mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
I took an informal poll of my friends last week: “How many of you have landlines?” Out of a group of ten late-twentysomethings, four raised their hands. If they had been early-twentysomethings, I’m sure that number would’ve been lower still. But it wasn’t always this way: back during the initial internet boom of the mid-nineties, the online explosion actually proved a huge boon to wired telephony, with the number of lines rising nearly 24 percent from 142.4 million in 1992 to 186.6 million in 1999. But this was because so many people were using dial-up internet, and hooked up dedicated phone lines just so they could “chat with buddies” and “surf the web” on AOL, Compuserv, et al.
But since 2000, landline usage has dropped off the edge of the planet, back down to pre-1991 levels. Broadband killed dial-up, which in turn killed (well, hurt) landlines — nowadays a cell phone is considered a must-have by many, and conversely, a landline is considered an extra. (The only reason I have a landline in my house is because we have a security system, which requires a wired phone line to call the cops if someone tries to break in. I don’t know what’s more 20th century: the fact that my security system uses a landline, or the idea that criminals would rather steal stuff from me actually-physically rather than digitally-virtually.)
So far, I’m betting none of this is a surprise. Neither is the demographic breakdown of landline-vs.-cell userhood:
• 25% of people 18-25 don’t have a landline.
• Landline-havers tend to own their own homes, and tend to be older and less mobile (no pun intended).
• Cellphone-only folks are more likely to live in cities and rent their homes.
But here’s the thing that took me by surprise: even though as many as 16% of American households are cellphone-only (and possibly 25% by the end of this year), most pollsters don’t call cellphones. And that means every one of the Obama-vs.-McCain horserace statistics you’ll see over the next 6-8 weeks will be flawed.
There are a couple of reasons why pollsters usually don’t call cells: firstly, because they’re not allowed to use autodialers to do so; they’ve got to punch in your cell number by hand — and that’s more expensive. Also, cell users are harder to reach; they tend to ignore calls from unfamiliar numbers, might be driving or in the middle of something when they’re called, and because they’re often being charged by the minute, many aren’t willing to participate in lengthy telephone surveys.
So what kind of impact could this have on poll results? Here’s what Salon had to say:
This year, the increasingly inexcusable failure to count a growing pool of voters could prove mathematically embarrassing. Let’s say that with the campaigns’ increased focus on the Web, Facebook, phone-texting and other targeted ways to communicate to younger Americans, voter turnout rises and this cellphone-only universe climbs from under 10 percent of the electorate to something closer to 20 percent. If these voters’ preference is 60-40 for Obama, they alone will increase his national total by 2 percentage points. And those could easily be conservative projections. In fact, Gallup Poll results from earlier this year (prior to Obama’s designation as the presumptive Democratic nominee) had a 4-point swing in favor of Obama once cellphone-only respondents were folded into the overall sample.
After 2000 can any public or private polling organization willingly use a sampling methodology that understates a candidate’s support by 4 points, or more than 3 million voters?
And here’s the funny thing (in case you’re not already laughing): our history-minded readers will remember Harry Truman’s famous upset victory over Thomas Dewey in the 1948 presidential election — the newspapers had called the election for Dewey before all the votes had been counted because they were relying on poll data. Poll data collected via landlines. Back in 1948, it seems, Democrats were also less likely than Republicans to have landlines — or any phone lines at all for that matter — so they were underrepresented in the polls.
Comments (18)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
A friend of mine who supports Obama is saying the same thing now that McCain is leading the polls. She never complained when her man was ahead. Hmmm. Coping mechanism?
posted by Witty Nickname on 9-16-2008 at 8:24 am
My wife suggested this problem the other day, and I dismissed it. I thought there was no possible way that pollsters could be so stupid as to rely on such flawed data. I should know better than to overestimate people.
By the way, Ransom, you should look into a cell phone box for your alarm. I avoided ditching my landline for the first year after buying my home because I thought I needed it for the my security system monitoring. Turns out, for about $200, I was able to get a cell system installed in my house with no additional monthly fee (for airtime, cell service, etc.) I’m actually MORE secure now, because cutting my landline wire does nothing, the alarm will still work.
posted by Jeremy on 9-16-2008 at 8:41 am
So what happens when you factor in the fact it’s the age group least likely to vote?
posted by Doug on 9-16-2008 at 9:03 am
I have been polled on my cell phone. I think it was Gallup. I think the polling places are well aware of this problem, which is one among many (many young people are not home at dinner time to answer the phone being another one.)
But either way, polls are skewed. There’s also the fact that many people will say that they’ll vote for a black man because they don’t want to look racist, but when they get in that booth alone… So take 2% off Obama’s numbers for that stat.
posted by Noelle on 9-16-2008 at 9:06 am
Witty Nickname, even if you agree that McCain is leading in the polls (many polls have McCain’s numbers increasing, but not fully surpassing Obama’s), your logic doesn’t follow.
Your friend believes that the polls are under-representing Obama supporters. So if those polls placed Obama ahead, his lead was actually even greater than Gallup would report. Hence her lack of complaining.
Consider too that many pollsters track “likely voters”, meaning that they don’t even call those who have never voted before or whose demographic is historically unlikely to vote. Once again, Obama supporters would be undercounted.
In the past this has worked out OK, because young people and the poor tended not to turn out to vote. It’s really up to the Obama campaign to mobilize his supporters on Election Day.
National polls don’t tell us much, either. These things are decided state-by-state, so the real action is in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania – three big electoral states that are tight right now. Two out of three wins it.
