Surveyed

[redbird]

I just had a nice chat with a man who called taking a political survey. He asked for the "male head of household," and when I explained that wasn't possible right now, for the "female head of household." So I answered a lot of questions about politics, including recent and upcoming elections. I told him flatly that some of the questions weren't meaningful, that some metaphors should be taken out and shot, and asked, given that we have absentee ballots, why he kept saying that "a lot of people were unable [sic] to vote in" specific recent elections. (I think, though, that they've been instructed not to suggest that people had chosen not to vote.)

A lot of the questions were of the form "Party X says Y about themselves. Does that make you much more likely, a somewhat more likely, or a little more likely to support them, or does it make no difference?" When he got to one about the Republicans opposing same-sex marriage and "abortion on demand" [not a phrase I'd heard in a while] he told me his form wouldn't enable him to put down that it made me less likely to support them, and tried again to get me to choose one of the options given. So I explained that I consider their positions un-American, and that it makes me less likely to support them, and that if his form won't handle that, put "refused to answer." Near the end, he listed slogans used by each party and, again, much more likely to support through no difference. On almost all of them, my answer was "that's a meaningless statement, so it makes no difference."

Another oddity was that, after saying he was going to list some "people and organizations" and ask my opinions of them, he asked about political parties, Senator Clinton, and then "gay marriage." My reaction was "that's not an organization," but given the available options, I said I strongly approved of it. In fact, I approve of same-sex marriage to the same extent, and with the same reservations, as I do of mixed-sex marriage, but I'm sure their forms and data-crunching aren't subtle enough to handle that.

Comments

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

asked, given that we have absentee ballots, why he kept saying that "a lot of people were unable [sic] to vote in" specific recent elections. (I think, though, that they've been instructed not to suggest that people had chosen not to vote.)

I think "unable to vote" might have referred to some of the mishegos in Ohio, in 2004, with people lining up at the polls and being turned away. Or the active campaigns to discourage people from getting absentee ballots, sometimes targetted by neighborhood. Or if "recent" refers to local elections, there are an awful lot of people displaced by last year's hurricaines who are still disenfranchised.

Not to mention the problem of people who have ever been in prison, or have similar names as those who have ever been in prison. That was much more talked about in 2000 than in "recent" elections, but I haven't actually seen evidence that the problem has been FIXED. You and I have uncommon names, and have been fortunate in our dealings with the authorities, so we're unlikely to stumble over the problem personally. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I don't know if the man reading the survey knew this background information and avoided telling it to you, so as not to bias your responses. He might have been a politically oblivious high school student, who barely remembers the 2000 election, just reading a script.

[redbird]

I think "unable to vote" might have referred to some of the mishegos in Ohio, in 2004, with people lining up at the polls and being turned away. Or the active campaigns to discourage people from getting absentee ballots, sometimes targetted by neighborhood. Or if "recent" refers to local elections, there are an awful lot of people displaced by last year's hurricaines who are still disenfranchised.

Those are good points; thanks, love.