I think part of the lack of use is institutional inertia. To use a concrete example, politicians (generally) believe that the things they are doing will be successful, popular, and beneficial to their reelection odds. In the past, the only immediate counter-evidence was polling, and this could be dismissed, often rightly, as push-polling intended to apply pressure rather than accurately predict results. Some of that skepticism has carried over to mechanisms that don’t have that problem.
The age of our current political class, rather set in its ways, mean that this will take a while to take effect, but, among younger politics-interested people, being able to say unambiguously that e.g. the Iran War is bad politics because the administration’s election odds fell off a cliff right after joining it is valuable. There’s no argument to be made that any electoral damage was because of tax policy, or “culture war stuff”, or “decorum”. The blame for a defeat can be laid precisely on the offending policy. Every 20-something intern in Washington, including the ones that will staff and advise future administrations, has seen this graph, in which the 2028 election odds remained steady through every news cycle right up until the end of February, in contrast with legacy media headlines and polls. They know exactly which policy decision the public truly hated, and their job security will depend on their employers not replicating it.
To use a concrete example, politicians (generally) believe that the things they are doing will be successful, popular, and beneficial to their reelection odds. In the past, the only immediate counter-evidence was polling, and this could be dismissed, often rightly, as push-polling intended to apply pressure rather than accurately predict results.
I think politicians to plenty of things that they believe to be mostly ignored by most voters and not directly affect reelection odds. Dominics Cummings had a lot of trouble getting politicians in the UK to do the kind of things that would likely be good for reelection odds instead of campaigning on the pet issues of those politicians.
When it comes to efforts of politicians that are targeted at convincing voters, focus groups are a key tool that’s used in addition to polling.
Focus groups have their own issues. Easy to subvert through any number of underhanded means, and also accidentally through errors in sampling. They also don’t meaningfully indicate issue pertinence. Suppose I really like Trump’s policy on road sign renaming, and I really hate his policy on highway median resizing. I might talk passionately about either in a focus group where I’m being paid for my opinion on those issues, but neither is likely to influence my voting behavior.
Prediction markets are valuable in that they can cleanly separate issues that are popular/unpopular but electorally insignificant from ones that make or break a campaign.
They also don’t meaningfully indicate issue pertinence. Suppose I really like Trump’s policy on road sign renaming, and I really hate his policy on highway median resizing. I might talk passionately about either in a focus group where I’m being paid for my opinion on those issues, but neither is likely to influence my voting behavior.
I think you aren’t factoring in that focus groups are lead by people that are not stupid. You can ask questions in a way to get answers about what people care about.
I think you aren’t factoring in that focus groups are lead by people that are not stupid.
At best, a focus group is directed by well-intentioned people who may not know every pertinent correlation value needed to ensure a representative sample of the public. The conventional wisdom is that focus groups are typically used and designed by people who are somewhat out of touch, and this isn’t entirely false.
At worst, a focus group is directed by people with an interest in showing a certain outcome to a certain set of people. Using the earlier example, AIPAC lobbyists might want to downplay the political damage caused by the Iran War, and can alter candidate selection and discussion framing in order to do so when given authority over study design.
Moreover, participants often want to please the experimenters, and will, consciously or otherwise, speak differently depending on what they think they want.
Put simply, you end up with all the same issues as polling. Potential for bias, design error, and unreliable subjects.
I think part of the lack of use is institutional inertia. To use a concrete example, politicians (generally) believe that the things they are doing will be successful, popular, and beneficial to their reelection odds. In the past, the only immediate counter-evidence was polling, and this could be dismissed, often rightly, as push-polling intended to apply pressure rather than accurately predict results. Some of that skepticism has carried over to mechanisms that don’t have that problem.
The age of our current political class, rather set in its ways, mean that this will take a while to take effect, but, among younger politics-interested people, being able to say unambiguously that e.g. the Iran War is bad politics because the administration’s election odds fell off a cliff right after joining it is valuable. There’s no argument to be made that any electoral damage was because of tax policy, or “culture war stuff”, or “decorum”. The blame for a defeat can be laid precisely on the offending policy. Every 20-something intern in Washington, including the ones that will staff and advise future administrations, has seen this graph, in which the 2028 election odds remained steady through every news cycle right up until the end of February, in contrast with legacy media headlines and polls. They know exactly which policy decision the public truly hated, and their job security will depend on their employers not replicating it.
I think politicians to plenty of things that they believe to be mostly ignored by most voters and not directly affect reelection odds. Dominics Cummings had a lot of trouble getting politicians in the UK to do the kind of things that would likely be good for reelection odds instead of campaigning on the pet issues of those politicians.
When it comes to efforts of politicians that are targeted at convincing voters, focus groups are a key tool that’s used in addition to polling.
Focus groups have their own issues. Easy to subvert through any number of underhanded means, and also accidentally through errors in sampling. They also don’t meaningfully indicate issue pertinence. Suppose I really like Trump’s policy on road sign renaming, and I really hate his policy on highway median resizing. I might talk passionately about either in a focus group where I’m being paid for my opinion on those issues, but neither is likely to influence my voting behavior.
Prediction markets are valuable in that they can cleanly separate issues that are popular/unpopular but electorally insignificant from ones that make or break a campaign.
I think you aren’t factoring in that focus groups are lead by people that are not stupid. You can ask questions in a way to get answers about what people care about.
Regime Change #2: A plea to Silicon Valley—start a project NOW to write the plan for the next GOP candidate by Dominics Cummings is a good read for what focus groups can do.
At best, a focus group is directed by well-intentioned people who may not know every pertinent correlation value needed to ensure a representative sample of the public. The conventional wisdom is that focus groups are typically used and designed by people who are somewhat out of touch, and this isn’t entirely false.
At worst, a focus group is directed by people with an interest in showing a certain outcome to a certain set of people. Using the earlier example, AIPAC lobbyists might want to downplay the political damage caused by the Iran War, and can alter candidate selection and discussion framing in order to do so when given authority over study design.
Moreover, participants often want to please the experimenters, and will, consciously or otherwise, speak differently depending on what they think they want.
Put simply, you end up with all the same issues as polling. Potential for bias, design error, and unreliable subjects.