Why Exit Polls Get It Wrong: Insights from My Field Experience

In the ever-polarized debate on exit poll accuracy, one pressing question stands out: why do exit polls often miss the mark? Reflecting on my own experience covering the 2018 assembly elections in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, I believe the issue lies in the lack of comprehensive training for those conducting the polls. Without proper preparation, significant room for error can creep into the final analysis, skewing the results.

When I went on the ground in Rajasthan in the run-up to the 2018 assembly elections, the general sentiment I gathered was an overwhelming discontent across caste groups with the incumbent chief minister and the ruling party. Out of 26 assembly segments, I estimated Congress would sweep around 20-22 seats, leaving only a handful for the BJP. But on counting day, my confidence was shattered. Congress barely managed 9 seats, while BJP pulled off a surprising 14, with independents taking the remaining 3.

When the results finally rolled in, it felt like the ground beneath me had given way. All the knowledge I’d gathered over years of observing elections seemed to crumble, rendered null and void. The predictions I’d confidently made weren’t just a little off—they were shockingly misaligned with the reality unfolding before me.

Yet, instead of taking this experience as a defeat, I decided to treat it as a valuable lesson. I went back to the drawing board, determined to find where things had gone wrong. Through a lot of introspection, I began to recognize the core missteps in my approach, mistakes that ultimately skewed my entire understanding of the voter landscape.

As I revisited each aspect of my fieldwork, three major oversights stood out. Each was a piece of the puzzle that had shifted the results away from my expectations:

1. The Pitfall of Close-Ended Questions

One of the biggest realizations I had while covering elections is that voters rarely give straightforward answers when it comes to their electoral choices. People tend to beat around the bush, often hinting at their opinions through coded language or subtle cues rather than declaring outright who they’ll vote for. For anyone conducting election interviews, it’s crucial to listen carefully, picking up on keywords and patterns that reveal more than the words themselves.

In my own experience on the ground, this became especially clear during conversations with voters who leaned towards the BJP. They rarely mentioned their choice directly. Instead, they spoke passionately about national pride, development, and India's global standing. These weren’t explicit endorsements, but they were telling hints about their leanings. On the other hand, voters inclined towards Congress spoke in a different tone, subtly bringing up issues like change, the impact of demonetization, and GST. Each phrase and emphasis was a piece of the puzzle, and by listening for these recurrent themes, I began to see the broader narrative forming.

But here’s the catch: this kind of understanding can’t be reached through simple, close-ended questions. Questions that can be answered with a yes or no are likely to lead nowhere in uncovering the real sentiment. Open-ended questions are the key to unlocking voters’ thoughts, and building rapport is essential. When people feel comfortable and trust the person asking questions, they’re more likely to open up, allowing for a conversation that flows naturally.

For instance, instead of asking, “Are you happy with the current government?”—a question that corners the respondent—I found it more effective to ask something like, “What issues matter most to you in this election?” or “What changes do you think are necessary?” These questions not only give voters the freedom to express themselves, but they also allow the interviewer to pick up on subtle cues about their true opinions.

Earning voters’ trust takes time, and it requires the interviewer to show genuine interest in their perspectives. Once trust is established, people are more willing to share their opinions, often in a way that reveals more about their political preferences than a direct answer would. Open-ended questions aren’t just a technique; they’re a pathway to building connections, gaining insights, and reading between the lines. And in the end, it’s these nuanced responses that can make all the difference in accurately understanding the pulse of the electorate

2. The Quality vs. Quantity Dilemma

In the fast-paced world of election coverage, there’s often a push to cover as much ground as possible. The assumption is that a larger sample size means more accurate insights—a belief that I also held at the time. Driven by the idea that quantity would lead to precision, I made it my mission to speak to as many voters as possible, moving quickly from one conversation to the next. But as I later realized, this approach came at a cost: it sacrificed depth for breadth.

As I spoke to voters, my questions remained on the surface, resulting in responses that only scratched the surface of their concerns. If a voter mentioned they were unhappy with the ruling BJP, I didn’t always take the time to explore further. I didn’t dig into the underlying reasons behind their discontent or ask who they believed could address their issues better. I was so focused on accumulating data points that I overlooked the importance of understanding the nuances of each response. It felt efficient in the moment, but it left me with an incomplete picture.

Reflecting on those interactions, I realized that many voters were dissatisfied with the BJP yet didn’t view the opposition as a viable alternative. It wasn’t just about voting for or against a party—it was about finding a credible solution to their problems, and many felt they had no real choice. For them, voting for the ruling party wasn’t necessarily an endorsement but rather a decision born out of a lack of alternatives. Had I taken the time to ask more probing questions, I might have uncovered this sentiment earlier. Instead, by sticking to superficial questions, I missed these layers of complexity.

What I learned from this experience is that conversations with voters should be about quality over quantity. One in-depth conversation can reveal more than a dozen brief interactions if approached thoughtfully. Taking the time to ask follow-up questions—such as “If not the ruling party, who do you think could better address your concerns?”—can make all the difference in understanding a voter’s true feelings. These deeper conversations also provide insights into the broader landscape, shedding light on the perceptions of both the ruling party and the opposition.

