Public opinion polls have long been used by organizations such as Gallup and Pew, among others, partisan and nonpartisan alike. They are used to provide an estimate of overall public opinion on controversial matters with varying degrees of accuracy. Accuracy notwithstanding, these polls have a demonstrably negative effect on the democratic process.

On accuracy: polls are generally conducted by asking questions of a randomly selected group of people within a population, meant to represent a cross-section of that population. Questions might include those like, “Are you in favor of or opposed to legislation allowing for late-term abortions?” or “Are you satisfied with the current administration’s approach toward foreign policy?” Possible answers are usually of the yes-no variety. Occasionally, “no opinion” might turn up, in a more scientifically operated poll.

The problem with this line of questioning arises due to the fact that most people do not have simple yes-or-no answers to questions about complicated policy issues. Some may be able to answer in such a way; most will add qualification or caveats based on circumstances.

Also, polls rely on participation. In some cases, as with telephone polls, many people choose not to respond. A poll can only take into account the opinions of respondents, and those willing to respond are in the minority, according to the records of pollsters like Gallup and Pew.

Furthermore, there is the margin of error to consider. Most people are familiar with the famous photograph of Harry S. Truman holding up the edition of the Chicago Tribune, the front page of which claims “Dewey Defeats Truman,” (Chicago Daily Tribune, 1948). This photograph was taken at Truman’s victory celebration. The assertion of Truman’s defeat was made using the results of a poll which had closed earlier in the week. This mistake (though newspapers generally refrain from printing early these days, no doubt to avoid such embarrassment) is frequently repeated, even to this day.

Even if polls were frequently accurate, the negative effects of the assumed results far outweigh the benefits of “knowing where we stand.” In the 2014 midterm elections, polls released information suggesting that Democrats were shoo-ins for various senate and gubernatorial elections. The release of this information prior to the elections kept Democratic voters away from the polls, allowing Republicans who had been thought to have little chance of election to take power. In Virginia, Democrat Mark Warner, who had been expected to win by at least 10-percent, ended up squeaking by with a very narrow margin of victory, according to "American Government and Politics Today."

There is a more insidious practice in polling: push-polls. Most recently, the Clinton campaign has been criticized for its use of dishonest and leading questions in an attempt to sway voters away from opponent Bernie Sanders. Questions like, “What if I were to tell you The Washington Post said that Bernie Sanders’ campaign promises would cost more than $20 trillion and would raise everyone’s taxes — would you now be 'more likely’ or ‘less likely' to vote for Sanders, or has your opinion remained unchanged?” (via nolandalla.com) misrepresent facts and the supposed policies of Sanders.

Clinton’s campaign is hardly the first to use push-polls, and it will probably not be the last. They have been used for years. The same is true of inaccuracy in public opinion polls. These are not new phenomena. They have existed throughout the life-time of American democracy, and continue to undermine the integrity and the honest representation of the populace.

So, with the 2016 Presidential election looming, it is important to know that polls are not necessarily to be trusted. Turn out to vote, whether or not your chosen candidate seems to have any chance of victory. One never knows who is doing the calculations, or who has been asked what.