Online Ballots: Let the Clicker Beware
EmailFeathers have been flying lately about a couple of online ballots posted on ABCNews.com after the recent ABC-sponsored presidential debates in Iowa. The alleged “winners,” if you choose to buy into these compilations of clicks, were Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Cue howls of outrage from their respective partisans, protesting that ABC hasn’t adequately reported the so-called results.
As my 12-year-old would say, chillax.
The reality is that these things are not polls or surveys, nor does ABC News identify them as such. They are called “online ballots.” They’re posted to encourage a sense of community and participation. But while the clicks they receive are tallied, they never are percentaged. And they’re supposed to carry this disclaimer: “Not a scientific survey. For entertainment only.”
Hold that thought – “for entertainment only” – as we dig a little deeper. Because ABC policy goes further, to require that any subsequent use of these ballots, beyond simply posting them, must note their vulnerability to outside manipulation.
That’s the real issue with online click-ins. Pointing out that they’re produced by self-selection and thus not reliably representative of any broader population is true, and fatal; but it sounds like a technicality – a talking point for the Sominex-sponsored Third International Colloquium on Inferential Statistics. More fatal (so to speak), because it’s at once easier to grasp and more immediately threatening, is the fact that these things can be, and often are, intentionally manipulated by groups or individuals with an interest in the outcome.
It happens all the time. People who want to stuff the ballot box just forward around the click-in’s URL, burying it in an orchestrated cascade of votes for the favored person, position or point of view. Others go a step further, building automated voting bots that jack up the tally for the pre-selected winner. Did this or that debate "winner," say, get clicks from 15,343 people – or from one person clicking 15,343 times? It can be impossible to tell.
Often we don’t know for sure when campaigns to manipulate online ballots occur; there aren’t always smoking guns. We have, though, found a posting on a meetup.com page, urging readers to vote for Paul in the Iowa debate ballot ("Ron Paul Winning ABC Debate Poll! Vote Now!") and to distribute the link elsewhere. The call to arms: “Lets keep RON PAUL ON TOP!” (sic). And Kucinich links to the ballot from his own campaign website; the headline reads, “Kucinich's Lead Keeps Increasing – ABC Debate Poll.”
None of this is remotely new. With the help of a hyperactive online community, Alan Keyes smashed the opposition as winner of a Republican debate in New Hampshire in December 1999, with 49 percent (against five opponents) in a Fox News/Vote.com online ballot. Sadly for the clickers, Quinnipiac University conducted a real poll (that is, a representative, random-sample telephone survey) on the same debate; Keyes got 13 percent, far behind John McCain (who, as it happens, went on to win the primary).
Nearly a year later, on Oct. 4, 2000, the day of the first presidential debate in the general election, Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson sent an e-mail to his entire membership, urging the nation’s Republicans to click in on ABCNews.com and CNN.com ballots to show their support for George W. Bush. That night, 58 percent in the ABCNews.com ballot picked Bush as the debate’s winner; by contrast, in actual polls by ABC News, Gallup and NBC News, he got 39, 41 and 36 percent, respectively. (Our prohibition on percentaging click-ins came later. Its aim simply is to make them less attractive to would-be manipulators.)
Some members of the FreeRepublic.com online community even have a name for this – they call it "freeping" – and when their side is losing they go so far as to "reverse freep," boosting the other side's vote to make the result so lopsided it's unbelievable. "REVERSE FREEP…the fix is in…they are cheating so vote for Kerry…99-1 invalidates online polls since they are invalid anyway," read one posting in the heat of the 2004 presidential campaign.
The gamesmanship goes far beyond election politics. For some it's a business: then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's settlement in a payola case against Universal Music Group in 2006 disclosed that UMG had paid a "request company" to "jack TRL (MTV's "Total Request Live") for Lindsay (Lohan)." I’ve got a thick sheaf of manipulated online ballots on everything from Tom Cruise to Don Imus to Drum Corps International. (Some joker jacked the results of the lineup ballot for their 2005 Masters of the Summer Music Games in Murfreesboro, Tenn. How low can you get?)
Rich Morin, former polling director at The Washington Post, wrote a priceless description of the issue nearly a decade ago, featuring, among others, Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf as People magazine’s Most Beautiful Person of 1998. (The piece still lives here, in what Morin presciently called “the world’s newest and most cluttered attic.”)
