Gallup to alter polling methods after misfire on 2012 U.S. election

WASHINGTON Tue Jun 4, 2013 5:04pm EDT

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Gallup, one of the world's most prominent polling groups, said on Tuesday it would adjust some of its survey methods after drawing criticism for inaccurately forecasting that Republican Mitt Romney would win the 2012 presidential election.

Gallup officials said a review found four factors that contributed to a final 2012 pre-election poll that badly underestimated support for President Barack Obama, who won the popular vote by almost 4 percentage points. The final Gallup poll, taken just before the November 6 election, showed Romney with a 1-point lead.

Gallup's last poll was at odds with many other public surveys that gave the Democratic incumbent a slight lead, and capped a campaign in which Gallup consistently showed more support for Romney than what other polls found.

The inaccurate results embarrassed Gallup, a research firm known for election and political polling dating to the 1930s. The company launched a review of its methods with the help of researchers from the University of Michigan.

Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, said the review found problems with the way the firm identified the most likely voters and the way it weighted the survey for respondents' race and ethnicity.

The review also found the samples drawn from listed landline telephone numbers resulted in too many older Republican voters, and that too many interviews were conducted in regions where Romney was strong and too few in the Eastern and Western time zones where Obama was strong.

Gallup's review comes at a time when polling firms are being challenged to keep up with changes in public behavior, including more cellphone use and a drop in response rates to public opinion polls.

It also follows a presidential race marked by the Obama campaign's groundbreaking voter-targeting efforts. Newport said the Obama campaign's focus on a small number of closely contested battleground states drove up voter turnout in those states and could force pollsters to change their approach to national surveys.

"It could suggest that in the future we treat battleground states differently," Newport said. "We may need to look at battleground states as their own universe."

Newport said Gallup already has changed some of its methods and that the firm would use the November elections for governor in Virginia and New Jersey to test more tweaks to its model for identifying likely voters.

(Editing by David Lindsey and Mohammad Zargham)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (2)
“It could suggest that in the future we treat battleground states differently,” Newport said. “We may need to look at battleground states as their own universe.”

This is a huge problem with the electoral college. Every four years, we choose a president based on their position on issues that are important to people in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. This is such a narrow focus, and frankly, as someone from one of the other 47 out of 50 states, I’m sick of hearing about what is important to these three states alone. The rest are almost entirely ignored by the media and even the candidates themselves.

And not only do these “battleground states” drive the focus of the campaigns, we know all too well how using the electoral college rather than the popular vote to choose the winner can go horribly wrong… Bush v. Gore – a decision that will live in infamy.

Jun 04, 2013 6:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:
Gallup finally concedes that calling the last 1,200 people who still have land lines…. 30 times a month….. may not be the most representative sample population.

Jun 04, 2013 6:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.