environment essay french

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

French GCSE - l'environnement

Subject: French

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Worksheet/Activity

Last updated

15 June 2016

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Creative Commons "Attribution"

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

littlesock28

Superbe, merci!

Empty reply does not make any sense for the end user

Great resource.

this is a great resource it has the structures for speaking and writing relevant sentences. The PPT is very clearly presented but also can act as a visual stimulus

This is really clearly presented with very useful exercises. Many thanks for sharing.

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

David French

The Loneliness Epidemic Has a Cure

By David French

Opinion Columnist

What is the most important single thing that you can do to heal our national divides and to improve the social and economic mobility of your struggling neighbors?

I’d submit that it’s not voting for the right candidate (though you should certainly do that), nor is it engaging in activism to raise visibility for a worthy cause (though I endorse that as well). Instead, it’s something that is at once much simpler but also much more difficult.

Make a new friend.

The story of modern America — especially for working-class Americans who did not go to college — is a story of declining connections, declining friendships and a loss of a sense of belonging. That sense of isolation makes people miserable, and as the misery spreads, it affects our economy and our culture. The data, quite frankly, is horrifying.

Last month, the American Enterprise Institute released its 2024 American Social Capital Survey . It exposes a stark social divide. People with high school diplomas or less spend less time in public spaces, less time in hobby groups and less time in community groups or in sports leagues than those with college degrees and higher (for simplicity, I’ll refer to the two groups as high school graduates and college graduates). And they’re less likely to host friends, family and neighbors in their homes.

Let’s pause here for a moment. Think about the consequences of this distinction: Tens of millions of working-class Americans experience a social reality different from that of their more educated peers. The lack of common spaces and common experiences means that isolation can become self-perpetuating.

The friendship numbers are just as sobering. Americans of all stripes are reporting that they have declining numbers of friends, but the decline is most pronounced among high school graduates. Between 1990 and 2024, the percentage of college graduates who reported having zero close friends rose to 10 percent from 2 percent, which is upsetting enough. Among high school graduates, the percentage rose to a heartbreaking 24 percent from 3 percent.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• About EH Response and Recovery
• Disaster Shelter Assessment
• Publications
• EHTER Training

Disaster Shelter Assessment Form

At a glance.

Download and use this form to conduct environmental health assessments for disaster shelters. The form covers 10 general areas of environmental health.

Additional languages

Additional version, environmental health response and recovery.

Response activities to help environmental health staff fulfill preparedness and response roles

Man who threatened skier, snowboarder near Brighton with a gun had to write an essay. Here’s what it said.

Man who asked “are you an ikon user” to alleged trespassers required to write an essay on “the use of deadly force in utah” as part of plea deal..

The Brighton man who threatened a skier and a snowboarder with his Winchester rifle after they crossed his driveway last winter wouldn’t say he brandished his weapon. He now admits, however, that he “exhibited” the gun.

Keith Stebbings, 67, pleaded guilty to third-degree felony assault for his interactions with the skier and snowboarder on separate incidents near his home in the Town of Brighton on Feb. 24. The felony charge will be dismissed, however, if Stebbings abides by all the terms of his probation. A second charge of threatening, a Class B misdemeanor, was dismissed with prejudice.

As part of his plea, which he entered into the 3rd District Court on June 25, Stebbings was put on probation for 36 months. The court also demanded he surrender his .30-30 Winchester rifle, take a gun safety course and write an essay on “The use of deadly force in Utah.”

Stebbings did not return calls seeking comment for this report.

“I do appreciate the term ‘exhibited’ in the [Utah Criminal Code]. It is far clearer to me than brandished,” Stebbings wrote in his essay, which was obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune. “I was unaware at the time of the incident that exhibiting an unloaded gun on my personal property was unlawful when encountering an individual trespassing.”

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Old Prospect Road, where a man threatened a snowboarder with a shotgun for allegedly entering his property near Brighton Ski Resort, on Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024.

On the day in question, snowboarder Loren Richardson, 41, was following a plowed path he said he believed would lead him from the backcountry near Brighton Resort to his vacation rental in town. When he banked around a cluster of trees, however, Richardson came face to face with Stebbings and the barrel of his rifle. Stebbings then began cursing at Richardson and shoving him.

