This blog post examines whether the prohibition on publishing poll results during election periods is a legitimate measure to ensure electoral fairness or an infringement on citizens’ right to know.
The issue of prohibiting the publication of opinion poll results during election periods has become a prominent social debate. This stems from opposing arguments: one claims that publishing poll results influences voters’ decisions, undermining election fairness; the other contends that the ban restricts media access to election information, infringing on the public’s right to know. Particularly in modern society, opinion polls play a crucial role in the electoral process, and their influence continues to grow over time. Opinion polls do not merely gauge support for candidates; they profoundly influence voters’ attitudes and behaviors toward elections. In this context, whether to ban the publication of poll results transcends simple regulation, emerging as a complex issue requiring simultaneous consideration of electoral fairness and citizens’ rights.
Proponents emphasize the negative effects of publishing polls, citing the ‘bandwagon effect’ and the ‘underdog effect’. According to the bandwagon effect, when poll results are published before election day, voters tend to flock to the candidate with the highest support to avoid wasting their vote. This explains the tendency for voters, when they judge their preferred candidate has little chance of winning, to shift their votes toward the leading candidate within their own political camp to avoid a wasted vote. Conversely, the underdog effect describes the phenomenon where sympathy for a trailing candidate translates into votes, potentially benefiting the underdog. They argue that the publication of poll results significantly influences voting behavior, and that this negative effect intensifies as election day approaches, necessitating a ban. They also point out the potential for poll results to distort reality, citing the immaturity of the conditions required for fair polling. Indeed, errors in survey methodology or sample selection can undermine the reliability of results, ultimately negatively influencing voters’ judgments. Furthermore, they cite the historical prevalence of corrupt elections involving money and official influence, along with the harms stemming from overheated campaign competition, as reasons supporting the necessity of prohibiting the publication of opinion polls.
Opponents emphasize the importance of the right to know as a means to realize freedom of expression. The right to know is a fundamental right for citizens to form opinions and a right to freely obtain the information, ideas, and opinions necessary to participate in the exercise of popular sovereignty. It is considered an essential element for citizens to exercise sovereignty in a democratic society and is closely linked to freedom of the press. This right is exercised by the press based on the ‘public trust theory,’ delegated by the people, and can only be fulfilled if the press’s access to information is guaranteed. Public opinion trends regarding a candidate’s support ratings or electability fall within the scope of this right to know. Therefore, prohibiting the publication of opinion poll results is argued to be an unconstitutional measure that infringes upon freedom of expression. Particularly, the media plays a crucial role in resolving information asymmetry. Prohibiting the publication of opinion poll results could deprive voters of the opportunity to access sufficient information about the election. They also emphasize that since no clear evidence has been presented that the publication of survey results undermines the fairness of elections, it has not been definitively proven that publication has a negative impact on elections. For example, empirical studies on the actual impact of opinion polls on voter turnout or election outcomes show inconsistent results or vary significantly depending on the region or situation. Therefore, in this context, a blanket ban on publishing opinion polls could be criticized as excessive regulation.
South Korea’s current election law prohibits the publication of opinion poll results from six days before the election until election day itself. This represents a significant reduction in the prohibition period compared to the past, when publication was restricted throughout the entire election period. This change provides important implications for the ongoing debate over the pros and cons of publication bans. Notably, the shortened prohibition period reflects a shift in societal consensus regarding the role opinion polls should play in the electoral process. Despite this change, the debate over the publication ban persists, demanding deep consideration on how to balance the fairness of elections with the public’s right to know in a democratic society.
