Tweet
Marijuana Plant via ilmungo on Flickr
Yes on Proposition 19 has just released a set of internal numbers for polling they conducted last week, which compared responses given to live interviewers versus automated telephone polling. Interestingly, there is a huge divide between the level of support expressed for Prop 19 with the two methodologies. They find that if an individual is responding only to a computer program, they are much more likely to express support for Prop 19.
Yes on Prop 19 (10/13-14)
Live interviews (with leaners):
Yes 41
No 46
Und/DK/Ref 14
Automatic interview:
Yes 56
No 41
Und/DK/Ref 4
I have previously speculated that Prop 19 might be do better in polls conducted without live interviewers. There is still a stigma in many communities attached to marijuana use which could make some voters embarrassed to tell a stranger over the phone they plan to vote for legalization.
PPP and SurveyUSA ,which use automatic interviews, have consistently shown greater support for the initiative. We have seen recently that SurveyUSA, using mostly automated interviews, found the measure winning 48-44 while PPIC, using live interviews, had it losing 44-49.
This internal polling from the campaign confirms not only that interviewees seem to be lying to live pollsters, but also that this effect is quite pronounced among certain groups — particularly young voters. In live interviews, voters under 30 support the measure only 49-37. But in the automatic interviews, young voters support Prop 19 by an enormous 73-22 margin.
In general, ballot measures tend to be very difficult to poll. The social and legal issues associated with marijuana use makes things even more complicated. The ability to do a straight-up comparison of the results of automated versus live interview polling helps explain some of the wild discrepancies we’ve been seeing in Prop 19 polling of late. The results provide very positive news for supporters of the measure, and if they are correct, Prop 19 will likely become law.
Yet the results also a reminder that we should treat all polling on this measure with a healthy dose of skepticism, given how hard it appears to be to get accurate information on how people truly intend to vote come election day.
28 Comments
Looks like Yes on Prop 19 might experiencing a variation of the “Bradley Effect”
Hadn’t thought about that. You’re probably right.
Live pollsters were instructed to record “…uh…what was the question again?” and uncontrolled giggling as “strongly opposed”.
Poll me. I already voted for it.
In 1986, a proposal to repeal the mandatory seat belt law was on the Massachusetts ballot. Polls showed repeal losing, but the final result was Yes 53, No 47. A colleague at one of the auto industry trade associations, which opposed repeal, said that many voters gave the “politically correct” answer to pollsters but voted the other way after closing the curtain in the voting booth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1349336
Keep making calls to GOTV.
And possibly mention the California Attorney General race – Kamala Harris will support medical users, unlike her opponent who has been a bête noire against LA county dispensaries as DA.
I do phone bank calling for the Yes on 19 campaign and find response increasingly Yes and decreasingly paranoid to discuss politics over the phone.
My choice is usually Orange County, which is so far away from Oakland psychologically. The difference there recently has been dramatic.
But of course, everything you notice directly is anecdotal.
That’s fascinating information, Jon. Great analysis here. Who would have thought the stigma would be so drastic it would translate into a 15 point swing?
Polling results this year are insane.
It may have the very good effect of losing Nate Silver his NYT gig, though.
I suspect it are probably seeing some noise there. I think the likely effect is there but not that large
I worry about the elections being stolen because of inaccurate polls.
Silver starts with the assumption that polls are basically valid, and tries various statistical treatments to filter out noise.
This year, more so than most years, his basic assumption is flawed. Frankly, I don’t think any of the polls are worth a darn. And the averages of worthless data are also worthless.
If you look at polls of registered voters, pollsters get sane results. But the likely voter models, where they have been revealed, are just crazy. And all the pollsters seem to be using similar absurd models.
My unsupported opinion is that this is going to turn out to be a perfectly normal mid-term election, with the party in power losing a few seats in each house and no change in control. The big story in the MSM will be how the electorate changed overnight, and the right wing will use this as evidence of massive voter fraud.
That is good news.
New vistas in state government budget resolution: Legalized gambling, speed cameras and pot… ;^)
– Balkingpoints / www
Hope it’s true! I called people for Yeson19 yesterday, and indeed, folks were hesitant to comment, then often giggled and said they were yes voters. So it *could* just be true …
I thought the LA Times story about how badly 19 was doing int polls smelled funny.
Automated telephone polling? I have been living for some sixty eight years, and I have yet to be polled about anything.
Already voted by mail: Yes on 19, and for Brown and Boxer.
The great thing about our secret ballot, is its being “secret,” although voting absentee my name and address are directly connected with my vote…
I’d have to agree. There are separate samples for the automated versus live results, with a sample of 700+ with a margin of error of I’m assuming 3%+. Nevertheless, the increase from “don’t know/no response” from 4% to 14% is quite telling.
I imagine that most everyone inclined to vote “yes” – ‘shamefully’ – would respond “not sure” or “no position” to the live operator but truthfully to the machine. So even if we’re not looking at 15 points as stigma, that 10% differential on “don’t know” live vs. automated, compared to the final topline numbers, seems telling.
Certainly there’s always noise between two samples, but 15% is unlikely. But the immaculate decrease of 10% in “don’t know” to people expressing preference seems even more telling. That gives a good indication, with the topline number, that something like 10% of voters are willing to vote for legalization without necessarily admitting it.