“What are you, an Ikon user ?” Stebbings said, referring to the multi-resort ski pass often blamed for overcrowding at resorts. “I don’t give a [expletive]. This is private property.”

“Do it again and there will be holes in you.”

A GoPro camera attached to Richardson’s helmet recorded the entire interaction. It went viral when he posted it to his Instagram account and has received 106,000 plays.

Stebbings was dressed in a red checkered flannel shirt, black beanie and flowing gray pants. A red camping chair was set out in the path behind him. He continued to curse at Richardson after the snowboarder stopped, unbuckled from his snowboard and walked quickly down Old Prospect Avenue toward Big Cottonwood Canyon Road.

(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)

“My stomach was in my throat,” Richardson told The Tribune in February. “I was just like: ‘Be apologetic.’ I don’t know. ‘Why is he going to shoot me? Why is this happening?’”

When he reached the junction of the two roads, Richardson met two skiers, one of whom said he also had been threatened by Stebbings. That skier, a Salt Lake City man who has asked not to be named, told the police Stebbings hit his hip with the butt of the rifle . He was returning to his car after taking a backcountry ski clinic near Guardsman Pass. Richardson came from the opposite direction via an egress into United States Forest Service property from Brighton Resort. Both said they did not see any “No Trespassing” or private property signs before Stebbings assaulted them.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by LRF (@loren_richardson_films)

The skier’s father reported the encounter to the Unified Police Department that afternoon. Richardson filed his report two days later. When officers visited Stebbings house, he initially told them he didn’t know anything about the run-ins, according to a police report. Once informed he was caught on video, Stebbings told officers he and his neighbors had become frustrated with skiers and snowboarders trespassing over their property.

Stebbings’ essay on “the use of deadly force in Utah” consists of five paragraphs and an excerpt of Title 76 of the Utah Criminal Code, which defines “threatening with or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel.” He dedicated one of those paragraphs to telling the court that some of his neighbors “have banded together, partly on my behalf, to approach Brighton Ski Resort to inquire whether the Resort would be willing to develop a plan and install appropriate diversion mechanisms to alleviate the trespasser problem.”

Stebbings by The Salt Lake Tribune on Scribd

Stebbings formerly worked as a ski instructor for Brighton.

Brighton spokesperson Jared Winkler said the resort gave Stebbings fencing to cordon off his property immediately after learning of the encounters. He added that the resort is always open to listening to the community but he was unaware of anyone raising concerns about trespassers in the months since the encounters.

Previously, Winkler stated that Brighton is required by law to allow egress to adjacent USFS property and that it isn’t responsible for skiers and snowboarders once they leave the resort.

In his essay, Stebbings wrote that “following the incident, my behavior changed.” He said he now calls UPD to request more patrols on days he expects to see an influx of skiers and snowboarders crossing his property. He records video footage of alleged trespassers and gives them “a non-threatening warning that they are on private property.” And, he said, before the rifle was confiscated he no longer brought it outside.

UPD confiscated the Winchester rifle on July 7 and will hold it until Dec. 25, 2025, so long as Stebbings abides by his parole. He has been ordered to enroll in a gun safety course this fall and he cannot leave the state for more than 45 days at a time.

Though his probation is set for 36 months, Stebbings can wrap up his punishment by Christmas Day 2025 if he shows 100% compliance and receives a recommendation from the probation agency.

Editor’s note • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.

Gordon Monson: BYU football celebrates a game it had half a mind to win

Voices: the sage grouse is running out of time. we can’t afford more rounds of ineffectual planning., after injuries and a benching nearly derailed him, weber state’s taron johnson has become indispensable in buffalo, packers qb jordan love exits game in final seconds with injury, it wasn’t a statement victory, but byu’s win over smu was good enough for the cougars, featured local savings.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Orano USA to build a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment facility in eastern Tennessee

• Copy Link copied

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) — A France-based company that specializes in nuclear power and renewable energy has selected a site in eastern Tennessee to build a multibillion-dollar centrifuge uranium enrichment facility, Gov. Bill Lee announced.

The project was unveiled Wednesday in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where the 750,000-square-foot center for Orano USA will be built.