I’m an old-timer who just got a cell phone this year, so I’m surprised to hear how many younger people don’t have a land line.
posted by Klinger on 9-16-2008 at 9:11 am
Ah, but the thing you forget is that the pollsters are also well aware of these cell-phone facts. So if they’re any good at their jobs, their final numbers will be calibrated to take them into account.
Furthermore, the same argument was made four years ago, and in every state but Ohio, the polls came away being very accurate.
posted by Reed on 9-16-2008 at 9:49 am
I heard this on npr the other day. I think that the 18-24 demographic is being largely overlooked. I have always been politically active (I’m now in my early twenties), but I’m seeing more and more people my age registering to vote rather than just talking about voting. We’ll just have to see what young people do on the 4th.
posted by Keri on 9-16-2008 at 9:50 am
I’m not even young, but I only answer calls on my cell. I have a landline for a security system and so I can order pay per view on my satellite, but no phones are connected to the land line.
There has also been some suggestions in the non MSM that the polling organizations are oversampling republicans in order to make the race appear tighter. We’ll see. I tend to agree with Kinger, national polls mean nothing, we have an electoral college that elects our president.
posted by Scott on 9-16-2008 at 9:53 am
I agree that cell-only voters are being overlooked and will take it further. Not only are polls ignoring cell users, but also people that use Caller ID to filter out unknown numbers – I think that is a statistically significant portion of the population.
This year’s political polls are being determined by a random group of under 5,000 people across the country who answer their landline phones, regardless of who may be calling or what the Caller ID says. I am guessing that this demographic skews older and rural.
This is admittedly a hunch and not scientific, but I think it’s interesting.
posted by sjf on 9-16-2008 at 10:55 am
Remember in 2004 Kerry was going to win in a land slide.. Didn’t happen. Polls are never correct, but they arn’t always biased in the way you think they are. What if republicans arn’t home when they call? What if they are sampling from a heavily democratic areas? What if one party generally chooses not to answer polls?
The simple fact is polls are always wrong for the simple fact they are polls. But the sad thing is people are coming out against the polls now because their candidate is slipping.
posted by Kinglink on 9-16-2008 at 11:29 am
spj- i think your point about caller id is interesting, and most likely very true.
I’m 23 and only have a cell phone and my 50-something mother doesn’t have a landline either, so I think the trend is not limited to my age group.
posted by WarTiger on 9-16-2008 at 12:09 pm
Gallup does include cell phone only users in their polls. It is worth the extra money for them to make their polls more accurate.
“Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).”
I can understand your desire for this to be the case — cell phone only users are under reported, but I’m not sure you give the polling companies enough credit here.
posted by Beetlejuice on 9-16-2008 at 1:59 pm
I have no landline. My husband (he’s 40) and I (I am 28) only have cell phones. We have discussed getting a landline, but feel that it is not necessary right now. When we have kids, we will definitely get a landline. But until then, for our purposes, it is impractical.
posted by Amy D on 9-16-2008 at 3:23 pm
It seems that the people who run these polls would have a pretty good handle on what might skew the numbers. I like to think they’re making some adjustments for this idea. Also, aren’t they doing some of the polling via the internet now? Wouldn’t that be aimed toward the demographic that doesn’t have a land line?
posted by tiffany on 9-16-2008 at 4:13 pm
I’m early 20-something and I *used* to have a cell phone, but I also have a hearing problem. I would ask that they text the cell instead of calling, since it was so hard to hear them (it would come out as a buzzing, garbled mess), but none would listen. After constant texting to those who wouldn’t listen to (or read, really) my pleading, I wound up dropping it entirely. They want to talk, they can IM me. (Landlines are also hard to hear, but on a corded phone with the person on the other line talking very slowly and clearly – with them preferably on a corded as well -, I can make them out.)
Now, those phone surveys are skewed anyway. There are not only Voip services out there (I know young people who use this instead of both cells and landlines), but you don’t have to talk to them, either. I can tell you I *never* pick up the phone when those survey people call. Oh, and I’m not sure about this, but I also believe they don’t call TTY phones, either, thus cutting out even more of the population.
And landline phone service is expensive, as well. I pay about $95/month for DSL and phone service. The phone service is $80. :P
posted by NicoNico on 9-16-2008 at 4:28 pm
I don’t know why they have to do them by phone, anyway. I hate talking to strangers on the phone, but I’d gladly do a survey online.
posted by M on 9-16-2008 at 5:27 pm
I am sure someone above noticed this, but pollsters weight their numbers to account for this. So an 18-24 year old voter that they reach on a land line in a city would have their preference weighted enough to account for those without landlines. If you notice, even in the primaries, many pollsters got within a few points meaning they have some idea what they are doing. What you can do is really try to pin point difference between people with and without cellphones that there is no way a pollster could, or is weighting for as well as looking through the details of how pollsters weight their samples. This may be a trade secret though so some pollsters are more open than others.
posted by Nathan on 9-16-2008 at 9:25 pm
I haven’t had a landline in years (and, I too, have a security system rigged to voip)…but I have been contemplating returning to it…perhaps dumping the voip.
The technology is actually much more stable in the case of, say, a hurricane? Power outages – no voip, and cell better be charged. But the rusty old landline is still available.
911 service, while available to cell now, has been available, more dependable and more refined than cell.
It’s just reliable and has been for years. So I’m starting to lean towards going back for basic service with the landline…
As for the pollsters, I try not to look at them…and I do a pretty decent job. But the article makes me feel a little better about what’s going on. :-)
posted by Cindy H. on 9-17-2008 at 12:00 pm