portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

alternative media | government | media criticism oregon elections 2004

I just got polled - they refused to record my choice for Nader

I just got polled on the phone. Questions like how much you think Bush and Kerry are "tough enough to fight terrorism". They asked if I'd vote for Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, Cobb or undecided. I said I'd write in Nader. They insisted I choose one of the above or be excluded from the poll. They then promised I'd get to choose Nader in a later question if I chose undecided, but that question never came.
The poll was conducted by "Pacific Crest Research" according to the poll-taker. But I can't find any such entity on the web that would be doing polls. They asked about Measure 36 but mentioned no other ballot initiative. I wonder if it was a push poll of some kind, trying to pressure Nader voters to choose someone else, or would-be Nader voters to believe that there is no official write-in campaign for Nader, which of course there is.

When I agreed to say "undecided" ONLY after he promised I would get to have my preference for Nader registered in the poll in a later question, he then asked if I was leaning Bush or Kerry, and after threatening to exclude me from the poll because I insisted that none of the options was accurate at all, and refusing to let me just skip the question, and saying there was no "other" option, he then said, "so did you say you're leaning Badnarik"? I said I'm voting for Nader and that there's an active write-in campaign for Nader and he should expect to find other voters like me responding in this way.

Before we got to the presidential choice question, he first asked me to rate Edwards, Cheney, Bush and Kerry on a series of items, which I answered absolute negative to except for one item for Edwards. He then asked me three times if he heard me right when I gave all "very unfavorable" to Kerry, and I spelled it out for him, all "very unfavorable" for all but that one item for Edwards. It was like pulling teeth just making sure he recorded my choices correctly.

At first I thought they were excluding Nader because he's not on the ballot in Oregon, and it was obviously an Oregon poll because of the Measure 36 question. But then I realized that they had also excluded Peroutka of the Constitution Party, who IS on the ballot in Oregon. So what gives? What criteria were they using for excluding candidates from their poll? Not percentages -- Nader is still polling (in other polls that don't refuse to accept Nader votes) higher than Cobb and Badnarik. Maybe they're trying to change that.

At the end he refused to tell me where the poll would be published, or if it would be published at all.

He also said he couldn't skip over the Presidential choice question and then come back to it later because of the computer. But later on another question when I changed my mind, he let me go back and change it! There was nothing in the poll that could possibly get skewed if the choice for President question were to be answered after the later questions, so he was just lying. He lied that I would get to choose Nader in a later question, and he lied that he couldn't skip the question and come back to it later.

But what's most disturbing about it is that, at the end, when I asked him what happened to the question where I would get to choose Nader, he said, "That's all the computer gave me this time." So are they asking questions that include Nader to some voters, but refusing to accept Nader choices on others? Is this a way for them to depress the results for Nader, by accepting only a fraction of respondents who actually want to choose Nader?
Interesting 26.Oct.2004 23:20

George Bender

But really doesn't matter. I've turned off the ringer on my phone and am letting the machine take the messages. I'm not going to waste any of my time talking to our enemies. All of us outside the two-party dictatorship have to realize that we're on our own. Very few people with access to the public mind, such as it is, are going to do us any favors. After the election Nader supporters need to start our own party in Oregon, so they can't shut us out next time. We can't just sit and wait for four years. I know everyone is too exhausted right now to think about that. Me too.


Very interesting... 26.Oct.2004 23:31

Tony Blair's dog

Thank you for the information polled out.

I too got polled tonight 27.Oct.2004 01:29

Merlin

and I didn't like the way the questions were posed. I felt they were "agenda" driven and once I
came to that conclusion, I refused to cooperate any further. Fuck 'em, if they're not going to
be honest. Fuck 'em ALL!

this should be linked to other election fraud articles 27.Oct.2004 06:04

network

We can expect all sorts of dirty tactics as in elections in any "rogue state".

Whether this really qualifies as fraud or not is unclear, but you should consider adding it to the wikipedia article

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004

probably in a new section

==Fraud allegations==

It could be a good way to collect together claims of fraud and be sure to have very vigorous editing and correction by the wikipedia community.


Sounds suspicious 27.Oct.2004 07:54

also polled

A while back I also had a telephone call that was supposedly a poll and they asked so many personal and directed questions that I finally protested and hung up. A few months later I saw hearings in congress on the very issues I was questioned on and in the hearings the lobbyists were using the the information gleaned from their "poll" to push for an outcome they wanted. The "poll" was really a marketing tool to find out what people like me thought of their competition so they could undo them politically.
Maybe they are testing the strengths of Nadar supporters for a similar marketing tool.

Fraud? 27.Oct.2004 09:31

blah

Fraud? It's a private company doing a poll for a particular political end. That's not fraud, it's spin. There aren't any "regulations" on who can ask what kind of questions and what kind of answers they have to accept. They can do anything they want to. If it were a public body doing the poll, then you might have the "right" to an expectation for a fair and inclusive process...but it's private, they're under no obligation to offer you any choices. The most this means is that we shouldn't trust polls, and we already know that...

Excluded? 27.Oct.2004 12:18

Bison Boy

I don't regard being excluded from a poll as a threat... seems like an opportunity to me!

Don't worry about it. A poll means nothing.

re: pacific crest research 27.Oct.2004 12:38

clamydia

 http://www.pacific-crest.com/about.aspx

Fuck phone polls. I'd be like, "I'm voting for Fuckface McGee, don't fuckin call my house again!" *click*

Were they paying you for the information they were going to turn around and make thousands of dollars with? NO. So fuck 'em.