Further Reading: A Brief History of Polling and Political Measurement

  1. Igo, Sarah E. The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public. Harvard University Press, 2007. A cultural history of how surveys and polls shaped Americans' understanding of themselves as a "public." Igo traces how Gallup, Kinsey, and other researchers constructed the idea of "average" American opinion, and how this construction influenced politics, media, and identity. Essential for understanding polling not just as a method but as a cultural institution.

  2. Converse, Jean M. Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960. University of California Press, 1987. The definitive academic history of American survey research from its origins through the establishment of the major survey centers. Dense but authoritative, this book covers the intellectual and institutional development of the field in exhaustive detail. Particularly valuable for the detailed account of the 1948 crisis and its aftermath.

  3. Moore, David W. The Superpollsters: How They Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion in America. Four Walls Eight Windows, 1992. A critical examination of the major polling organizations and their methods, written by a former Gallup editor. Moore combines insider knowledge with scholarly analysis, covering the tensions between commercial pressures and methodological rigor that have shaped the industry since Gallup's founding.

  4. Social Science Research Council. Pre-Election Polls of 1948. Bulletin 60, 1949. The original SSRC report on the 1948 polling failure, chaired by Frederick Mosteller. A landmark document in the history of survey methodology. While the statistical language is dated, the analytical framework---careful diagnosis of multiple sources of error, followed by specific recommendations for reform---remains a model for post-election assessments.

  5. Zukin, Cliff. "What's the Matter with Polling?" New York Times, June 20, 2015. A widely discussed op-ed by a former president of AAPOR that warned---a year before the 2016 election---that the polling industry was in crisis due to declining response rates and the uncertain reliability of online methods. Zukin's piece captured the anxiety of a profession in transition and proved prescient in light of subsequent events.

  6. Kennedy, Courtney, et al. "An Evaluation of the 2016 Election Polls in the United States." Public Opinion Quarterly 82, no. 1 (2018): 1-33. The formal academic version of the AAPOR post-mortem on 2016 polling errors. Identifies late-deciding voters, education-based nonresponse bias, and overconfident likely voter models as key factors. Essential reading for understanding the most recent major polling failure and the profession's response.

  7. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Brian Schaffner. "Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison." Political Analysis 22, no. 3 (2014): 285-303. An empirical comparison of telephone and online survey methods using the same questionnaire and population. The study finds that mode effects are smaller than often assumed but not negligible, particularly for sensitive questions. Directly relevant to the chapter's discussion of the transition from telephone to online polling.

  8. Rivers, Douglas. "Sampling for Web Surveys." Joint Statistical Meetings, 2007. The foundational paper on YouGov's sample matching methodology, written by the firm's chief scientist. Technical but accessible, this paper explains the logic behind matching non-probability panelists to probability-based target samples. Essential for understanding the methodological debate discussed in Case Study 2.

  9. Cohn, Nate. "What Went Wrong with Polling? Some Early Theories." The New York Times, November 10, 2020. A clear, accessible analysis of the 2020 polling errors, written by one of the most respected data journalists covering elections. Cohn explores the possibility that the errors were driven by differential nonresponse---the idea that Trump supporters were systematically less likely to participate in surveys---and discusses the implications for future polling.

  10. Berinsky, Adam J. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America. Princeton University Press, 2004. An academic study of how nonresponse bias distorts our understanding of public opinion. Berinsky argues that the people who do not participate in polls are not randomly distributed in the population; they tend to be less educated, less engaged, and more ambivalent---and their absence systematically skews measured opinion. Directly relevant to the chapter's discussion of who gets counted.

  11. Lepore, Jill. "Politics and the New Machine." The New Yorker, November 16, 2015. A masterful essay that traces the history of polling from the straw poll era through the digital age, connecting methodological developments to broader questions about democracy, representation, and the meaning of "public opinion." Lepore's literary skill makes complex methodological issues accessible to general readers.

  12. Baker, Reg, et al. "Summary Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Non-Probability Sampling." Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 1, no. 2 (2013): 90-143. A comprehensive assessment of non-probability sampling methods by a blue-ribbon panel of survey methodologists. The report evaluates the strengths and limitations of online panel methods, including sample matching, and offers guidelines for when non-probability approaches may be appropriate. A key document in the ongoing debate discussed in this chapter.