Ahhh, the polls say....

Is it just me, or have there been releases of new poll figures in the presidential race every single day since the conventions? While polls are obviously instructive in assessing the campaigns as they stand now, I'm beginning to feel that the almost daily reports of polling figures are motivated by different reasons than providing objective statistical information to the American voting public. These polls basically allow the pundits throughout the media (and especially cable news) world to be constantly analyzing the chances of each candidate, and therefore add urgency to their broadcasts (and increase TV ratings).

Friendly News Anchors

I'm not saying the polls don't matter, but just the constant influx of numbers and percentages causes us to pay attention to dramatic events (see "lipstick on a pig", Palin's convention speech) and short-term issues rather than policies and long-term vision. We also begin to read too much into small statistical swings, which don't really have an impact on voting in November. Just look at a listing of polling numbers in 2008: one poll had McCain up by 5% on August 14, yet just 5 days later Obama was up by 6%. Does anyone remember what happened, if anything, in those 5 days? Does it mean anything for November 4? Likewise, these recent polling numbers showing McCain leading by about 2-3% won't really matter either. Most American voters have already made their decision, and the independent swing voters are going to base their vote on more than a single speech, or a comment taken out of context.

* * * * * *

An important fact to keep in mind when reading all these polls is that in reality, none of them matter. The Electoral College system (within which Obama still leads) we use essentially means that the popular vote is legally and factually insignificant when it comes to deciding our President. I've always been quite opposed to this system, especially in recent times, as the "colorization" of states into red and blue ones means that only a few states are in play (e.g. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan) each election. In places like California, New York or Mississippi, there is no incentive for voters to turn out, because all the electors will be assigned to the dominant party structure. In an election based on the national popular vote, however, each individual vote would matter for the national tally. Also, the winner-take-all system essentially eliminates the chances of success for a third party, though I guess that could be an advantage in some people's mind.

Of course, people argue that the Electoral College allows less populous states and rural areas have a voice in an election which would otherwise be dominated by urban areas, mostly on the coasts. While true, who cares? In one day, McCain and Obama are in two different Lebanons (not the country, but in Virgina and Ohio), while they rarely ever make appearances in big cities like Los Angeles, Dallas and Boston. In a democracy = majority rules, we shouldn't be electing our Presidents in this out-dated system (sidenote: unsurprisingly, many more Democrats and independents support a direct national election than Republicans).

If you're interested in this issue, check out a new law being implemented in some states to replace the College, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This law, thought up by two ridiculously baller Indian-American law professors (Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar), would allow states to award all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, usurping the Electoral College without having to undertake the lengthy process of a Constitutional amendment. The California Legislature is currently considering it---if it passes, it would be a major boost to the overall plan.