Why at least One Major Presidential Poll Isn’t Telling the Whole Story

The Republican and Democratic parties have long since chosen their candidates for the presidency and polling organizations across the U.S. have done their best to understand how voters feels about Rep. Nominee Donald Trump and Dem. Nominee Hilary Clinton.

The short answer: not thrilled.

Real Clear Politics, as of Aug. 11th 2016, reports Clinton and Trump have an average un-favorability rating of 53.3% and 61.4%, respectively, among registered voters.

These statistics are mirrored by party affiliation numbers: Back in January, Gallup reported that only 26% of registered voters identify as Republicans, and Democrats have an equally disappointing share of the electorate as only 29% of those registered are self identified Democrats. Ahead of both major parties are the so called “silent majority”, Independents, at 42% of registered voters.

It’s obvious after examining these numbers, that most voters aren’t satisfied with the status quo that is the two-party system. One might expect this to be reflected in Presidential polls and indeed, third party candidates are receiving more support than seen in previous election cycles. Jill Stein, recently nominated by the Green Party, has seen her numbers go up following the Democratic nomination of Clinton over Bernie Sanders, while Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party’s nominee, has polled as high as 13 percent in national polls and currently sits at about 9% according to RCP’s calculated average. Republican and Democrats share the 90% left over, with Clinton ahead of Trump by about 7 points.

However, if more than half of registered voters don’t like Trump or Clinton and the two major parties only represent about half of the electorate combined. Why aren’t third party candidates seeing more support? The Washington Post seems to think that most voters are simply picking the lesser of two evils. While certainly this sentiment is shared by a fair amount of those who’ll be going to the polls on election day, there might be another reason.

A recent poll of likely voters conducted by Reuters, shows Clinton at 40%, Trump at 35%, Johnson at 7% and Stein at 3%. Among Independents, Trump leads at 24% and Johnson is right behind with 22%, They are followed by Clinton at 18% percent and Stein in fourth at 9%.

If Independents make up around 42% of voters, how is it that Clinton is so far ahead of Trump and Johnson, the two biggest candidates among independents? The answer lies in the sample data. For this Poll, Reuters spoke with 1,459 different respondents. About 680 Democrats, 468 Republicans and 175 Independents.

So of those surveyed, Democrats make up about half, Republicans are around a third and Independents make up less than a quarter. That doesn’t even come close to representing the reality of registered voter affiliations. This seems to be a pretty egregious case of sample bias from a reputable polling organization.

Why has such a glaring error occurred? How many polling organizations are using similar sample sizes? Is this a case of ineptitude or deliberate motivations? Whatever the case may be, IPSOS, at the very least, has a serious problem it needs to address.

As it stands,it looks like the vast majority of voters are being ignored.