Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:27:25.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exit Polling in Canada: An Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2006

Steven D. Brown ,
David Docherty ,
Ailsa Henderson ,
Barry Kay  and
Kimberly Ellis-Hale
Steven D. Brown
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
David Docherty
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Ailsa Henderson
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Barry Kay
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Kimberly Ellis-Hale
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Although exit polling has not been used to study Canadian elections before, such polls have methodological features that make them a potentially useful complement to data collected through more conventional designs. This paper reports on an experiment with exit polling in one constituency in the 2003 Ontario provincial election. Using student volunteers, a research team at Wilfrid Laurier University conducted an exit poll in the bellwether constituency of Kitchener Centre to assess the feasibility of mounting this kind of study on a broader scale. The experiment was successful in a number of respects. It produced a sample of 653 voters that broadly reflected the partisan character of the constituency, and which can hence be used to shed light on patterns of vote-switching and voter motivations in that constituency. It also yielded insights about best practices in mounting an exit poll in the Ontario context, as well as about the potential for using wireless communication devices to transmit respondent data from the field. The researchers conclude that exit polling on a limited basis (selected constituencies) is feasible, but the costs and logistics associated with this methodology make a province-wide or country-wide study unsupportable at present.

Résumé. Bien que les sondages “sortie des urnes” n'aient pas été utilisés jusqu'ici dans l'étude des élections au Canada, de tels sondages possèdent certaines caractéristiques qui en font un complément potentiellement très utile des méthodes plus traditionnelles de cueillette des données. Cet article rend compte d'un sondage “sortie des urnes” expérimental effectué dans une circonscription lors de l'élection provinciale de 2003 en Ontario. Utilisant des bénévoles étudiants, une équipe de recherche de l'Université Wilfrid Laurier a conduit un sondage “sortie des urnes” à Kitchener Centre, une circonscription indicatrice de tendance, afin de déterminer la faisabilité de ce type d'étude au niveau fédéral. L'expérience a réussi à plusieurs égards. Elle a fourni un échantillon de 653 électeurs qui reflétaient en gros le caractère partisan de la circonscription, ce qui a rendu possible l'étude des motivations des électeurs et des revirements de vote dans la région. L'expérience a aussi fourni des renseignements sur les pratiques exemplaires concernant l'utilisation des sondages “sortie des urnes” au niveau provincial, ainsi que sur la possibilité d'employer des techniques de communication sans fil pour transmettre les données recueillies des répondants. Les chercheurs ont conclu que les sondages “sortie des urnes” sont réalisables dans un cadre restreint, dans certaines circonscriptions sélectionnées, mais que les coûts et la logistique nécessités par cette méthodologie la rendent actuellement impraticable pour une étude à l'échelle provinciale ou nationale.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 919 - 933
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, R. 2000. “Reporting public opinion polls: The media and the 1997 Canadian election.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12, 285–98.Google Scholar
Bishop, G.F. and B.S. Fisher. 1995. “‘Secret ballots’ and self-reports in an exit-poll experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59, 568–88.Google Scholar
Brown, S. and B. Kay 1997/98. “Discerning the public mind.” National History 1:3, 233–45.Google Scholar
Brown, S., D. Docherty, K. Ellis-Hale, A. Henderson and B. Kay. 2004. “You're leaving? Great! Exit polling in the 2003 Ontario General Election.” Paper presented to the annual meetings of the Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 2004.
Busch, R.J. and J.A. Lieske. 1985. “Does time of voting affect exit poll results.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49, 94–104.Google Scholar
Butler, D. 1996. “Polls and elections.” In Comparing democracies: Elections and voting in global perspective, ed. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Curtice, J. and C. Payne. 1995. “Forecasting the 1992 election: The BBC experience.” In Political communication: The General Election campaign of 1992, eds. Ivor Crewe and Brian Gosschalk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. 2005. Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004. Report prepared for the National Election Pool.
Fuchs, D. and J. Becker. 1968. “A brief report on the time of day when people vote.” Public Opinion Quarterly 32, 437–40.Google Scholar
Groves, R.M. and M.P. Couper. 1998. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.
Hofrichter, J. 1999. “Exit polls and election campaigns.” In The Handbook of Political Marketing, ed. Bruce Newman. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Klorman, R. 1976. “Chronopolitics: What time do people vote?” Public Opinion Quarterly 40, 182–93.Google Scholar
Konner, J. 2003. “The case for caution: This system is dangerously flawed.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, G. 2004. “Campaign ends with one-point race: One point in voter preference separates candidates as election looms.” ABC Original Campaign Report (November 1st, 2004), http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=215911.
Levy, M.R. 1983. “The Methodology and Performance of Election Day Polls.” Public Opinion Quarterly 47, 54–67.Google Scholar
Medlsohn, H. and I. Crespi. 1970. Polls, television and the new politics. Scranton, PA: Chandler.
Merkle, D.M. and M. Edelman. 2002. “Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis.” In Survey Nonresponse, ed. Robert M. Groves. New York: Wiley.
Mitofsky, W.J. and M. Edelman. 1993. “A review of the 1992 VRS exit polls.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 20–23, St. Charles, IL.
Mitofsky, W.J. 1991. “A short history of exit polls.” In Polling and Presidential Elections, eds. Paul J. Lavrakas and Jack K. Holley. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
National Election Pool 2004. http://www.exit-poll.net/ (July 10, 2006).
Nevitte, N., A. Blais, E. Gidengil and R. Nadeau. 2000. Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Province of Ontario. 1990. Election Finances Act. R.S.O.
Province of Ontario. Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 2004.
Traugott, M.W. and V. Price. 1992. “A review: exit polls in the 1989 Virginia Gubernatorial race: Where did they go wrong?” Public Opinion Quarterly 56, 245–53.Google Scholar