Poll results are in: We’ll vote on anything BY PETER FUNT Special to The Washington Post Peter Funt hosts the television show “Candid Camera.”
What’s your vote? Is America’s newfangled fascination with being polled, minute by minute, on every imaginable topic, reflective of (a) a more informed electorate, (b) renewed responsibility among media or (c) none of the above? Here’s a vote for (c). Recently, NBC’s “Today” show devoted an entire week to electing “America’s Best Sandwich.” The candidates were New Orlean’s muffuletta, a New York City pastrami, a California lobster roll, a Philly cheesesteak and a Chicago tripledecker. VOTING ON EVERYTHING Remarkably, after watching close-ups of the “Today” hosts wolfing down sandwiches for fi ve straight days, tens of thousands of Americans felt qualified to vote without ever having tasted a morsel themselves. They elected the cheesesteak. Meanwhile, 50,000-plus were weighing in on CNN.com’s question: “Are you powerless against snacks?” On the same page, CNN sought votes on whether Britney Spears was “sabotaging herself.” AOL invited click-happy subscribers to vote on the controversial question: “Do you like red lipstick?” To some extent the deluge of daily voting is merely an inexpensive use of technology to fill overabundant media time. Yet America’s fascination with voting does not seem to translate into increased participation in government elections. Turnout in presidential elections has held steady at roughly 50 percent of the voting-age population for the past 75 years. The United States placed 139th among 172 nations whose voting records were measured by Sweden’s International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Italy, at 92 percent turnout, ranked highest. Clearly there is a difference between electing a president and voting, as MSNBC viewers once did, on the question, “Should Michael Jackson’s kids be taken away from him?” Or casting a ballot in the infamous Fox News poll, “Would you personally kill Osama bin Laden?” Expert pollsters — from the Gallup Organization to those who regularly conduct the Washington Post-ABC News poll — point out that most quickie Internet voting is unscientific and unreliable. But that doesn’t seem to stop the major networks from spewing forth a daily dose of polling. The inevitable result is a trivialization of all elections. AFFECTING PERCEPTIONS Of greater concern is that many polls, reckless by virtue of asking questions that cannot be reasonably answered, create a public record that, even if proved wrong, affects public perception. For example, many news organizations rushed to ask, “Do you think O.J. Simpson is guilty?” after his recent arrest in Las Vegas. Not surprisingly, the majority believed Simpson was guilty, even though the charges had not been formally outlined, let alone tested in court. The most robust example of a nation eager to be counted is provided by the television series “American Idol,” which last season claimed to have registered some 580 million votes by phone and text message to elect a winning performer. In contrast, about 122 million votes were cast in the 2004 presidential election. It’s clear why marketers and politicians are examining new polling options. CONVENIENCE VS. EFFORT By 2012 or 2016 there could be a serious movement to have voting in presidential elections conducted via the Internet. This will raise questions about the nature of democracy. On the one hand, Americans have a constitutional right to vote, and the specter of citizens standing for hours in the rain or being harassed at the polls understandably prompts efforts to find more user-friendly voting methods. On the other hand, the electoral process benefits from some degree of effort by voters — whether that involves taking time to study the issues or hiking to a polling place. So, is the torrent of polling in America (a) evidence of a more involved citizenry, (b) a glimpse at the future of U.S. politics or (c) proof that Americans, with enough mouse clicks, might someday put a cheesesteak in the White House?
The most robust example of a nation eager to be counted is provided by the television series “American Idol,” which last season claimed to have registered some 580 million votes by phone and text message to elect a winning performer. In contrast, about 122 million votes were cast in the 2004 presidential election. It’s clear why marketers and politicians are examining new polling options.
Somebody obviously voted twice...580 million people voted for the American Idol in 2006. Wasn't it just this year that the population of the U.S. hit 300 million? That's almost 2 votes per person...and I KNOW that nobody in MY house voted. But hey, they want to pay the fee to American Idol to make the producers richer and they want to pay extra money to their carriers for their phone bills, fine, go for it.
Just don't complain to me when you're getting taxed out of your houses and you have to turn off your home phone because you can't afford your cell phone bill.
1/3 - 1/2 of the people vote in the presidential election, everybody votes twice in the American Idol presidential election.
When people vote for an American Idol, they feel empowered to know that they are making a difference in the outcome. And they can relate to the American Idol.
When people vote in a political election, some feel their vote really doesn't make a difference. And most people can't relate to a politician.
True, but at the same time, it is your right and responsibility to go out to the polls.
Unless people WANT to live under someone like Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-Tung, or even Adolph Hitler, they need to get out and voice their opinion. Whether that's at a town board meeting, County Legislature meeting, or going to the polls, they need to let their voice heard. Sitting in your house / backyard / car and complaining does nothing. It needs to be "taken to the streets."
One of my kids answered the phone last night and I was sitting no more than 10 feet away. They said (that's right, my kids can even tell who the pollsters are now) that it was a poll and I told them to tell the caller that I wasn't available. Some would say that shows I'm lazy. I say it shows that I can't be bothered with these things.
Logged