“Tennessee is the number one state for nuclear energy companies to invest and thrive, and we are proud to partner with Orano to lead America’s energy independence and drive continued economic growth and greater opportunity for Tennesseans,” Lee said in a statement.

State officials did not release how much Orano USA will invest in the new site, but the project is expected to bring in 300 jobs.

Jean-Luc Palayer, CEO and president of Orano USA, said the next steps would involve securing “available federal support and customer commitments” and also obtaining a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“Today we celebrate this major milestone towards bringing a new enrichment facility online to help meet our country’s need for an increased, secure domestic nuclear fuel supply,” Palayer added.

According to Knox News , the city of Oak Ridge, Roane County and the state’s nuclear fund will each contribute $5 million to help cover the cost of the utility preparations for the site.

The announcement in Tennessee comes after President Joe Biden signed off on legislation in May designed to end the import of enriched uranium from Russia. The new law also released around $2.7 billion to expand the domestic uranium fuel industry.

About 12% of the uranium used to produce electricity at U.S. nuclear power plants is imported from Russia, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“Energy independence will be critical to our nation’s success,” said Senate Speaker Randy McNally, a Republican from Oak Ridge who also serves as lieutenant governor. “The development and expansion of clean and efficient nuclear power is the path to that independence.”

New developments in renewable energy are making headlines and inspiring hope in communities worldwide, from a remote Arctic village working to harness solar and wind power under challenging conditions to a U.S. Air Force base planning an advanced, utility-scale geothermal power system.

As much of the world grapples with mitigating the effects of climate change and global warming, innovation and advancements in renewable energy have emerged as a bright spot. Solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, geothermal energy and biomass energy generation is better for the planet than the burning of fossil fuels including oil, natural gas and coal.

But for all of the advantages of renewable energy, its development and use has disadvantages, too. Let’s take a look at both.

The advantages of renewable energy power sources are wide-ranging, and some are more obvious than others.

Inexhaustible supply

One of the main benefits of renewable energy sources like the sun, wind and water is that they will never run out. In contrast, non-renewable resources are not only finite, but cost more as their availability declines and require more extreme extraction methods with greater environmental impacts.

Carbon-free energy generation

The goal of the clean energy transition is decarbonization . Carbon dioxide emissions reached 11.2 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2022 from oil alone, whereas renewable energy generation emits little to no carbon emissions to power homes, cars and businesses.

A cleaner, healthier environment

The burning of fossil fuels, like coal, releases airborne pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, while the mining of these resources can result in water pollution and damage animal habitats. Using renewable energy in place of fossil fuels can reduce these pollutants and help mitigate risks to human health and natural environments.

Energy independence

Renewable energy provides for stronger energy security by opening up new opportunities for domestic energy production, thereby reducing reliance on foreign-sourced energy supply. For example, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, European countries have sought to reduce their imports of Russian oil and gas. In 2023, domestic renewable energy production in Europe rose to account for a record 44% of the EU’s electricity mix while imports from Russia declined, helping build a more stable, resilient power grid.

Less maintenance

For certain types of renewable energy sources, the maintenance and maintenance costs of their infrastructure are minimal. Solar photovoltaic systems, for example, generally don’t have moving parts and can last 25 years or more with little maintenance. Hydroelectric power plants typically have low operating costs and require little maintenance as well, with long-lasting equipment that can remain in operation for decades.

Affordable energy

When it comes to costs, renewable energy sources once compared unfavorably to fossil fuels. But as fossil fuel prices rise renewable energy has emerged as an affordable alternative energy option. An estimated 96% of new utility-scale solar and wind power projects had lower generation costs than new coal and natural gas plants. As more renewable energy resources are integrated into power grids, businesses are also implementing energy management programs to optimize energy usage and reduce overall energy costs.

Job creation

While both clean energy and fossil fuel industries have seen job growth in recent years, growth has been markedly faster in the former. As a result, clean energy roles now account for more than half of the 67 million jobs in the global energy sector. Such growth is fueling demand for additional workers and retraining for existing fossil fuel workers to transition to the renewable energy industry.

