OK, I’ve given it some thought, and I’ve decided to go with the statistical flow and conduct my own little poll.

First, I need a point of focus, preferably an election. So let’s say I’m going to conduct a telephone poll to see who will win the next NIU election for SA President. Now I need two opponents—let’s say, for variety’s sake, Gregg Bliss will run against Brother Jed (even though the latter wouldn’t actually qualify—similar to many mainstream politicians).

Suppose I call 150 people on a random basis. Fifty of them hang up on me, 40 say they’ll vote for Bliss, 15 for Bro Jed, 10 are undecided and 5 will vote for another candidate. Now there’s a lot I can do with this information.

If I want it to sound like Bliss is a no-contest winner, I could report my findings as such: The poll shows Bliss with a 25 percent lead over Jedd, or: Forty percent of respondents said they will opt for Bliss in the next election.

Or, if I want the results to favor Jed, I can say that less than 41 percent of the respondents will vote for Bliss. Right?

Okay, okay, I know this is grossly exaggerated and that real polls are conducted a little more professionally. Yet the fact remains that the validity of random surveys is often very questionable and they do not always accurately reflect election outcomes.

Rather, polls like the ones we are being bombarded with concerning the 1988 Presidential Campaign are more likely to become self-fulfilling prophecies with the results determined more by the media than the voters.

Take, for example, a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News which appeared in last Sunday’s Times. The poll was “based on interviews with 1,287 registered voters nationwide, conducted by telephone and weighed to reflect a “probable electorate.”

Are 1,287 people enough to accurately represent the nation’s opinion? What’s the margin of error? How many people did not respond at all? And, by the way, what does a “probable electorate” mean?

My feeling is that, if you weigh the accuracy of these polls against the potential effect they can have on voters, one can see how easily they can be used simply as a tool to sway public opinion—not to reflect any feasible, potential outcome. Any media representative could use poll statistics to slant an election in his candidate’s favor. It’s similar to the discrepency between saying that the sky is partly sunny or partly cloudy, depending on how you feel that day.

Bush might be 15 percent ahead in the polls one day and two different people will report that Bush is gaining a strong lead or Dukakis is edging closer, depending on how they want to call it—nevermind the accuracy factor.

Isn’t it almost ironic that if you were being considered for jury duty in a controversial case, anything you may have heard on the news or any preconceived notions you might have about the case would make you ineligible? Yet you can be subjected to droves of slanted information concerning the election of our nation’s president and still vote, whether or not any actual issues have been discussed.

Well, at any rate, the chances that all these polls and statistics will be omitted from forthcoming presidential elections are pretty slim. The point is that, as responsible voters, we’re going to have to try our best to base our decisions on our own interests and values, not on who we think everyone else will vote for.

Don’t be fooled into thinking your vote won’t matter if polls tell us one candidate is already far ahead. You can’t be sure of their accuracy, nor can you be sure if the respondents had the same values or the same beliefs on the issues as you do.

When you go to vote Tuesday, represent yourself and no one else. Don’t be swayed by what people tell you “everyone else” is doing. It’s like Dad used to say: “If everyone else jumps in the lake…”