I’ve been thinking recently about how easily the demographic breakdowns in polling data facilitate a degenerative plunge in political conversations towards outright stereotyping and generalizations. All my life, I recall learning that stereotyping and profiling were intrinsically bad things to do and yet we find them here and elsewhere performed so casually under the guise of educated analysis.
Has it helped the conversation?
I don’t think so. I can appreciate why a campaign might have interest in the data or a network charged with calling results on election day. But for those of us not tasked with performing targeted outreach or advertisements, what’s the use? As I see it, the negatives outweigh the benefits.
Public Demographic Breakdowns
Pros:
-They give us something to talk about.
-We feel informed.
-They help us predict elections.
Cons:
-They lead to stereotyping and boneheaded explanations of voter preference based on age, race, gender, income, and region.
-These in turn divide diverse communities and nations.
-Painting with a broad brush oversimplifies and negates individual complexity.
-The stereotyping stemming from polling demographic “data” can lead to resentment and suspicion of other groups (young v. old, black v. white, male v. female).
-Lack of data often renders smaller minorities invisible, including Asians (which is in turn a very heterogenous group), Native Americans, Wiccans, the disabled, and more.
-Predicting elections is recreational for most of us here so having more limited access to this data is not a severe detriment as it would be for a professional prognosticator.
--—
The above examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Feel free to contribute more I may have overlooked.
The practice of dissecting polling data is ubiquitous and as far as I know, it hasn’t been seriously called into question as something having a caustic effect on our dialogue. I’d appreciate any input on whether this is something we could or should aspire to remove in the future. Thank you for reading.