In this blog post, we examine whether the ban on publishing poll results during the election period is a legitimate measure to ensure the fairness of elections or a form of suppression that infringes on the public’s right to know.
The issue of banning the publication of opinion poll results during election periods is emerging as a major social controversy. This is because arguments that the publication of poll results influences voters’ intentions and undermines the fairness of elections clash with counterarguments that such bans infringe upon the public’s right to know by restricting the media’s access to election information. In particular, opinion polls play a crucial role in the electoral process in modern society, and their influence continues to grow over time. Opinion polls do not merely gauge support for candidates; they also deeply influence voters’ attitudes and behavior toward elections. In this context, the question of whether to ban the publication of opinion poll results has emerged as a complex issue that goes beyond simple regulation, requiring a simultaneous consideration of both electoral fairness and the rights of the public.
Proponents emphasize the negative effects of publishing opinion polls, citing the “bandwagon effect” and the “underdog effect.” According to the bandwagon effect, if opinion poll results are published before election day, voters will flock to the candidate with the highest approval rating due to a desire to avoid wasting their vote. This explains the tendency for voters, when they judge that their preferred candidate has a low chance of winning, to cast their votes for 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, which can actually result in an advantage for the underdog. They argue that the publication of opinion poll results significantly influences voting behavior, and since these negative effects intensify as election day approaches, such publication should be prohibited. Furthermore, citing the fact that the necessary conditions for fair opinion polling have not yet matured, they point out the possibility that poll results may distort reality. In fact, errors arising from survey methods or the sample selection process can undermine the reliability of the results, which may ultimately have a negative impact on voters’ judgments. Furthermore, they cite past experiences—such as the many negative consequences resulting from electoral fraud fueled by money and government power, as well as excessive competition in election campaigns—as reasons supporting the need to ban the publication of opinion polls.
Opponents, above all, emphasize the importance of the right to know as a means of realizing freedom of expression. The right to know is a fundamental right upon which citizens form their opinions, and it is the right to freely seek the information, ideas, and opinions necessary to participate in the exercise of popular sovereignty. This 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 media based on the “public trust theory,” which holds that the media acts as a trustee appointed by the public; it can only be fulfilled if the media’s access to information is guaranteed. Since public opinion trends regarding a candidate’s support or likelihood of winning fall within the scope of this right to know, opponents argue that prohibiting the publication of opinion poll results constitutes an unconstitutional measure that infringes upon freedom of expression. In particular, 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. Furthermore, they emphasize that since no clear evidence has been presented to show that the publication of survey results undermines the fairness of elections, it has not been definitively proven that such publication has a negative impact on elections. For example, empirical studies on the actual impact of opinion poll results on voter turnout or election outcomes show inconsistent results or vary depending on the region or context. Therefore, imposing a blanket ban on the publication of opinion poll results under these circumstances could be criticized as excessive regulation.
South Korea’s current election law prohibits the publication of opinion poll results from six days before election day until election day itself. This demonstrates that the prohibition period has been significantly shortened compared to the past, when publication was restricted throughout the entire election period, and this change offers important insights into the debate over the publication ban. In particular, the shortening of the prohibition period reflects a shifting social consensus regarding the role that the publication of opinion poll results should play in the electoral process. However, despite these changes, the debate over the ban on publishing opinion poll results continues, requiring deep reflection on how to strike a balance between electoral fairness and the public’s right to know in a democratic society.
