More problems with polls.

A week out and the main question we're all asking is "which way will the undecideds break?"

A recent article by Sam Wang and Joshua Gold in the New York Times has a fascinating explanation of how the minds of undecided voters actually work.

For voters who commit early:

...after there is enough evidence to reach a person’s decision threshold, his brain can ignore further input even when it might improve accuracy. The brain goes ahead and decides, freeing up mental resources to deal with other problems.

However, uncommitted voters:

...might simply require a higher degree of confidence before they commit. Pollsters know this, and so push “uncommitted” voters to state a preference. Although this approach may seem heavy-handed, it gives a fairly accurate reading of a candidate’s support. In psychological studies, people who describe themselves as undecided often reveal a pronounced preference when they are forced to choose. When someone reports being only “moderately sure” of a decision like whether to accept a new job, his eventual choice is all but certain.

What impact does this have on polling methodology? Basically, it makes it tough to compare different polls without knowing whether the pollster requires a "forced choice." (And each pollster makes an individual determination on if and when they force the choice.)

For characteristically undecided voters, as long as you offer the option to remain undecided, they will, even if they are leaning towards a specific candidate. The question for pollsters becomes one of timing--at what point in the election cycle do you stop offering an undecided option and force the respondents to choose? According to Wang and Gold, it may be that pollsters can start forcing choice far earlier in the cycle than they once thought.