For all the celebrated benefits of renewable energy, the sector has some downsides as well. Understanding the disadvantages of renewable energy can help organizations better plan its deployment. Here are some of the cons of renewable energy projects today:

High upfront costs

Shifting to renewable energy technologies saves money in the long run but component costs and initial costs for set-up can be expensive. For example, small businesses can expect to pay USD 100,000 or more for commercial solar installations, depending on their energy needs. However, legislation for incentives, tax credits and various rebates can help offset these costs.

Location and landmass requirements

Most renewable energy power generation is location dependent—solar farms require unobstructed sunlight, hydropower requires water movement, wind farms require open spaces and traditional geothermal power requires proximity to sources of hot water. In many cases, renewable energy systems require a lot of space—more than traditional power stations. Research conducted by the ICF Climate Center found that large-scale renewable energy installations require 10 times more land than coal- and natural gas-fired power plants.

Production volatility

Renewable electricity generation is vulnerable to weather conditions: solar power is susceptible to cloudy days, hydropower to droughts and wind power to calm days. As such, guaranteeing the amount of energy produced at any given time is a challenge. To help companies adapt to this volatility, solutions like the IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite use sensors, geospatial data , advanced analytics, machine learning , artificial intelligence (AI) and weather data to generate day-ahead wind and solar forecasts .

Storage requirements

Due to the intermittent nature of renewable power, batteries are required to collect energy during peak production periods for distribution in a controlled, consistent manner during periods of low- to non-production. Energy storage systems to support utility-scale applications are costly but technology is being developed to support more affordable long-term storage.

Supply chain limitations

Supply chain hurdles are hindering the installation of renewable energy projects. According to a report by McKinsey, project developers face three main challenges : access to raw materials and rare earth metals amid a projected shortage; access to the talent and machinery necessary; and little supplier diversification for critical components. For example, in the case of polysilicon, a material used in solar panels, 79% of global capacity is concentrated in China, making the solar PV industry vulnerable to disruptions in that country.

Carbon footprint and waste

Although solar and wind power emit no harmful emissions during power generation, the manufacturing, installation and transportation of renewable energy equipment does often produce greenhouse gas emissions . Additionally, waste products are created during asset production process and disposal, with wind turbine blades and solar panels taking up space in landfills.

Businesses in the renewable energy industry or interested in sourcing renewable power can proactively monitor renewable energy trends with the right tools. The IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite uses historical energy generation data, weather data and more to generate high-accuracy energy forecasts for wind and solar assets to inform key decision-making at the enterprise level.

Try the IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite for free

Book a live demo

Kamala Harris has put the Democrats back in the race

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key things to know about U.S. election polling in 2024

Confidence in U.S. public opinion polling was shaken by errors in 2016 and 2020. In both years’ general elections, many polls underestimated the strength of Republican candidates, including Donald Trump. These errors laid bare some real limitations of polling.

In the midterms that followed those elections, polling performed better . But many Americans remain skeptical that it can paint an accurate portrait of the public’s political preferences.

Restoring people’s confidence in polling is an important goal, because robust and independent public polling has a critical role to play in a democratic society. It gathers and publishes information about the well-being of the public and about citizens’ views on major issues. And it provides an important counterweight to people in power, or those seeking power, when they make claims about “what the people want.”

The challenges facing polling are undeniable. In addition to the longstanding issues of rising nonresponse and cost, summer 2024 brought extraordinary events that transformed the presidential race . The good news is that people with deep knowledge of polling are working hard to fix the problems exposed in 2016 and 2020, experimenting with more data sources and interview approaches than ever before. Still, polls are more useful to the public if people have realistic expectations about what surveys can do well – and what they cannot.

With that in mind, here are some key points to know about polling heading into this year’s presidential election.

Probability sampling (or “random sampling”). This refers to a polling method in which survey participants are recruited using random sampling from a database or list that includes nearly everyone in the population. The pollster selects the sample. The survey is not open for anyone who wants to sign up.

Online opt-in polling (or “nonprobability sampling”). These polls are recruited using a variety of methods that are sometimes referred to as “convenience sampling.” Respondents come from a variety of online sources such as ads on social media or search engines, websites offering rewards in exchange for survey participation, or self-enrollment. Unlike surveys with probability samples, people can volunteer to participate in opt-in surveys.

