Preelection Polling in the 1982 Illinois Gubernatorial Contest

All the polls in advance of the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election proved incorrect in their prediction of a substantial victory for James Thompson, the Republican. After examining some of the popular explanations for the "missed call," this paper shows that while the voters "preferred" Thompson, there was a very substantial increase in the number of straight party ballots cast for the Democrats, compared to 1978. This paper concludes that in those states where straight party vote is an option, the poll takers probe for the possibility of a party line vote. Information used in this paper to examine five hypotheses stems from a preelection poll of 1,200 Illinois voters. Richard Day is President of Richard Day Research, Inc. (RDR), a survey research firm based in Evanston, Illinois. Kurt Becker, formerly with RDR, is now a law student at the University of Michigan. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 48:606-614 ? 1984 by the Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 0033-362X/84/0048-606/$2.50 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.176 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:49:52 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms PREELECTION POLLING 607 This paper focuses on the Illinois gubernatorial election in 1982 and discusses five explanations of why the polls yielded errant projections. Support for one of these explanations provides an important methodological consideration for future survey research in other elections and in other states. Reported polling results for the 1982 election for governor of Illinois are reported in Table 1. Two firms undertook procedures to project the final outcome by assigning the undecided voters on the basis of demographic and partisan information (Table 2). There was no difference in projections between the Gallup survey and the RDR survey. The RDR survey also tested for variation between the 10/31 results and the 11/1 results and found no significant shifts over the two days before the election. First, a most basic criticism of polling needs to be addressed: faulty procedures. Errant information could stem from several sources: samples were too small or improperly drawn; interviewing was conducted at times of the day when certain types of people were more likely to be at home; random digit dialing was not employed in areas where there is a high concentration of unlisted numbers; callbacks were not made to contact those more difficult to reach (younger, higher income, more educated individuals). Such sources of error have been reviewed (Perry, 1979; Field, 1979) and are known. The Table 1. Polling Results for the 1982 Election for Governor of Illinois Dates Client/Firm Thompson Stevenson Undecided 10/22-24 Chicago Tribune/ Market Facts, Inc. 53 34 13 CBS Affiliate (WBBM-TV)/Market Shares 58 38 4 10/28-29 Chicago Sun-Times and NBC Affiliate (WMAQ-TV)/Gallup 55 40 5 10/3111/1 ABC Affiliate (WLS-TV)/Richard Day Research, Inc.a 55 38 7 11/2 Election day actual vote 50.07 49.93 a Of a sample size of 1,200, 780 were used for statewide purposes and 420 represented an oversample in Cook County. For Cook County, the appropriate sample size is 737. In every instance, weighting was by area and percentage of the vote in the 1978 election. There was an even distribution of males and females. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.176 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:49:52 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 608 RICHARD DAY AND KURT M. BECKER Table 2. Projections of Final Voting Outcome Dates Firm Thompson Stevenson (N) 10/28-29 Gallup 58 42 (2,562) 10/31Richard Day 11/1 Research, Inc. 58 42 (770) need in preelection polling to screen properly for those registered voters who are likely to turn out has also been clearly identified (Perry, 1973; Traugott and Tucker, 1982). The survey by RDR and surveys by the Gallup Organization addressed such sources of error.' The authors have no knowledge of methods used by other firms. However, as Kohut comments, "When a half-dozen polls come up with the same erroneous answer, the chances are that there is some systematic factor that transcends traditional polling methodology" (Kohut, 1983).