voting, including sampling voters during various periods of the day (certain demographic groups tend to vote at different times) and conducting telephone surveys of those who voted early or by absentee ballots. The NEP members are ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, and the Associated Press. The NEP uses the Associated Press to perform vote tabulations and contracted with Edison Research and Mitofsky International to make the projections and provide the exit poll analysis. Edison and Mitofsky has provided this data since 2004.
To avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a "Quarantine Room" at an undisclosed location in New York. All of the participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it is time for information to be released officially. Actual projections are made by "decision desks" at the networks, which consist of small groups of journalists and polling experts who use exit data and actual returns to decide when to announce winners. So even though all the networks have access to the same exit poll data, they often don't broadcast projections at the same time, because it can take a while to come up with their own projections.
During the primary season, the networks used exit poll data to slice up the electorate into various demographic groups, giving viewers proof, for example, of one candidate's strength over another among black voters or white college educated women, or one candidate's popularity among white redneck deplorables. These tidbits help fill airtime when networks have exit poll data, but can't release figures on who's winning until polls are closed in a given state. That's what it will be like on Election Day, in between the time the NEP representatives are released from quarantine and a winner emerges. We'll hear about how voters of this group think the country is headed in the right direction and another group think it's headed in the wrong direction. It will be presented as important stuff, too. But it's just tidbit fodder to kill time until the polls close, and for the network's poll nerd to get his screentime spaz on.
Except, there's already been so much early voting, and the various news organizations have commissioned or conducted their own exit polling already (or worse, reported party registration voting as somehow being an important indicator of how they voted), that by the time we get to Election Day half the country will have already voted and they've already broadcast the results of half the exit polling data, which may or may not already be having an effect on voter turnout and in how people will be voting on Election Day, because they will echo the "results of early voter exit polling" long before the polls close, and they'll justify it by saying, "Hey, this was from early voting, which happened ages ago."
It kind of diminishes the whole "Quarantine Room" effect, and the voluntary restriction on holding off releasing figures until the polls are closed in a given state. I mean, we already have headlines like Nevada early voting ends with big Democratic advantage, thanks in part to strong Latino numbers. You think that won't have an effect on Election Day in Nevada? It will, one way or another. It will either cause Hillary voters to stay home because they think they've already won, which can result in (what will be billed as a) Trump miracle comeback, or Trump voters will resign themselves to a loss and just stay home. Of course, that silly headline isn't even based on exit polling, it's based strictly on the number of registered Democrats and Republicans who voted, and it assumes every registered Democrat voted for Hillary and every Republican voted for Trump. If there was ever an election where party registration means less than normal, it's this one. But people see the headline, read maybe the first four paragraphs, and then move on. (Granted, it's not from a major mainstream media organization, it's from Twitter and Hot Air, so it's largely ingested in the echo chamber, but still. It could very well affect how those in that echo chamber act on Election Day, especially those in Nevada.
As more and more early exit polling gets reported and the Election Day results become less and less relevant, Congress will be closer and closer to making noise again.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, ultimately, it's up to the parties and/or candidates to get their voters to the polls - it's their responsibility- not the media's.
GOTV (get out the vote)
The media should report results of any exit polling they do in a way which is honest and accurate - but, ultimately, it's not their primary mandate to ensure that every possible voter for every possible candidate shows up at the polls ... by avoiding reporting data that might incline some to not bother to vote.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
GOTV (get out the vote)
The media should report results of any exit polling they do in a way which is honest and accurate - but, ultimately, it's not their primary mandate to ensure that every possible voter for every possible candidate shows up at the polls ... by avoiding reporting data that might incline some to not bother to vote.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Clearly, my plea to "keep that context in mind" went unheeded. It's not the press' mandate to ensure that anybody shows up at the polls. The mandate of the press is to witness the news and then faithfully report it, not to make the news or be a part of it. That's why we (probably) won't get any voting result projections on Election Day based on exit polls before the polls close in a given state. The Court made very clear that the state "has a compelling interest in protecting voters from confusion and undue influence,” and “in preserving the integrity of its election process. The press being honest and accurate can still, nevertheless, directly contravene the Court's opinion on that particular code of conduct, and it's something the press should avoid. This isn't a spectator sport where we can sit back and watch the teams score as it happens, it's an activity where we are active participants and that activity should be free of undue influence.