Listening carefully, asking thoughtful questions, and investing in meaningful conversations with voters can ultimately lead to a clearer, more accurate understanding of the electorate. By focusing on quality rather than quantity, we gain not just information but also perspective—a vital asset in navigating the complex terrain of electoral sentiment.

3. Letting Go of Assumptions About “Silent Voters”

Early in my journalism career, I was taught a common assumption: silent voters, those who rarely express their political views openly, tend to vote against the ruling establishment. The belief was that they stay quiet to avoid repercussions from the ruling party or its supporters.

However, as I dove deeper into fieldwork, this assumption began to unravel. During election coverage, I noticed that most silent voters belonged to marginalized, economically disadvantaged communities that heavily relied on government schemes. These individuals aren’t silent due to opposition to the establishment. Rather, they’re quiet out of necessity, often bound by circumstances and community dynamics beyond their control.

In many villages, towns, and districts, political influence is dominated by socially powerful groups, while marginalized groups have limited say in the political landscape. This silent voter demographic frequently aligns publicly with the dominant groups in their communities, even if they have a different opinion privately. Their dependence on government support makes them cautious about expressing any dissent that might compromise their access to these benefits.

Moreover, voter turnout among these silent communities is often higher than among dominant social groups. Their day-to-day lives are directly impacted by government policies, so they feel a greater stake in the outcomes of elections. For them, the stakes are not just political; they are deeply personal. The continuation or change in government can significantly affect their quality of life, which drives their engagement in the electoral process.

This trend became especially clear in the recent Haryana elections. There, we saw that voters from marginalized communities turned out in significant numbers, motivated by survival rather than any allegiance to a political party. They voted to ensure that their immediate needs—healthcare, education, and financial assistance—would be met, regardless of who was in power.

This experience taught me to set aside preconceived notions and approach each voter interaction as a unique conversation, free from bias. Silent voters are not a monolithic bloc with predictable patterns; they are individuals with diverse needs, shaped by specific socioeconomic conditions. By unlearning the assumption about silent voters and remaining open to each perspective, I gained a clearer, more nuanced view of voter behavior—one that has since become essential in my approach to election coverage.

One of the most eye-opening realizations I’ve had from working in media is just how quickly field interviewers are often sent to cover elections. Many of these interviewers are launched into fieldwork after only a short crash course, an attempt to equip them with the basics of polling and reporting. But as valuable as these crash courses are, they fall far short of preparing interviewers for the depth and complexity of on-the-ground electoral coverage. And the repercussions of this are significant: the gap in training often leads to critical errors in the collection and interpretation of data, which ultimately skews the accuracy of opinion and exit polls.

The political landscape is nuanced, shaped by regional, cultural, and socio-economic factors that vary from one constituency to another. Yet, many interviewers find themselves entering these diverse environments with little more than surface-level knowledge and a list of questions. Lacking an understanding of the deeper issues at play, they may miss the subtleties in voter responses or interpret them in ways that don’t align with the actual political sentiment on the ground.

A significant challenge in field investigations is managing variation—variation in voter demographics, concerns, and even communication styles. The ability to gauge voter sentiment accurately goes beyond merely asking questions. It requires an understanding of the coded language voters often use, the cultural factors that influence their political decisions, and the socio-political dynamics unique to each area. Without this level of insight, interviewers are left vulnerable to misinterpretation, unable to grasp the underlying context behind voter responses. This oversight frequently leads to conclusions that don’t hold up on counting day, eroding public trust in exit polls.

Another major issue is that many polling agencies don’t invest in building a skilled workforce capable of handling these complexities. The interviewers, who are often fresh recruits or temporary hires, may lack the experience needed to navigate intricate voter behavior. This shortage of trained, skilled workers often leads to polls that fall short of capturing the true electoral mood. Exit poll agencies, in their rush to cover as many constituencies as possible, often prioritize quantity over quality. This not only impacts the accuracy of data but also creates a ripple effect, leading to misinformed analyses that fail to reflect the ground realities.

For exit polls to truly serve as a reliable indicator of voter sentiment, there’s a pressing need to shift the focus towards rigorous, in-depth training for interviewers. Training programs should move beyond basics and address essential skills, such as detecting subtle voter cues, interpreting indirect responses, and adapting to regional dynamics. Additionally, agencies need to place a greater emphasis on building a workforce that’s not only well-trained but also capable of appreciating the complexity of political sentiment. This shift would not only improve the quality of exit polls but also restore trust in their accuracy, allowing them to serve as a more reliable barometer of public opinion.

In an era where data-driven insights hold significant sway over public discourse, investing in skilled and nuanced fieldwork should be non-negotiable. Moving beyond crash courses and prioritizing depth over speed could be the key to bridging the current gap between polling predictions and election outcomes.