Today it’s online click-ins; in an earlier time it was 1-800 call-ins. Back in 1990, for instance, USA Today invited its readers to call in and say whether they liked or disliked Donald Trump. We love the Donald, came back the headline – a smashing 81-19 percent rout in Trump’s favor. At least until a correction appeared in the paper a month later, reporting that an audit had found that 5,640 of the 7,802 pro-Trump calls had come from precisely two phone numbers at an insurance company in Cincinnati owned by an admirer of Trump’s. Thank heaven for redial.
For all its internet fizz, then, this really is just old snake oil in new bottles. Sometimes it's fun and games. Other times it rises to a more serious level – misinformation, even downright disinformation. If it's your thing, click away. Just remember: When it comes to online ballots, if there’s a buck to be made or a point to be scored, chances are very good that someone, somewhere, has a finger on the scale. It's not remotely a scientific survey. And it is, decidedly, for entertainment only.
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
May I offer a piece of advice. There are several easy steps that can be taken to prevent most of the “clicks” as you call it. Most of these can be filtered through 1 Vote per IP address. Though, this is not failsafe, it is difficult for the average tech savvy user to do in large numbers.
You mentioned that these polls were for entertainment purposes only. If this is the case, why would you even have these polls? I would surely hope you wouldn’t be using the political stage to generate click-thru Ad revenue for ABC.com. That poses another ethical problem for the mainstream networks.
Posted by: Michael | August 28, 2007, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Click Polls have been an internet staple for a long time. I find it astonishing that anyone would take them seriously. They are purely entertainment. As are the call this number polls.
Posted by: bertie | August 29, 2007, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
Michael,
One click per IP doesn’t work since you could have thousands of truly unique people coming from one behind one Proxy Server.
Posted by: Robert | August 29, 2007, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
One click per IP REALLY doesn’t work, because my ISP – like many others – assigns me a random IP everytime I turn on my modem or type “ipconfic/renew” on the command line.
Posted by: Mike | August 29, 2007, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
Robert: One click per IP does work. A proxy server is just a single IP that other people connect to. It’s to mask their OWN IP address so it appears that the requests are coming from the single proxy server IP.
Mike: Sure some ISP’s assign random IP numbers, but remember it’s your modem that receives this IP address and passes it along to your router or computer. There is also a MAC address (Physical hardware address) that the ISP’s use to monitor which modems are accessing the network. They link the MAC address to YOU and the IP address is simply so your modem/computer can live on the internet.
Now they may assign dynamic IP addresses. Most ISP’s will assign you the same IP address, all the time. Even if you do a ipconfig/renew. All this does is refresh your IP which, most likely will be the same IP address that is in the ISP’s index.
This would then lead to the argument that Ron Paul supporters are going to such lengths to mess with online polls. And you are calling us conspiracy theorists.
This argument just does not hold water. What does hold water is the sheer number of people that are donating VIA the internet to Ron Pauls campaign. I’m sure this translates into online polling results…wouldn’t you think?
Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2007, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
I really think there’s an alternative explanation that makes a whole lot more sense.
Namely, that a disproportionate percentage of web-savvy Americans favor Paul and Kucinich. Folks who aren’t web-savvy are more likely to follow the folks in the “traditional media” spotlight.
Posted by: Travis Seitler | August 29, 2007, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
Travis:
That may be true to a certain extent. So shouldn’t people report that as the case instead of claiming that the Paul & Kucinich supporters are a rogue group of internet hackers inflating polls?
My personal belief is that the true poll numbers are an average between traditional media and the new media. If this is really the case, then people have to know that looking at a single source (media) for poll results is skewed one side to the other. They should be average and not discounted.
Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2007, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
I realize that online polls are supposed to be viewed as purely for entertainment, but in a country where candidates promise to stand up to the health insurance companies, shaking their fists at them with one hand and taking money from them with the other, I must admit that when I saw that Dennis Kucinich had won the ABC online poll after the Iowa debate, I felt more entertained than I have felt in a long time. Please, at least humor us. Heartland America may not be able to overcome the corporate sponsored media, and the health insurance lobby money machine, and Diebold, but can’t they at least let us revel in the results of one online poll? ABC should at least let us dream our dreams, even if they are determined to do everything in their power to keep them from coming true.