This thread was started on Sept 27 and today is Nov 6. This was timely because it was right after the conventions and people started paying attention even though the candidates had been decided for a while, so one might expect to start seeing some displays of candidate preference. Since then and to this day I've seen ONE Trump sign in our subdivision and none for Clinton - and we live in a large subdivision. It's also a bastion of conservative TN Republicans that will no doubt vote for Trump. The same is true for the rest of the area in East TN - no yard signs and hardly any bumper stickers for Trump. A lack of enthusiasm maybe? Nope - people don't want their houses and cars vandalized, or they may just be enthusiastically holding their noses and supporting Trump. Four years ago there were yard signs for both parties, also bumper stickers. But lack of enthusiasm isn't a factor because early voting turnout is way ahead of 2012, and it's not due to love of Hillary in this part of the state. Just because we don't see the yard signs doesn't mean the support isn't there. The key will be whether or not this trend is true in places like PA and FL. It will be interesting to see how accurate the polls turned out to be when late Tuesday night comes to pass.
In 2012 I noticed more Obama signs in my area and less Romney signs. More Trump signs and less Hillary this time, like 4-1. It's also showing up in the polls in my county as well.
The other day my sister asked me if I wanted a Trump sign. I said ok and she dropped it off. I put it on my front lawn. The next day I woke up to a flat tire. My first thought was someone slashed or let the air out of the tire. Turned out I must have rode over a sharp object, but my first thought was that I was vandalized. I haven't had a flat tire in a long while and thought it was too much of a coincidence that I had a flat tire right after I got a Trump sign.
The other day my sister asked me if I wanted a Trump sign. I said ok and she dropped it off. I put it on my front lawn. The next day I woke up to a flat tire. My first thought was someone slashed or let the air out of the tire. Turned out I must have rode over a sharp object, but my first thought was that I was vandalized. I haven't had a flat tire in a long while and thought it was too much of a coincidence that I had a flat tire right after I got a Trump sign.
Over the last 2-3 weeks I've had a backroads tour of Pennsylvania, and with the exception of Philly, the state is overwhelmingly for Trump. It's almost comical at how many Trump signs there are and how few Hillary signs there are. Even on the rural roads around Lancaster you see large Trump signs on Amish farmland.
I can't speak to Florida as I haven't been there recently, other than to say that my stepdad, a pinko commie liberal socialist who makes Bernie Sanders look more like Pat Buchanan, lives in The Villages, where it's about 70/30 Republican. They have strict rules in that community where there can be no signage, messages of flags of any kind (other than an American flag) on the lawns or in the windows of the homes. If you put up a Clinton sign you will will be reported by at least one of your neighbors (they have a lot of spare time on their hands) to the management office and will receive a letter from the developer letting you know that if the sign doesn't come down toot sweet then your neighbors have the right to sue you and recover damages under the lease agreement. If you put up a Trump sign, miraculously no one reports it to the management office, so no letter. Too funny.
The inhabitants of The Villages are all senior citizens (55 or older) so their political leanings are well baked, thus no matter how many signs you might put up, no one is likely to be swayed by them.
I can't speak to Florida as I haven't been there recently, other than to say that my stepdad, a pinko commie liberal socialist who makes Bernie Sanders look more like Pat Buchanan, lives in The Villages, where it's about 70/30 Republican. They have strict rules in that community where there can be no signage, messages of flags of any kind (other than an American flag) on the lawns or in the windows of the homes. If you put up a Clinton sign you will will be reported by at least one of your neighbors (they have a lot of spare time on their hands) to the management office and will receive a letter from the developer letting you know that if the sign doesn't come down toot sweet then your neighbors have the right to sue you and recover damages under the lease agreement. If you put up a Trump sign, miraculously no one reports it to the management office, so no letter. Too funny.
The inhabitants of The Villages are all senior citizens (55 or older) so their political leanings are well baked, thus no matter how many signs you might put up, no one is likely to be swayed by them.