From this survey, and knowledge of the libertarian leanings of California, I still feel pretty confident of the pot initiatives chances in California. The state that led the way in no-fault divorce is likely to lead the way in marijuana legalization. We’ll see, but now it’s more clear why some polls show results so very different from recent negative polling on Prop 19.
I don’t think anyone caught a major reason for the differential: fear.
I’ve watched the cops tear apart a car, (carpets, seats, dash, etc) or literally close the pot dog in a car trying to find a pot seed to bust someone.
It wouldn’t be too paranoid to suspect that the survey was a police fishing expedition. I would never admit to supporting pot in any manner to a stranger on the phone. Not her in the third world (fla).
Assuming this law passes, isn’t California putting its citizen’s in danger of federal prosecution. Pres. Obama has basically directed the DEA to look the other way if it doesn’t violate state law. The next President may reverse that decision. The regulation and tax aspects will create a paper trail on people that have complied with state law. Drug license applications, pot tax returns, etc. The Feds could subpoena those records, and then start rounding people up and the State of California would have made their case for them.
If you really believe Republicans are out to suppress voters and disenfranchise people, this seems like a great way to prevent a large group of likely democrat voters out of elections.
DISCLAIMER: I don’t smoke pot. I haven’t touched the stuff since my nineteenth birthday – August 16, 1977 – which, coincidentally, was the day that Elvis Presley died. I always tell people that Elvis and I quit drugs at the very same time, the only difference being that I did so voluntarily.
Having said that, let me say this:
Nearly three-quarters-of-a-century after it was made illegal; half-a-century after it was proven to be practically harmless – why is it still a crime to possess and smoke marijuana?
Here is a list of ten famous people – heavy smokers all – who died as a result of nicotine abuse:
Humphrey Bogart
Edward R. Murrow
Nat King Cole
George Harrison
John Huston
Noel Coward
Betty Grable
Walt Disney
Gary Cooper
Peter Jennings
Here is another list. Ten famous people who died from alcoholism:
Tennessee Williams
Jack Kerouac
Truman Capote
Lorenz Hart
Veronica Lake
Bix Beiderbecke
Montgomery Clift
Dylan Thomas
John Barrymore
Errol Flynn
Now I’m going to ask you to name for me one celebrity who has died from too much grass.
Go on, I’m waiting…..
You couldn’t do it, could you? No, neither could I. Not only have I never heard of anyone dying in that matter, I am not aware of it happening in all recorded human history! Why, in 2010, are we still having this stupid conversation?
Is it a “gateway drug” as they never tire of reminding us? Yeah, it probably is. But so is Pabst Blue Ribbon. Let’s get a grip here.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
It is no different than the current medical marijuana set up. It is equally a violation of federal law
Marijuana prohibition has been a tool for the oppression of the working class in general and young black men in particular, for as long as most Americans can remember. Lying about pot use is the American way. You have to piss in a jar to get a job in fast food. Why?
There are no reliable numbers on pot use and polling on legalization is a waste of time and money. I expect prop 19 will pass but it will still be a federal offense to possess marijuana. I seriously doubt that the police state will give up it’s lucrative war on drugs just because the people want to be free.
Proposition 19 is a scam designed by a couple of rich businessmen in Oakland to make themselves more rich. It isn’t even a real ‘people’s initiative’, but a sad example of how money can be used to buy legislation; a misuse of the Initiative process.
Personally, I favor legalization. But when you look at the dark underside of Proposition 19, you’ll see that it is not only bad for the state’s economy but also for individual marijuana users.
An excellent website that explains what’s wrong with Prop 19 and where it came from is http://no-on19.com. They’re a group of pot users and even they don’t want 19.
Also, as of Oct 1, 2010, possessing an ounce of pot in California has ALREADY been decriminalized (no criminal charges, record or court). So who needs 19 anyway ? Other than big companies.
You can wave an ounce in the face of a cop and there’s nothing they can do about it, except maybe write you a ticket, waahhh.
Like completely fabricated? They are not on our side.
Maybe people who don’t buy the BS that “de-crimainalizaiton” is such a good thing. Most people would see the de-crim move as a desperate attempt to co-opt things and then if successful, turn around and re-crim it in the future. As has happened to other states who made it a “tokin’ ticket’ back in the ’70s.
You are wrong. It is not a scam from a couple of guys in Oakland.
I’m a Girl Scout Leader with a very good education in things like macroeconomics, the food and drug industry, politics and computer programming.
It wasn’t their idea, it was mine, and it took me years to talk them into it. I resent you mischaracterizing the FACTS about me and prop 19. It may be bankrolled by them, but it reflects MY ideas.
I’m a Girl Scout Leader with a very good education in things like macroeconomics, the food and drug industry, politics and computer programming.
Ahh, now its making sense why those Thin Mint cookies are so damn good.
:o) I kid I kid.
Bear in mind, that the federal law that makes marijuana illegal, perhaps uniquely for a criminal statute, grants legalization discretion to both the Attorney General and the Sec. of Health & Human Services (and by extension, their boss. Like Article II says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”). If the President ordered his cabinet officers to decontrol marijuana, each state would then be free to set whatever state marijuana policy they wish. I’m sure Obama will get on that right after he abolishes DADT. :o)
The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21, sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule cannabis. However, the Controlled Substances Act gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as successor agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, great power over rescheduling decisions.
After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary “a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance.” The Secretary’s findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA. The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: “[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 811b.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act