Posted by: Cheryl Emmons | August 29, 2007, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm
Read between the lines, people. If it were just a matter of self-selection, then this blog entry would have been about the unreliable nature of polling that depends on self-selection. And ABC News clearly doesn’t want to add any perceived validation to an already subjective poll by limiting it to “one click per IP.” That would just give the nuts more fodder to attempt to validate the results in some way.
The story between the lines here is that the numbers were obviously so high for Kucinich and Paul (probably in the 99-1 freeping range mentioned in the blog entry), that they can’t merely be attributed to self-selection, and could only have been produced by clever machinations on the part of someone or ones on the Internet. Perhaps it was reverse freeping designed to make those two candidates look more ridiculous for thinking that these ratings are meaningful. Perhaps supporters of the other candidates weren’t interested in the results of a meaningless survey so early in the election cycle, and so refrained from their own clever tricks. At any rate, anyone who thinks that these ratings should be taken seriously in any way should go read a statistics textbook, and then go learn how computers work.
Posted by: Jon | August 30, 2007, 2:22 am 2:22 am
“web-savvy Americans favor Paul and Kucinich”
Hmm… Shall we have a poll on that?
Let’s just agree that supporters of Paul and Kucinich would really like that to be true — but it ain’t necessarilly so.
Posted by: Blixa | August 30, 2007, 2:44 am 2:44 am
What about the part where ABC resets their polls when they don’t like who’s winning?
Posted by: Doug | August 31, 2007, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
I’m a democrat, and I support Ron Paul. No, we aren’t a bunch of spammers, we just really love his message, he speaks the truth.
So all you people: Stop being good democrats, stop being good republicans, start being good Americans. Do what’s right, look into things for yourselves on truly independent news sites (a.k.a. Not owned by Rupert Murdoch) Think for yourselves, it’s not that difficult.
Posted by: Amanda Fabian | August 31, 2007, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
Thank you so much ABC for providing more free publicity to Paul and Kucinich! The editors must be pushing you reporters hard to get this story out! I can empathize. The authoritarian “because we said so” is now obsolete and obtuse. Eighth grade politicing doesn’t work with an informed
public.
Posted by: sandman | August 31, 2007, 11:46 pm 11:46 pm
IP addresses don’t work any longer to verify one vote. Too many public use computers, you would be shutting out anyone using those.
second is many people, even the non tech savvy use programs such as tor which pings us all over the world every sec.
I have seen online polls that there is no way thousands have logged on to vote, one vote.
third, if you are sitting at your computer voting in online polls instead of hitting the streets for your candidate, then I really doubt he will win.
Posted by: gitoverit | September 3, 2007, 2:14 am 2:14 am
If for amusement purposes only, why would you play entertainment games with real candidates and in a real election? You are a real news outlet and you play games, in an election?
ABC flashes those numbers everywhere, including mentions in live news stories. Entertainment my behind.
Posted by: Mark | September 4, 2007, 3:16 am 3:16 am
Im afraid dear MSM that you are slowly losing the internet. Thing is, people can view ALL the opinions on certain issues. When this happens, with complete freedom of information, Ron and Dennis win with a landslide. If everyone had full access to all the info, then the results would be seen on a national scale. But as u know, the demographics are not like this. Most people just take your word for things and don’t have a clue whats going on. One day this will change, I hope its in my lifetime.
Posted by: Themedialies2 | September 4, 2007, 9:54 am 9:54 am
One should also point out that elections themselves are a “self-selection process” and presumably “unscientific”. Then again, it won’t surprise me, when I go to vote for Ron Paul in the New York primary, to see the words “for entertainment purposes only”.
And just for the record, I think “Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf” is a perfectly sound choice for People Magazine’s insipidly stupid “Most Beautiful Person of the Year”.
Posted by: W Gary Johnson | September 4, 2007, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
I’m rather discouraged that so many American people are so ignorant. However, it goes hand in hand with the idea that people believe what they want to believe, even when they are shown irrefutable evidence that they are wrong. How else could so many self-proclaimed Communists be alive and well today?
The fact is that everyone who has replied to this article, myself included, has an agenda. Some of you have risen to the bait and taken offense that anything about your candidate should smell even slightly rotten. Others have criticized ABC and threatened to sue (frequently an overused and self-incriminating response).
