Evening star., 1945-01-09
Letters to The Star
MIR. Anderson Replies to Critic
OF Investigation of Polls

IN n TN i' q zig
letter is printed below.
To the Editor OF The Star:
Your paper on January 8 carried q
column by David Lawrence headed:
constitutional Point Seen In Gallup
Quiz Congress Right to Probe Opinion
Questioned by Observer"
I feel the article incorrectly states
the situation insofar as the interest and
activities Of the. House Committee to
Investigate Campaign Expenditures was
concerned, and as chairman Of that
committee feel should comment on
what Mr.. Lawrence has written. He
suggests that there passed almost un-
noticed the constitutional encroachment
which such step could have meant II
1t had not been for the willingness Of
DR.. George Gallup to testify voluntar-
ily." That is the whole point DR.. CAL
lup was testifying voluntarily and
stressed that fact steadily.
As to the right of our committee to
check DR.. Gallup If we wished and II
he had been unwilling (Which he was
noD to reveal his statistical records,
would remind you that the House Reso-
luton creating the committee author
lied the committee to investigate not
only expenditures of candidates but "the
use OF any other means or influence un-
cluding the promise or use of patronage
Tor the purpose Of aiding or influencing
the nomination or election Of any such
candidates" There were many people
who felt that the Gallup Poll had been
used In an attempt to influence both
the 1910 and the 1914 elections and we
did, therefore, have the authority under
the resolution to investigate that charge.
Why did people think that the GALLUP
Poll might have been used for the pur-
pose "of influencing the election" of
presidential candidates In 1910 and
1874? Possibly because the Gallup Poll
IN the Roosevelt -Wilkie election showed
on October 6 Roosevelt having So per
cent Of the Nationwide popular vote.
The release Of October 18 brought this
hgure to SIS per cent and the release of
October 27 brought 1t to 54A per cent.
On October 80 the Gallup Poll reported
~-~~N SAAS ~N~eASAA04 percentage VI tOLeS
was Roosevelt, So per cent; Willkie, At
per cent and in the final release of No
vember 3, the figure showed Roosevelt.
So per cent; Willkie, 48 per cent. The
poll had detected, it felt. Willkie trend
and its final figure confirmed that trend.
Yet, it had had figures which were
right. For example, the October 6 re-
lease gave AZ States with 449 electoral
votes to Roosevelt and 6 States with 50
electoral votes to Willkie, whereas, the
election gave Roosevelt 80 States and
Willkie 10 States but with the precise
number Of electoral votes predicted
October 6. What happened? I could
quote from DR.. Gallup's letter to the
New York Times of Monday, November
rs, 1910, in which he said: The Willkie
trend continued until the Roosevelt
figure had come down to So per cent.
However, the final ballot which the in
stitute received on Saturday before
the election from its interviewing staff,
using regular and normal procedures.
showed an upturn for Roosevelt to SAG
per cent
Then what? That Roosevelt upturn
did not check with the headlined Will
kie trend. 1t indicated a sweeping
Democratic victory and so the Gallup
Poll experimental with Nationwide
Geographic poll on Sunday and released
its results at 500 pm. Sunday night
fixing the figure at So per cent for
Roosevelt, figure which could have
elected Mr.. Willkie because a Demo-
cratic candidate, due to the preponder-
antly heavy vote in Southern States.
needs more than So per cent of the
popular vote to be safe.
Now we come to 1914. In not a single
big State was the Dewey strength over
estimated. He got the maximum and in
only few States, which were definitely
Democratic. was the Roosevelt strength
overestimated.
In the case of New York State, the
Gallup Poll had pinpoint survey made
in eight precincts, which in combination
normally expressed the voting trend Of
the State. That pinpoint survey gave
Roosevelt SIS per cent OF the popular
vote-exactly what he received on elec-
ton day. The Gallup Poll took that fig
ure and used it in computing national
average of SIS per cent and then said
that New York usually ran a couple of
points below the national average, so 1t
printed in its final release the figure
Of 49.5 per cent for New York State. MY
question to DR. Gallup was and is. "Why
didn't you stick by your own survey?
II you didn't trust it in New York State
why would you trust it as guide for
national average?"
Personally, I feel that scientific
sampling Of public opinion could serve
very useful purpose in a democracy
and that the American Institute of
Public Opinion has been and is devel-
oping these scientific methods which
will produce in time far better polling
practice than we now know. Our COM
mittee was not trying to persecute DR..
Gallup or his organization. He was,
believe, the only witness appearing be-
fore the committee who was not sworn,
and by that action we tried to indicate
that we did not place him in the same
category as political organizations
which we were examining. Furthermore,
DR.. Gallup himself has this to say in q
magazine article: "We have urged
regular congressional audit of polls.
In addition to this we here and now
suggest that the American Statistical