Banning Exit Polls in Hong Kong

(The Standard)  Pan-democrats seek new shields at the ballot box.  By Una So.  March 11, 2008.

Pan-democrats and the Electoral Affairs Commission chairman will meet next week to discuss a series of violent incidents and irregularities that happened during last year's District Council election and Legislative Council by- election. The pan-democrats want to urge the government to revamp regulations to ensure a transparent and clean Legco election in September.

Thirteen groups conducted exit polls outside voting stations in November, but only Hong Kong University's Public Opinion Programme released results after voting ended. The pan-democrats suspect the pollsters were linked with political groups, using the exit poll results to strategically deploy campaign resources and manpower. According to the pan-democrats, some even claimed they were sent by the government. "We were using the single-vote system," said Frontier legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing, so "publishing data before the election closed will seriously affect the result. It's deplorable that polling officers decided not to do anything about it."

The pan-democrats want only recognized university institutions to conduct exit polls and to make it a criminal offense if results are leaked before the election is closed.

(SCMP)  Democrats urge restrictions on groups taking exit polls.  By Eva Wu.  March 11, 2008.

Pan-democratic lawmakers have proposed that only academic institutions from local universities be allowed to conduct exit polls on voters, to ensure fairness in future elections. Their call follows criticism of some organisations that were given approval by the Registration and Electoral Office to conduct exit polls during the district council elections in November. They were accused of providing the latest information to some candidates to enable strategic canvassing on polling day.

Legislators also pressed the government to make the publication of exit poll results to outsiders before the completion of polling a criminal offence.  "We suspect that some people use the findings before polling ends to strategically plan certain moves to enhance their chance of winning in elections," legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing of The Frontier said.

Democratic Party vice-chairman Sin Chung-kai questioned the background and affiliations of these organisations.  He said some people claimed they had been commissioned by the government to conduct the polls, but pressed further, they had been unable to give any proof that they had government authorisation to do so.

The lawmakers urged the government to amend election guidelines, demanding that those conducting exit polls publicise details of their background and state the reason for data collecting.

Democratic legislators and the political group Power for Democracy jointly released a report yesterday, covering some grey areas in use of exit poll results, the provision of free transport to polling stations and failure of polling officers to handle cases of breached election laws, which took place during November's district council elections and December's Legislative Council by-election. The report said 13 organisations or people, excluding the public opinion programme of the University of Hong Kong, did not release their poll results or academic analysis after the elections. At least five were found to be closely related to the government-friendly camp.

The Hong Kong Development Research Association, one of the approved organisations, was reported to be politically affiliated to the Hong Kong Youths Unified Association. The group is chaired by Benny Yeung Tsz-hei of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, who won in the district elections. The report also said other organisations deployed 2,100 people to conduct polls outside 300 polling stations, while HKU only used 20 people to cover 27 polling stations.

Civic Party leader Audrey Eu Yuet-mee said under present guidelines organisations which published or broadcast poll results in an attempt to sway electors were merely given a written warning by the Registration and Electoral Office.

(SCMP)  Exit strategy for dubious election pollsters.  By Chris Yeung.  March 12, 2008.

... the publication of a report on alleged violations of election rules in the district council elections and Legislative Council Hong Kong Island by-election last year, and a set of corresponding recommendations, should not be dismissed as a political gimmick.

The report, compiled jointly by democratic legislators and the political group Power for Democracy, has highlighted irregularities and laxity in the existing election rules. It raises concerns about vote-canvassing in restricted zones around polling stations and the provision of free transport for voters on election day.

Referring to alleged abuses of exit polls in the previous two geographical elections, the report suggests banning non-university bodies from conducting such polls and to make it a criminal offence for groups to disclose their results before voting closes.

Concerns over the exit polls grew after the district council elections in November. It was revealed that 13 institutions and individuals were given approval by the Registration and Electoral Office to conduct exit polls. Only one of them, the University of Hong Kong's Public Opinion Programme, is a well-known, long-time pollster.

An investigation by Apple Daily found that five of the other polling agencies had connections with pro-Beijing groups.  Reports of their exit polls have not been made public. According to sources close to the pro-Beijing camp, they were well informed about the latest results of exit polls, particularly in some key constituencies.