None have realized that ABC has left their hate mail posted here for all the world to see. Perhaps Osama was right when he decreed that freedom of speech was a falsehood. Here I see nothing but freedom of speech and am surrounded by ignorant masses who cannot recognize that not only are they privileged, but they clog the very source of their freedom with their incessant braying.
How about putting a cork in it? Besides, the sad reality is that you are just one in more than six billion other ants on this hill. You will die and hardly a soul will blink, while those who make a difference in the greater scheme of things will not stoop so low as to whine about a foolish entertainment poll. Whining to a poll company will not change your candidate’s standing in anyone eyes, especially mine.
Posted by: Josh Eggar | September 4, 2007, 11:42 pm 11:42 pm
Josh Eggar,
I believe America has been waking up for the last several years. This example of media power only holds back the truths. People aren’t giving just hate mail. They are dissatisfied with media outlets they have trusted for many years. Remember, we own the airwaves, and we expect fair reporting. It only takes a minority of people with passion to change the world. Remember great leaders like Ghandi, MLK, Jesus, ect. We are not insignificant cattle, but unique snowflakes and now it’s the winter of the 2008 election. We see the state of America and the world, and notice the major news outlets just want to entertain us. So, we write to people like Mr. Langer , to make a change. However, some are in disgust as ABC may have violated this trust in the airwaves that WE own.
Posted by: Jack R IV | September 5, 2007, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
This was a message to ABC about making Dennis Kucinich nearly INVISIBLE in their so-called “debate.” In REAL debates each side is given equal amount of time to speak. I agree with getoverit that these news stations throw these polls around all the time!
Posted by: Kelly | September 5, 2007, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm
I’m curious. If these polls are so meaningless, then why did ABC go to the trouble of resetting one when the result was deemed unacceptable? Why haven’t “online ballots” or whatever else you want to call them been dropped from prominence when they’re won by so-called leading candidates?
I’m also curious as to whether you checked to see if calls for people to vote were placed on other candidates’ websites. I’m guessing you didn’t, since you don’t mention that one way or the other. Here’s to fair reporting, eh?
Posted by: EKSwitaj | September 6, 2007, 3:31 am 3:31 am
I agree these polls are unscientific.
However, after the FOX debates last night (Sept. 5), both Hannity and Colmes said Ron Paul once again won the call-in poll because his supporters “spammed” the polls by repeatedly voting.
This was totally false. It was impossible to vote twice in the polls.
If nothing else, the polls demonstrate Paul’s remarkable ability to mobilize his supporters like no other candidate in the race. And THAT is a very important fact in itself.
Posted by: James W. Harris | September 6, 2007, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm
Thanks to all who have commented constructively. Please be aware that postings on this site are periodically reviewed by moderators to ensure their compliance with our House Rules and other Terms of Use. Language that is defamatory, abusive, harassing, insulting or threatening; off-subject remarks; and flaming, spamming and griefing are unwelcome. See http://disney.go.com/corporate/legal/terms.html
Posted by: Gary Langer | September 6, 2007, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Disney Cruise Rates
Special rates for Florida Residents make now the perfect time to take a DISNEY CRUISE. Curr
Posted by: Disney Cruise Rates | September 10, 2007, 10:09 am 10:09 am
sexchat
Watch out for new stories on this matter.
Posted by: sexchat | September 10, 2007, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
You phrase your point well, but I have to raise something that requires thought also.
Why is it that when the media (likely outsourced) controls the polling, the numbers are considered ‘accepted’ but these numbers are to be considered with a grain of salt. These polls are freely available for anyone to go to the site and vote. Doesn’t it make it an accurate representation?
Posted by: Walter Wojciechowski | September 10, 2007, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
cam sex
It can often times get exacting to sort the acceptable entertainment notes from the dreadful.
Posted by: cam sex | September 10, 2007, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
All I know is this. If a news story breaks at 7:00 am in the morning, I can have more information than any one news organization by 7:15 just by using the internet.
Sure live video helps. That’s where YouTube and other similar sites help. Even the big media newsco sites and TV can play a part in live video. But they usually only show what they have time for or what they want you to see. YouTube is where you go for the raw unadulterated footage and I’m willing to wait for it before I make any snap judgments.
