by Marc Schulman

As the elections move ever closer a rather unusual phenomenon seems to be occurring. Widely changing polls. The polls this year seem to be changing more then any election since modern polling began. First Bush had a commanding lead, then Gore caught up, and then Gore pulled substantially ahead. Then Bush pulled even, the ahead and now as I write this on the morning of September 29th CNN has it even again. Why have the polls been so volatile?

William Safire in yesterday's New York Times gave the explanation that the volatility is due to the weakness in the polling methodology- fewer people willing to answer, with many more being forced to decide even if they have not made a firm decision. This on top of the rather small poll sizes makes the reliability questionable. Today's lead article in the Wall Street Journal says much of the same, but adds the issue of bias in the polls themselves, how you ask the question and what questions you ask first seems to effect the answers you receive. The Wall Street Journal and William Safire are both right to underscore the imperfection of the polls, and it should give pause to everyone who pays close attention to them.

There is however, another factor at work here as well. Since the time of the Presidency of the Franklin Roosevelt party affiliation has been steadily decreasing. In the 1950's and even through much of the 60's the singlest strongest indicator of ones potential vote was the voting of one's parents. Today that no longer is true, party affiliation is down and intergenerational political transference is almost a thing of the past.

Furthermore while there are clear differences between Bush and Gore, there can be no doubt that many of the wedge issues that used to divide Democrats and Republicans are no longer present. With the end of the Cold War the Republicans lost much of one of their major issues- that the Democrats are soft on defense, and with the drop in crime they have lost that issue as well. As the Republicans have become more inclusive they Democrats have lost some automatic built in support in areas relating to civil rights. The end result, and electorate that is more fluid then it has been in the past.

The issue of guns and abortion remain a rather strong divide between the parties, but only a finite portion of the election considers either important enough to determine their vote. Thus to those who consider these issues core, their votes have no doubt already been decided. To others however, there is no strong roadmap to determine whom they should vote for. The result a volatile electorate. Many if pushed to give answer will say they support one or another of the candidates, but that support is only skin deep, and can change in the blink of an eye. Combine these factors with the weakness described by William Safire and the Wall Street Journal and you have an explanation of how the polls can seem to be so erratic.