I stayed up late to follow the U.S. election that took place yesterday (November 5th, 2024). The clock struck 1 a.m., and the results were still not in. The political analysts tried their best not to digress as they patiently waited for the numbers to be confirmed.
With an early morning meeting the next day, I could not afford to stay up until the new president was declared with utmost certainty. I called it a night but my thoughts lingered on what the presidential candidates might be going through at the biggest night of their lives. Without properly concluding my spiraling thoughts, I fell asleep and woke up in a country with a new president-elect. As a researcher, I couldn’t help but think about the polls that led up to this moment and the media’s role in amplifying them. Polls are everywhere during an election cycle: flashy graphics of numbers on news channels, confident analysts reading the tea leaves, predicting outcomes. And now that the election has concluded, we see the effects—supporters of the victorious candidates celebrating in jubilation, while the defeated are left feeling anxious.
These reactions are not just about the final tally; they’re also about how we communicate, or fail to communicate, the will of the people.
This makes me question the entire dynamic of communication between the public and their preferred leaders, as well as between elected leaders and the constituents they represent. After all, we’re told that democracy functions on the principle of representation—leaders must appeal to voters, and in turn, voters must have a clear line of communication with those they choose to represent them.
But as I watch these results unfold, I have to ask: Do these leaders truly understand their constituents’ needs, hopes, and concerns? More importantly, how do we know whether the voices of the people actually reach the ears of those in power?
In thinking about this, I find myself growing increasingly weary of the barrage of opinion surveys, those endless “opinion mining” exercises that are supposed to make us feel heard. It feels as though every week, I’m asked to fill out a survey—and I know millions of other constituents feel the same. Don’t get me wrong: I understand the desire to gather opinions, to collect the voice of the public and translate it into actionable insight. But what concerns me is the superficiality of the way this process happens. How can pollsters or politicians claim to understand my opinions if they rely solely on a basic survey with a few checkboxes, a series of pre-coded responses that barely scratch the surface?
These surveys, at best, provide a number: this many people agree, this many people disagree, and a chunk fall somewhere in the middle. That’s all well and good if we simply want a snapshot of public sentiment on a given issue. But if we are truly committed to solving problems, to improving lives, then shouldn’t we be far more concerned with understanding why people agree or disagree? The ‘why’ is at the heart of everything—it’s the key that unlocks genuine understanding and makes it possible to craft solutions that work.
Here is an example (this is fictional data used solely for illustrative purposes) of an opinion poll conducted during an election season, attempting to understand what constituents thought were the most important issues. At first glance, it may seem that this is interesting and provides useful insights. But take a moment to look again, think, and ask yourself: what insights can you truly gain from this chart? Sure, you can tell that “The economy” is the most pressing issue for most participants, while “Crime and safety” and “Health care policy” are seen as less urgent. But what can you tell beyond that? Why do most participants think “The economy” is the most pressing issue? And most importantly, what are decision-makers going to do about it? Are they going to make major political or policy decisions based on identifying the problem without understanding why it is a problem? Some may argue that think tanks and third-party firms conduct in-depth research to provide this understanding. Sure, but these numbers are directly from the participants—shouldn’t the elaboration also come from the same participants? Please take a moment to reflect on that.
Isn’t it obvious that to solve a problem, you must first understand it in depth, including why it matters to those who are impacted? The reality is that a basic survey, limited to yes-or-no answers or superficial multiple-choice questions, simply cannot provide the depth of insight we need to truly understand people’s experiences, frustrations, and aspirations. Numbers alone are incapable of capturing the complexity of human emotion or the underlying reasons that drive opinions. Without this understanding, how can a leader genuinely address the issues that matter to their constituents? How can they craft policies that reflect people’s real concerns, rather than merely responding to abstract data points?
This problem isn’t confined to elections—it’s a widespread issue across various sectors where surveys are used as the primary means of gathering information. Whether it’s in market research, employee satisfaction, or public health, the same pattern emerges: superficial surveys that limit participants to pre-determined responses, reducing complex opinions to simple statistics. This approach is not just lazy; it’s counterproductive. By failing to ask deeper questions, by refusing to make room for genuine conversation, we miss the opportunity to understand the real issues at hand.
This brings me to the importance of changing the way we gather insights and analyze them. We need to go beyond just counting the ‘yeses’ and ‘nos.’ We need to be asking follow-up questions: Why do you feel this way? How does this issue impact your life? What would you want to see done differently? These are the questions that reveal the true depth of opinion, that tell us not just what people think, but why they think it. Only then can we hope to design policies, solutions, and actions that address real needs and real problems.
Of course, I recognize that this is no small task. Asking follow-up questions, conducting deeper conversations, and analyzing the resulting data takes time and resources. It requires more than just a checkbox—it requires skilled researchers, nuanced analysis, and, perhaps most importantly, a genuine commitment to listening. But if we are serious about understanding people’s needs, if we are committed to making informed decisions that serve the public, then we must be willing to invest in this deeper approach. It might not be as easy or as fast as running a quick online poll, but the value of truly understanding those we aim to serve is immeasurable. Before the advent of generative AI, this task would have been insurmountable. Collection of in-depth responses from millions of constituents, processing all those data and transforming them to actionable insights is daunting even for political candidate with ample resources.
Researchers have long been trying to find more efficient ways of collecting, processing, and analyzing data, but nothing has shown more potential than the advent of generative AI. With the advent of generative AI, the possibilities are endless, of course there are challenges as well, in many sectors. In terms of research, AI can drastically reduce the time and resources it takes humans to consider various aspects of qualitative research. I truly believe that AI can disrupt the traditional way of mass communication and significantly improve it. In this instance, communication between a presidential candidate and their constituents. An AI company that I am affiliated with is doing just that. What it calls dynamic survey is a revamped version of traditional survey where the participants are asked questions and then asked to elaborate them to understand the “hows” and “whys.” Now one might ask, isn’t that going to take a long time, and don’t people have limited time to take surveys? It may seem like it will take significantly longer, but to much surprise it does not take that long. Apparently, people only need a few more seconds to elaborate succinctly. Also, there is a voice feature that makes it convenient.
The company did a social experiment with two kinds of surveys: one traditional and one dynamic. Both surveys had same questions but the one additon is that the dynamic survey had asked for elaboration. The average time it took for a participant to complete the dynamic survey was 2-3 minutes longer. I understand that it is still longer, but consider the difference in the results. One survey provides mere numbers, while the other provides numbers along with a rationale. 2-3 mins is a bargain in return for much richer and actionable insights, if you ask me. But that’s just me.
Now, this is not only limited to elections or opinion polls. It has significant implications in many other fields where human opinion is crucial. Especially in market research and service industry, where they often need human’s qualitative feedback for variety of reasons including, but not limited to, product/service improvement, launching new product, needs assessments etc. The potential is endless.
In the end, it comes down to a simple idea: If leaders want to lead effectively, they need to truly listen—not just to the numbers, but to the people behind them. It is crucial for leaders to make every effort to understand their constituents, to hear not just their voices but the reasons behind their concerns and opinions. With the advent of AI, it is worth asking how technology can contribute to improved communication. AI has the potential to revolutionize how leaders understand their constituents, not just by tallying support but by delving into the nuances of ‘why’ and ‘how.’ This is especially true not only for the candidates who win elections but also for those who are defeated. I can’t help but wonder how the outcome of elections, or the feelings of those involved, might change if every constituent felt that their voice had truly been heard and understood.
If we want our democracy to thrive, if we want our communities to flourish, then we need to rethink how we engage with public opinion. We need to go beyond superficial surveys and sound bites and commit to understanding each other in a deeper, more meaningful way.