Nonresponse and nonresponse bias. Nonresponse is when someone sampled for a survey does not participate. Nonresponse bias occurs when the pattern of nonresponse leads to error in a poll estimate. For example, college graduates are more likely than those without a degree to participate in surveys, leading to the potential that the share of college graduates in the resulting sample will be too high.

Mode of interview. This refers to the format in which respondents are presented with and respond to survey questions. The most common modes are online, live telephone, text message and paper. Some polls use more than one mode.

Weighting. This is a statistical procedure pollsters perform to make their survey align with the broader population on key characteristics like age, race, etc. For example, if a survey has too many college graduates compared with their share in the population, people without a college degree are “weighted up” to match the proper share.

How are election polls being conducted?

Pollsters are making changes in response to the problems in previous elections. As a result, polling is different today than in 2016. Most U.S. polling organizations that conducted and publicly released national surveys in both 2016 and 2022 (61%) used methods in 2022 that differed from what they used in 2016 . And change has continued since 2022.

One change is that the number of active polling organizations has grown significantly, indicating that there are fewer barriers to entry into the polling field. The number of organizations that conduct national election polls more than doubled between 2000 and 2022.

This growth has been driven largely by pollsters using inexpensive opt-in sampling methods. But previous Pew Research Center analyses have demonstrated how surveys that use nonprobability sampling may have errors twice as large , on average, as those that use probability sampling.

The second change is that many of the more prominent polling organizations that use probability sampling – including Pew Research Center – have shifted from conducting polls primarily by telephone to using online methods, or some combination of online, mail and telephone. The result is that polling methodologies are far more diverse now than in the past.

(For more about how public opinion polling works, including a chapter on election polls, read our short online course on public opinion polling basics .)

All good polling relies on statistical adjustment called “weighting,” which makes sure that the survey sample aligns with the broader population on key characteristics. Historically, public opinion researchers have adjusted their data using a core set of demographic variables to correct imbalances between the survey sample and the population.

But there is a growing realization among survey researchers that weighting a poll on just a few variables like age, race and gender is insufficient for getting accurate results. Some groups of people – such as older adults and college graduates – are more likely to take surveys, which can lead to errors that are too sizable for a simple three- or four-variable adjustment to work well. Adjusting on more variables produces more accurate results, according to Center studies in 2016 and 2018 .

A number of pollsters have taken this lesson to heart. For example, recent high-quality polls by Gallup and The New York Times/Siena College adjusted on eight and 12 variables, respectively. Our own polls typically adjust on 12 variables . In a perfect world, it wouldn’t be necessary to have that much intervention by the pollster. But the real world of survey research is not perfect.

Predicting who will vote is critical – and difficult. Preelection polls face one crucial challenge that routine opinion polls do not: determining who of the people surveyed will actually cast a ballot.

Roughly a third of eligible Americans do not vote in presidential elections , despite the enormous attention paid to these contests. Determining who will abstain is difficult because people can’t perfectly predict their future behavior – and because many people feel social pressure to say they’ll vote even if it’s unlikely.

No one knows the profile of voters ahead of Election Day. We can’t know for sure whether young people will turn out in greater numbers than usual, or whether key racial or ethnic groups will do so. This means pollsters are left to make educated guesses about turnout, often using a mix of historical data and current measures of voting enthusiasm. This is very different from routine opinion polls, which mostly do not ask about people’s future intentions.

When major news breaks, a poll’s timing can matter. Public opinion on most issues is remarkably stable, so you don’t necessarily need a recent poll about an issue to get a sense of what people think about it. But dramatic events can and do change public opinion , especially when people are first learning about a new topic. For example, polls this summer saw notable changes in voter attitudes following Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race. Polls taken immediately after a major event may pick up a shift in public opinion, but those shifts are sometimes short-lived. Polls fielded weeks or months later are what allow us to see whether an event has had a long-term impact on the public’s psyche.

How accurate are polls?

The answer to this question depends on what you want polls to do. Polls are used for all kinds of purposes in addition to showing who’s ahead and who’s behind in a campaign. Fair or not, however, the accuracy of election polling is usually judged by how closely the polls matched the outcome of the election.

By this standard, polling in 2016 and 2020 performed poorly. In both years, state polling was characterized by serious errors. National polling did reasonably well in 2016 but faltered in 2020.