For instance, Ip Kwok-him, a vice-chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, began canvassing for votes for other party candidates in the district polls midway through the day, after knowing he had enough votes in his own constituency. DAB sources also revealed that Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee's campaign team for the Legco by-election in December had access to exit poll results during election day.

The election watchdog urges pollsters not to divulge their exit polls before the end of voting, to avoid influencing voters.  As voting is conducted in strict confidence, there is no hard evidence to assess the impact of any leaked findings from exit polls on voters' behaviour and the results. Under the proportional representation electoral system for geographical constituency polls, it seems certain that political parties will adopt the so-called "multi-list" strategy in the September election.

Previous elections show it is harder to win a second or third seat in a list than to win one seat in each list. Putting candidates on separate lists will also help parties groom second- and third-tier candidates.  The risk, nevertheless, is clear. Votes for a political party may be unevenly spread; more may go to a list headed by a popular figure. For the "multi-list" strategy to succeed, parties may have to explore tactical voting for their supporters, and strive for an even distribution of votes for different lists.  Results of exit polls, if available during the voting period, could therefore become vital for the parties to direct their supporters to cast their ballots accordingly.  Should that happen, it would be unfair to candidates and parties who abide by the rules and to voters who turn out in the belief that the election is fair, open and clean.

(Wong Onyin's Blog)  March 13, 2008.

[in translation]

The democrats held a meeting and they wrote a report in which they offered some proposals to the Electoral Affairs Commission to improve the election process.  The most important one is the banning of polls outside the voting stations on election day with exceptions being granted to recognized university departments.  Any polling data needed to be kept secret until the election has been completed, and any leaking of such data would be a criminal offense.  These proposals are directed at the powerful and resourceful DAB party, although the Liberal Party also has the ability to do so.  In any case, the democrats do not think that they have the money to play this game, which is unfair to they who are the purveyors of truth.  Therefore, they are hollering to ban the exit polls which are helping their opponents.

Exiting polls may or may not be unfair, but it is certainly true that the democrats are being naïve.  When Chris Patten designed the single seat system as the rules of the game, the pan-democrats with 60% support won a landslide and the DAB with 30% support won only one seat.  Was that fair?  The British obviously said that it was fair, because the single seat system is also used in the United Kingdom.  So what is unfair about it?

Today, who is in charge?  It is the democrats' turn to adapt to the rules of a new game and not hope that the powers-that-be modify the rules to suit them.  The return of Hong Kong to China took place ten years ago, and how can they be still so naive?  It is naiveté plus laziness, because they only know to pick up advantages or complain about the unfair rules of the game.  They won't work hard and seek to adapt.  This is the root cause of their failures.

In any election, there will always be one thing or the other that is unfair.  Afterwards, people point fingers and throw accusations at each other.  As for the voters, they just find you very annoying.  For example, the DAB was supposed to have conducted exit polls through five different organizations.  After they got the data, they adjusted the allocation of resources and canvassing efforts.  With these informational advantages, they could work more efficiently.  This is why the democrats are saying that it was unfair and they are now demanding that such activities be banned.  Fairness is when nobody knows anything about voting trends.

But if the DAB can mobilize two or three thousand people, so can you.  What is so unfair?  You complain that they have the money to hire people to carry out the exit polls.  What if they organized unpaid volunteers to do the work?  Can you still criticize them?  You are the ones who are too lazy to organize volunteers.  More than 100,000 people have marched in the streets to support the pan-democrats.  Why is it so hard to organize two to three thousand volunteers?  You need the will to do it.  Instead, it is a lot easier for you to accuse other people of holding advantages which you want to ban.  Why don't you reflect on whether you have done your best?

In the District Council elections, the DAB's electoral tactics were clearly superior to the democrats, and they had several times the manpower at their disposal.  But the pan-democrats lost because public opinion is shifting.  The voters were disappointed with the democrats, who are losing support.  It is regrettable that the democrats will not face up to their defeat and admit that they had let their supporters down.  Instead, they whine and complain, and blame everything on the fact that the DAB has the money and the people.

