Ten people in a bar disagree about which of two beers are superior. Five like a particular pilsner and the others agree on a stringent IPA. Last month, when asked their preferences, the responses were the same as this month—and next month, likely they will be the same again. But we just keep asking them because as amateur beer pollsters, that is what we do. 

Since they are typical customers, their tastes in beer are rock-stable, nearly ideological. But next year, we will have an election for the most popular beer in the house and we are trying to figure out which beer will prevail. Likely, it will be a close contest (or not).  My job? I keep asking, asking, asking… 

When a population’s opinion is nearly evenly bifurcated, the results of many polls of a distant event are highly unremarkable—except in that they reveal the obvious fact that the outcome might be close (or not). 

Much as in an actual election, scientifically conducted polls can only claim to frame opinions in a snapshot moment in time. In a closely divided population, this timeliness condition challenges the utility of repeatedly probing respondents’ opinions of candidate preference in a distant imagined election; especially when the latest polls’ results are quickly forgotten and then replaced by the next polling fuss. 

In America’s multiyear, bizarrely extended presidential pre-election runup, incessant polling is one more hype tool to keep our focus on what, at the propitious moment of election day, has the importance of a hill of beans.

On each election day, our opinions from the previous months or year(s) have become irrelevant. But like clockwork, for its own reasons, before every presidential election, the multibillion-dollar polling research industry $urvey$ us incessantly. 

The swirling buzz of quasi-meaningless, tedious speculation that follows the polling “results” seeks to attract viewers’ monetizing eyeballs with hits and likes.

Despite the near irrelevancy of some polls, equally irrelevant theories will then spring forward, postulating and ginning up the emotional intensity and rancorous political hubbub. 

This seems a solid formula for encouraging conflict over false notions of what are hypothetical outcomes, an exhausting and endless blaring political noise over repeated imaginary election events. What a farce.

Now, all that aside, in closing, let me ask who are you voting for in 2024? As a follow-up question, what about your vote in 2028? If you are still alive, how about 2032? 

America really wants to know (or not).

John Pace is a retired mathematics professor. He lives in Honesdale, PA.