Getting Out of the Polling Box

Polling often asks questions from within a particular framework. When we are out-of-their-box of the framework that appears to be biasing the questions, we may uncomfortable with many of the responses. The polling programs sometimes won't allow an omission or "no response"; a choice must be made among unsatisfactory responses. The comment box provides a way out the biasing framework with the obvious disadvantage that the report of the polling results may not include the comments.

None-the-less, here is how I responded to the local Metro OptIn survey:

1st Page—Green Jobs versus Growth

Do you agree or disagree that governments in Oregon should pursue policies that specifically promote "green jobs"?

Select one

Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know

How much more per bill would you be willing to pay so that your household's primary source of energy is from renewables?

Select one

$0
Less than $5
$5-$10
$11-15
$16-$20
$21-30
$31-$40
$41-$50
More than $50
Don't know

Some people want to emphasize economic growth to assure job opportunities for our children. Others say that limits should be placed on economic growth to preserve the environment for our children. Which way do you feel?

Select one in each row

Economic Growth for Future Jobs			Both Equal	Limits on Growth to Preserve Environment
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Don't know

This poll presents an obstacle if the intent is to allow involvement of all citizens. It is difficult to "opt in" to public discussion when the poll excludes certain frameworks such as libertarian responses. Polls are single answer responses not designed to reveal people's reasoning or factual basis, and much of the polling questions seem to reflect a pro-government framework sometimes to the extent of excluding any libertarian response.

What seems to indicate a pro-government bias is that the question responses are limited too much, mostly by presuming government must be involved. The responses seems to ask only questions of which issues and to what extent government should get involved. Obviously if a teacher takes the class out to the playground and asks whether the students want to play basketball or football or some other game or even what rules they might like to use, the questions don't concern whether it is a proper role for the teacher to forcing all students into a group game. The same is true for government; by presuming a democratic process regarding an issue and polling citizens, the fundamental problem of whether the issue is a proper function government is not addressed. This democratic process that forces citizens into collective decision-making produces a ratchet effect of government involvement. By avoiding the underlying problem of the proper function of government, this process cannot move us towards wise public policy, only towards more government planning and control.

For example, no matter how your question of jobs versus environment is answered, it requires the assumption that government needs this information so it can emphasize one or the other. There is no hint of the choice between using government to solve "our" problems and allowing the natural, constructive activities of citizens to solve problems. It may be that the absence of this third choice—that of allowing the constructive activities of free citizens to solve problems—is omitted either because it simply seems unworkable, or impractical, or perhaps that such a small minority holds the opinion that it isn't worth considering. But wise policy isn't majority opinion; it more likely the more in-depth and more intelligent understanding that runs counter to popular opinion. Popular opinion gives political cover but it doesn't provide wisdom; in fact it can, history shows us, be quite destructive. To rise above an ideological assertion requires careful research and explanation of the constructive or destructive powers of either government activity or citizens' free activity; only by careful scientific research and the most advanced theory of government can we know that government actions will first do no harm. It appears the general finding of comparative research between government methods and the free activity of free minds and free markets seems to quite clearly demonstrate that centralized government planning and regulation regularly leads to destructive results while free activity tends to produce the constructive advancements of the social good and welfare of a society.

Wealth and well being, environmental protection, efficient use of resources, social harmony, human rights, all are properties of free societies, not government controlled societies. Demonstrating the wisdom of turning the problem solving for an issue over to government requires a careful, deep scientific study of the functioning of government versus the functioning of citizens' free activity. But in that case, such wisdom grounded in scientific research is a bit awkward since it wouldn't depend on polling, would it?