Politics

/

ArcaMax

Why the margin of error matters more than ever in reading 2024 election polls – a pollster with 30 years of experience explains

Doug Schwartz, Quinnipiac University, The Conversation on

Published in Political News

In just about any discussion of a poll about the very close presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, you’ll hear the phrase “within the poll’s margin of error.” Those words signal that it is a tight race with no clear leader, even if one of them has a slightly larger percentage of support, like 48% to 47%.

As the director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, which has been taking the pulse of the public on policy issues and elections for the past 30 years, I’ve noted that people have been paying more attention to this technical term since at least 2016.

In that year, some polls in Florida, for example, indicated that Hillary Clinton was just a couple of percentage points ahead of Trump. Journalists and the public largely – and incorrectly – understood that apparent popular-vote lead to mean Clinton was likely to win.

But those 1 or 2 percentage points were within their polls’ margins of error. And Clinton lost Florida. In a poll about a political race, the margin of error tells readers the likely range of results of an election.

A poll is one or more questions asked of a small group of people and used to gauge the views of a larger group of people. The margin of error is a mathematical calculation of how accurate the poll results are – of how closely the answers given by the small group match the views held by the larger group.

If everyone in the larger group were polled, there would be no margin of error. But it’s complicated, difficult and expensive to contact that many people. The U.S. Census Bureau spent US$13.7 billion over several years in its most recent effort to count every person in the United States every 10 years, and it still wasn’t able to include exactly everyone.

Pollsters don’t have that kind of time – or money – so they use smaller samples of the population. They seek to identify representative samples in which all members of the larger group have a chance to be included in the poll.

The calculation of how close the poll is to the views of the larger population is based on the size of the group that is polled.

For example, a sample of 600 voters will have a larger margin of error – about 4 percentage points – than a sample of 1,000 voters, which has a margin of error of just over 3 percentage points.

The way the sample is chosen also matters: In 1936, the Literary Digest magazine polled people on the presidential election by mailing surveys to telephone owners, car owners and country club members. Everyone in this group was relatively affluent, so they were not representative of the whole U.S. voting population. Calculating a margin of error would have been meaningless because the sample did not capture all segments of the population.

Let’s use an example of how to understand the margin of error. If a poll shows that 47% of the polled group support Candidate A, and the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, that means that the percentage in the population supporting Candidate A is likely to be between 44% (47 minus 3) and 50% (47 plus 3).

One quick note: Most polls report margins of error alongside another technical term, “confidence interval.” In the most rigorous reporting of polls, you might see a sentence near the end that says something like “The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, at a 95% confidence interval.” What all that means is this: Imagine if 100 different random samples of the same size were selected from the larger group, and then asked the same questions in the poll. The 95% confidence interval means that 95% of the time, those other polls’ responses would be within 3 percentage points of the answers reported in this one poll.

 

The concept of margin of error gets more complex when looking at the differences in support between two candidates. If a margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, the margin of error on the difference between them is about double – or 6 percentage points, in this example.

That’s because the margin of error here is a combined one, and refers to not just the percentage voting for Candidate A but also to the percentage voting for the other candidate.

To look back at 2016 again, the final Quinnipiac University Poll in Florida before Election Day showed Clinton with 46% support and Trump with 45% support. The margin of error was 3.9 percentage points, which meant Clinton was likely to get between 42.1% and 49.9% of the vote, and Trump was likely to get between 41.1% and 48.9% of the vote.

The actual result was that Trump won Florida with 48.6%, as compared with Clinton’s 47.4%. Those results were within our poll’s margin of error, meaning we were correct to declare it “too close to call” – and we would have been wrong to say Clinton was ahead.

In the current election cycle, many media reports about polls are not including information about the margin of error.

Leaving out that information, or downplaying its significance, may help media outlets provide a quick, simple picture about the state of the race. Technology can seem precise in the modern age of the internet and artificial intelligence.