... Lau Kwong-wah asked how Martin Lee could have issued an emergency appeal for votes during the 2004 Legislative Council elections unless he had exit poll data?  Haven't the democrats also conducted secret polling?  In the end, even if the pan-democrats can achieve the banning of exit polling, does this mean that they will gain the much more important popular support?

ESWN Commentary:

In reading the above articles, the impression was that it requires 2,000+ persons to conduct these exit polls in Hong Kong.  Since many of the political parties and candidates do not have the means of mobilizing this many number of persons (either as employees or volunteers), the situation confers informational advantages to those organizations with the money and manpower at their disposal to do exit polls.  This is the reason why a ban is called for.

But wait!  There is also this statement: "other organizations deployed 2,100 people to conduct polls outside 300 polling stations, while HKU only used 20 people to cover 27 polling stations."  By all accounts, the work of the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme is respected and considered valid and useful, to the point that university departments will be exempt under the proposed law.  How come they can get that level of quality data with just 20 people?  How can 20 people do the work of 2,100 people?

Once upon a time, I used to work for a company name named Audits & Surveys.  What is the meaning of the company name?  

Suppose you want to find out about the quality of bookkeeping at a corporation.  The brute-force method is to check every invoice that ever came through.  In practice, this is neither feasible nor necessary.  Instead, you take a sample of the paperwork and you check that sample only.  This is called an audit.  The results are not perfect and are subject to sampling error, but a carefully chosen sample will yield sufficiently precise estimates.  You don't need to know that there were 162 errors out of the 35,924,221 invoices examined; you only need to know that the error rate was 0.01% (plus or minus 0.005%) out of the 2,000 sample invoices.

Suppose you want to determine public opinion on an issue.  The brute-force method is to contact every person in the country and ask.  In practice, this is neither feasible nor necessary.  Instead, you take a sample of the people in the country and you ask that sample only.  This is called a survey.  The results are not perfect and are subject to sampling error, but a carefully chosen sample will yield sufficiently precise estimates.  You don't need to know that 83,238,782 out of 227,684,831 American adults think Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11; you only need to know that 39% (plus or minus 2% )of the 1,000 sample adults think so.

The reason why this company exists is that it is neither feasible nor necessary to conduct Enumeration and Census to obtain information.  Instead, Audits and Surveys are precise enough to yield actionable information.

In Hong Kong, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of election stations dispersed across the territory.  It is neither feasible nor necessary for pollsters to send people to work at all of them for the entire day.  It is sufficient to select a sample of election stations and work there.  That is why the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme only needs 20 people while still coming up with good quality data.  You don't need to know that Anson Chan was getting 54,585 of the 98,965 votes that were cast by 5:00pm; you only need that she is getting 55% (plus or minus 3%) of the exit interviews so far.

As for the organizations out there which mobilized 2,000+ persons to do exit polls, the kind thing to say about them is that they are being inefficient and the unkind thing is to say that they are being stupid.  If I were in charge of resource allocation over there and I had 2,000+ persons under my direction, I would send only a couple hundred of them to work at a sample of election stations.  They can use mobile telephones to sent the counts back to the headquarters periodically (e.g. every 30 minutes).  I will bet that the information is every bit as good as having 2,000+ workers out there.

What would I do with the 2,000 - 200 = 1,800 workers who no longer have to do exit polls?  They are mine to direct (either because they are volunteers or employees) and I would send them out to visit or make telephone calls to selected people (such as a list of all those who have ever come down to the office of a legislative councilor or district councilor of my party for assistance) to remind them to vote.  This is the so-called Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign.  This type of effort will have a much large impact on the final vote than any exit polls will.  Exit polls allow you to allocate your resources more efficiently, but you still have to get out the vote.  If each of the 1,800 workers can make 100 contacts each, that would be a total of 1,800 x 100 = 180,000 contact points.  Even at a 10% conversion rate, it is 18,000 extra votes.

There is no way to ban GOTV efforts, because this is already standard and accepted practice in Hong Kong.  On election day, it is common for the candidates to knock on doors with the media in tow.