Take Harry Reid’s comment about the, “War is lost.” I think all the world thinks he said that. What he said was, “As long as we follow the presidents plan, the war is lost.” Which I heard as , we’re getting our butts kicked and we need to try something different before we fail.
I watched as several news agencies reported his truncated sentence for several weeks. Now it has become truth and it he never said what they reported.
Why would the media do this? Mr. Langer said it best. Entertainment. They have confused news with entertainment.
Posted by: Robert | September 10, 2007, 11:40 pm 11:40 pm
sex cam
If you have nothing to do tonight, check out the best sex cam site around!
Posted by: sex cam | September 15, 2007, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
sex cam
If you have nothing to do tonight, check out the best sex cam site around!
Posted by: sex cam | September 16, 2007, 1:22 am 1:22 am
Make Money Online
It is tiresome striving to add up the hours we’ve consumed looking up business opportunity web sites.
Posted by: Make Money Online | September 17, 2007, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
Disney Cruise Line Discussion Boards
Here you will find travel information, interactive discussion boar
Posted by: Disney Cruise Line Discussion Boards | September 24, 2007, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm
The media is being to arrogant here, this marks the beginning of the end for them, in the years to come, more and more people will rely on the unbiased information on the internet instead of this filtered news.
Posted by: Xiao | October 2, 2007, 2:20 am 2:20 am
Whether Americans will be able to verify electronic vote counts in 2008′s presidential election will vary from state to state, as underscored by a little-noticed lawsuit that goes to trial this week in Pima County, Ariz., where Tucson is located.
There, in a fast-growing region, the local Democratic Party is suing the Pima County Board of Supervisors — including its three Democratic members — to release the complete electronic records of a 2006 election that included a ballot question on raising taxes for a $2 billion transportation bond. The measure, favored by developers, won even though it lost in prior elections and was trailing in pre-election polls.
The county’s Democratic Party and local election integrity activists believe pro-growth local officials may have tampered with the electronic vote count to win. They have sworn evidence a long-time county employee who tallies the electronic vote totals took home backup tapes of the 2006 vote and accessed those vote count files before the official election results were announced. It is seeking the complete electronic voting record to determine if vote count fraud occurred.
“We are asking to get a database,” said William Risner, attorney for the Election Integrity Committee of the Pima Democratic Party. “It is not our goal (in this trial) to attempt to prove that anything has happened. We want the data that would help us show that. What we are trying to do is establish our right to get the data and do an analysis. And certainly the fact they are fighting tooth and nail suggests that they have something to hide.”
Pima County officials say the election records are not public documents and releasing them could actually reveal ways for partisans or the public to alter future vote counts.
“If the Pima Democratic Party or any member of the public gets access to that programming information, they could affect the outcome of an election,” said Amelia Cramer, Pima County’s chief deputy attorney.
The election results will be determined by Dibolt and other corporations not the American voters.
Posted by: Doug Brown | December 3, 2007, 11:51 am 11:51 am
One vote per IP address should do it.
I believe that if this is a survey open to the public for entertainment purposes then each person should be able to cast one vote regardless of where they hear about the survey. Who cares if there is a link posted on a website or emailed to groups who would support one candidate over another.
Posted by: Matt | December 14, 2007, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
The bottom line is that Kucinich and Paul won, whether non-scientific or not! Don’t put a poll online if you can’t handle the results! Intelligent internet using independent voters picked Kucinich and Paul! ABC has CONTINUALLY tried to keep Kucinich and others from having equal time in debates and now purposely excludes them based on polling numbers. When they did let Kucinich participate they gave him a few minutes only compared to the other candidates! They’ve made their mind up in advance who they think should win and are forcing Americans to hear from only candidates that they want you to hear from. Absolutely shameful. Absolutely UNamerican! ABC took down Dennis K.’s pic from the candidates page, hardly reports at ALL about him, and is now keeping him OUT of NH debates. With only one state primary gone, ABC has already decided who you should vote for. They miss the point. Americans want to hear from Paul and Kucinich, even if they don’t vote for him. Their voices are important to the democratic process and to shaping the future of their respective parties. Big media, Big money, Candidate Shut-Outs! Tell ABC to “” it! Protest. Vote Kucinich See Dennis on PBS tonight (yeah PBS a fair broadcasting system!).
Posted by: Marie | January 4, 2008, 11:30 am 11:30 am