But polling is not as precise. It is an inexact science. It’s a pollster’s job to capture snapshots of the complexities of human nature at a particular time. People’s minds can change, and new information can arise as the campaigns unfold.

With the presidential election in its final weeks, our polls have been finding a fairly tight and steady race, with most voters telling us their minds are made up. Because the difference between the presidential candidates is within the margin of error in swing states, the election polling in autumn 2024 is telling Americans to hold their breath and make sure they vote, because it is likely to be a squeaker.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Doug Schwartz, Quinnipiac University

Read more:
‘No antidote for bad polls’: Recalling the New York Times’ 1956 election experiment in shoe-leather reporting

Why Americans are so enamored with election polls

Election polls are more accurate if they ask participants how others will vote

Doug Schwartz is affiliated with the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR).


 

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Related Channels

ACLU

ACLU

By The ACLU
Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman

By Amy Goodman
Armstrong Williams

Armstrong Williams

By Armstrong Williams
Austin Bay

Austin Bay

By Austin Bay
Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro

By Ben Shapiro
Betsy McCaughey

Betsy McCaughey

By Betsy McCaughey
Bill Press

Bill Press

By Bill Press
Bonnie Jean Feldkamp

Bonnie Jean Feldkamp

By Bonnie Jean Feldkamp
Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas

By Cal Thomas
Christine Flowers

Christine Flowers

By Christine Flowers
Clarence Page

Clarence Page

By Clarence Page
Danny Tyree

Danny Tyree

By Danny Tyree
David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

By David Harsanyi
Debra Saunders

Debra Saunders

By Debra Saunders
Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager

By Dennis Prager
Dick Polman

Dick Polman

By Dick Polman
Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

By Erick Erickson
Froma Harrop

Froma Harrop

By Froma Harrop
Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum

By Jacob Sullum
Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm

By Jamie Stiehm
Jeff Robbins

Jeff Robbins

By Jeff Robbins
Jessica Johnson

Jessica Johnson

By Jessica Johnson
Jim Hightower

Jim Hightower

By Jim Hightower
Joe Conason

Joe Conason

By Joe Conason
Joe Guzzardi

Joe Guzzardi

By Joe Guzzardi
John Micek

John Micek

By John Micek
John Stossel

John Stossel

By John Stossel
Josh Hammer

Josh Hammer

By Josh Hammer
Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Laura Hollis

Laura Hollis

By Laura Hollis
Marc Munroe Dion

Marc Munroe Dion

By Marc Munroe Dion
Michael Barone

Michael Barone

By Michael Barone
Michael Reagan

Michael Reagan

By Michael Reagan
Mona Charen

Mona Charen

By Mona Charen
Oliver North and David L. Goetsch

Oliver North and David L. Goetsch

By Oliver North and David L. Goetsch
R. Emmett Tyrrell

R. Emmett Tyrrell

By R. Emmett Tyrrell
Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

By Rachel Marsden
Rich Lowry

Rich Lowry

By Rich Lowry
Robert B. Reich

Robert B. Reich

By Robert B. Reich
Ruben Navarrett Jr

Ruben Navarrett Jr

By Ruben Navarrett Jr.
Ruth Marcus

Ruth Marcus

By Ruth Marcus
S.E. Cupp

S.E. Cupp

By S.E. Cupp
Salena Zito

Salena Zito

By Salena Zito
Star Parker

Star Parker

By Star Parker
Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore

By Stephen Moore
Susan Estrich

Susan Estrich

By Susan Estrich
Ted Rall

Ted Rall

By Ted Rall
Terence P. Jeffrey

Terence P. Jeffrey

By Terence P. Jeffrey
Tim Graham

Tim Graham

By Tim Graham
Tom Purcell

Tom Purcell

By Tom Purcell
Veronique de Rugy

Veronique de Rugy

By Veronique de Rugy
Victor Joecks

Victor Joecks

By Victor Joecks
Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root

By Wayne Allyn Root

Comics

Taylor Jones Clay Bennett A.F. Branco Bob Englehart Jack Ohman David Horsey