The other day while switching TV channels, I heard a commentator explaining that a particular party in a particular state was on the edge of big gains. Then he qualified this by explaining that factionalism could hold back the projected rise in the party’s vote share. He then added the rider that one must not forget that minor issues can in the circumstances lead to major vote swings. I am a little dense and was at a loss to comprehend what he wanted to say, even though he had all sorts of graphs and charts to point to.

I may be over-cynical, but I get the impression in fact that organisations and political parties select pollsters whose own political predilections are in sync with theirs. Or else pollsters smartly fine-tune their surveys to suit whoever is footing the bill. The boss after all likes to hear good news, not Cassandra-like prophecies.

When irate politicians question the data of poll predictions, which vary drastically from their feedback at the grassroots, television anchors and interviewers explain patronizingly that poll prediction is a science, based on statistical data and there is no chance to fudge. But a well known pollster once admitted in an interview that he alters his final reading from the "raw data" he receives because he has to add his own input in the light of certain perspectives.

For instance, a pollster has to take into account "the fear factor". This means that dalits may be too afraid to disclose their vote preference openly to caste Hindus. Or in a state like Gujarat, voters might feel insecure over openly voicing their resentment against the government. Some would dub this "perspective" "doctoring" -- but heck, who can argue with "scientists" who have the disarming ability to throw statistics of all sorts in your face?

... contd.