Pollution - corrupt practices during elections

In the closing weeks of the 1972 presidential election, I was a witness to a bizarre attempt by the Nixon campaign to pressure the Harris Poll, in order to influence our published numbers. Chuck Colson, one of the Nixon aides who later served time in prison because of Watergate, called to tell us that the peace negotiations with North Vietnam were at a very critical stage. The North Vietnamese, he assured us, were following the polls very closely. If they saw Nixon's lead slipping, they would probably wait on the possibility of a McGovern victory. If Nixon maintained his big lead, there was a good chance they would agree to peace terms with Nixon before the election. Tough pressure on a pollster. Fortunately, Nixon's lead did hold up, so we didn't have to feel guilty for his failure to get a peace treaty before the election.

Unfortunately, attempts to manipulate and corrupt the polls are now a serious worldwide phenomenon. The spread of democracy and free elections around the world has brought to power a new generation of political leaders who are learning a painful truth: What democracy giveth it can also take away. Those who win by the ballot box can also lose by it, and freely elected governments are often defeated in the next free election. Because of this, some of them are tempted to tilt the electoral playing field, to manipulate the press, to make elections less free and fair, and, on occasion, to stuff ballot boxes and steal elections.

However, it is harder for incumbents to steal elections if there are honest, accurate, and publicly reported pre-election opinion polls and exit polls that show someone else to be well ahead. One surprising and alarming new trend is that in many countries, governments, politicians, business interests, and even the media are using their power to manipulate and suppress the publication of honest opinion polls. To their surprise, many pollsters find themselves in the unexpected role of champions of civil rights and bastions of democracy. This also puts honest pollsters at great risk from those who want to corrupt the political process. Those who play along get rich; those who don't may get badly hurt. The pressures they face make Richard Nixon's earlier attempts at control look like softball.

As an example, consider Mexico. On a recent visit there, I discussed this problem with several potential presidential candidates, senior members of the three main political parties, a senator, two governors, pollsters, and two very influential journalists. Most confirmed, and none denied, that all of the following have occurred within the last year:

* The media quoted poll results that were wildly inaccurate, either because the numbers were changed or because the polls had never actually been conducted. Some poll clients are willing to pay handsomely for phony polls.

* Honest, independent poll findings were suppressed by the media because they displeased the powerful.

* Polling firms who did not provide their clients with poll numbers they liked (and who were unwilling to change real numbers to fictional ones) were sometimes not paid.

* Contracts for multiple polls - for both the media and politicians - with honest polling firms were canceled because the clients did not like the numbers shown in the early polls and the polling firms would not change them.

* Some courageous media executives suffered (for example, one lost his job) because they had published honest polls.

This is not just hearsay; I have seen some of the canceled contracts and the polls that were suppressed. Nor are these attempts to mislead the public with phony polls and the censorship of honest ones unique to Mexico - I have heard similar reports from many other countries, most recently from sources I trust in Taiwan, the Philippines, and Ecuador.

In fairness I should note that similar abuses have occurred in Western countries in the recent past. In a famous case in the 1970s, a French cabinet minister persuaded a leading French polling finn to reduce the number of people who were reported to be hostile to immigrants.

In Britain in the early 1970s, Labour leader Harold Wilson was guilty of a mean-spirited intervention that affected me personally. My firm, which I had recently sold to Louis Harris and Associates, had launched what I believe was the first regular poll jointly sponsored by a television channel and a newspaper (the CBS/New York Times poll followed later). Our ITN/Times (of London) poll was a great success; both our clients were delighted with it. But Harold Wilson was furious. How dare ITN, the news channel he trusted much more than the BBC, get into bed with the Times (then edited by William Rees-Mogg, whose editorials encouraged the soon-to-follow departure of Roy Jenkins and the "Gang of Four" from Labour)! Wilson sent Labour MP Gerald Kaufman to persuade the ITN management to end the affair; they refused. Wilson then nobbled two ITN board members who persuaded the board to vote to end it. As a result, a high quality, well-regarded - and truly independent - regular poll bit the dust.

After the 1972 election, President Nixon asked two of his top aides to "influence" the Gallup and Harris Polls, particularly their data on Vietnam and Watergate. Fortunately, there is no evidence that Nixon succeeded. Both polls showed the public swinging strongly against Nixon on both issues, and these polls may well have had some influence on critical congressional votes against him.

In 1994, Frank Luntz, a well-known Republican consultant, persuaded the American media to run stories saying that his polls found 60 percent of the public supporting every element of the Contract with America. Last June, long after the election, it emerged that there were no such polls, and Luntz was formally censored by the American Association of Public Opinion Research. This rebuke will probably have no impact on him or the use of his services by political candidates.

In the United States, Canada, and Europe, there is less need for concern about the manipulation of election-related polls than there is in the case of new democracies. But there should be much concern about the increasing use of "advocacy polls" in the West. Trade associations, special interests, lobbying groups, and even individual companies frequently commission polls designed not to inform but to persuade. The questions are often tailored to produce the answers clients want, and the replies are cherry-picked with only the most supportive data being released.

For those who consider opinion polls to be a disagreeable newcomer to the political process, who believe they have a malign effect, or who dismiss them as frivolous or insignificant, all this may be treated as of no consequence. But the truth is that polls now play an important part in the political process - otherwise people would not try to manipulate them. Contrary to much popular belief, there is firm evidence that polls do not cause a bandwagon effect, with voters rushing to support the front-runner. But they do influence the political agenda, the financial support candidates can amass, the media coverage of issues and candidates, and votes in the relevant legislature. A president or prime minister with high poll ratings can influence the legislature much more readily than one with low ratings. Members of Congress are avid poll readers. Indeed, a worldwide review suggests that the frequent publication of independent polls, not controlled or influenced by the government or powerful interests, makes a valuable contribution to the democratic process. Where corrupt polls mislead, good independent polls inform.

It is no surprise, then, that military dictatorships, communist governments, and other authoritarian regimes have never allowed free independent political polls in their countries. The truth would hurt them. Most real democracies allow opinion polls complete freedom (although, to their shame, thirty countries, including France and Italy, have banned their publication in the closing weeks or days of electoral campaigns). As for countries that are becoming more democratic, such as Mexico, the main defense against the corruption of opinion polling lies with the media. If local media can expose abuses, they can sharply reduce them. And if the media in such countries are themselves subject to intimidation, the international media, particularly those of the United States, can exert considerable influence. Most governments and politicians care about how the international media portray them. They want to be viewed as true democrats, not as corrupt officials clinging to power through manipulation and fraud. Local leaders and the media will repeat reports from leading U.S. and European newspapers. The same dynamic even works for fully fledged democracies. It was, for example, a British, not a French, paper that exposed the above-mentioned manipulation of the polls in France.

One thing is certain: If the media do not report the manipulation of the polls things will get worse. And, sadly, the local media in many newly democratic countries will be too timid to report such manipulation unless the American media and international media make it an issue first.

Humphrey Taylor is chairman and CEO of Louis Harris and Associates.

COPYRIGHT 1998 The National Interest, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group