Polling: Asking questions without consequences
I’m not a pollster but I have always wondered about the true value of asking questions in a vacuum without providing potential consequences. Consider this poll which finds 3/4 of Nova Scotians approve of phasing out coal for energy by 2030 (technically it is called an online panel). Here is the question asked:
“In the provincial government’s recent throne speech, Premier Iain Rankin committed to accelerating the phase-out of coal for energy by 2030, 10 years ahead of what was originally planned. To what extent do you support or oppose the phasing out of coal by 2030?”
This is a perfectly legitimate question and an important issue for the province at this time but without consequences what does it tell us? There is general, high level support without consideration of consequences?
If you ask 1,000 Nova Scotians if they would like the income tax rate to be cut by 2% - I suspect you would get 90% or more support. If you ask how many would like more days about 20 degrees each year I suspect you would get 99%.
But if you told the polled that a 2% tax cut would mean the closure of three small hospitals around the province, would that change responses? If you told them that more hot days will lead to catastrophic consequences around the world, would that change the response?
If you told people that phasing out coal fired electricity generation was going to cost the average family $500/year in household electricity costs, would that change the response? (Note this is made up, I have no idea).
I know the pollsters will have a good answer for this but it will be hard to convince me that questions with out consequences add much value to the public debate on big issues.