In 2020, a post-election review of polling by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) found that “the 2020 polls featured polling error of an unusual magnitude: It was the highest in 40 years for the national popular vote and the highest in at least 20 years for state-level estimates of the vote in presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial contests.”

How big were the errors? Polls conducted in the last two weeks before the election suggested that Biden’s margin over Trump was nearly twice as large as it ended up being in the final national vote tally.

Errors of this size make it difficult to be confident about who is leading if the election is closely contested, as many U.S. elections are .

Pollsters are rightly working to improve the accuracy of their polls. But even an error of 4 or 5 percentage points isn’t too concerning if the purpose of the poll is to describe whether the public has favorable or unfavorable opinions about candidates , or to show which issues matter to which voters. And on questions that gauge where people stand on issues, we usually want to know broadly where the public stands. We don’t necessarily need to know the precise share of Americans who say, for example, that climate change is mostly caused by human activity. Even judged by its performance in recent elections, polling can still provide a faithful picture of public sentiment on the important issues of the day.

The 2022 midterms saw generally accurate polling, despite a wave of partisan polls predicting a broad Republican victory. In fact, FiveThirtyEight found that “polls were more accurate in 2022 than in any cycle since at least 1998, with almost no bias toward either party.” Moreover, a handful of contrarian polls that predicted a 2022 “red wave” largely washed out when the votes were tallied. In sum, if we focus on polling in the most recent national election, there’s plenty of reason to be encouraged.

Compared with other elections in the past 20 years, polls have been less accurate when Donald Trump is on the ballot. Preelection surveys suffered from large errors – especially at the state level – in 2016 and 2020, when Trump was standing for election. But they performed reasonably well in the 2018 and 2022 midterms, when he was not.

During the 2016 campaign, observers speculated about the possibility that Trump supporters might be less willing to express their support to a pollster – a phenomenon sometimes described as the “shy Trump effect.” But a committee of polling experts evaluated five different tests of the “shy Trump” theory and turned up little to no evidence for each one . Later, Pew Research Center and, in a separate test, a researcher from Yale also found little to no evidence in support of the claim.

Instead, two other explanations are more likely. One is about the difficulty of estimating who will turn out to vote. Research has found that Trump is popular among people who tend to sit out midterms but turn out for him in presidential election years. Since pollsters often use past turnout to predict who will vote, it can be difficult to anticipate when irregular voters will actually show up.

The other explanation is that Republicans in the Trump era have become a little less likely than Democrats to participate in polls . Pollsters call this “partisan nonresponse bias.” Surprisingly, polls historically have not shown any particular pattern of favoring one side or the other. The errors that favored Democratic candidates in the past eight years may be a result of the growth of political polarization, along with declining trust among conservatives in news organizations and other institutions that conduct polls.

Whatever the cause, the fact that Trump is again the nominee of the Republican Party means that pollsters must be especially careful to make sure all segments of the population are properly represented in surveys.

The real margin of error is often about double the one reported. A typical election poll sample of about 1,000 people has a margin of sampling error that’s about plus or minus 3 percentage points. That number expresses the uncertainty that results from taking a sample of the population rather than interviewing everyone . Random samples are likely to differ a little from the population just by chance, in the same way that the quality of your hand in a card game varies from one deal to the next.

The problem is that sampling error is not the only kind of error that affects a poll. Those other kinds of error, in fact, can be as large or larger than sampling error. Consequently, the reported margin of error can lead people to think that polls are more accurate than they really are.

There are three other, equally important sources of error in polling: noncoverage error , where not all the target population has a chance of being sampled; nonresponse error, where certain groups of people may be less likely to participate; and measurement error, where people may not properly understand the questions or misreport their opinions. Not only does the margin of error fail to account for those other sources of potential error, putting a number only on sampling error implies to the public that other kinds of error do not exist.

Several recent studies show that the average total error in a poll estimate may be closer to twice as large as that implied by a typical margin of sampling error. This hidden error underscores the fact that polls may not be precise enough to call the winner in a close election.

Other important things to remember

Transparency in how a poll was conducted is associated with better accuracy . The polling industry has several platforms and initiatives aimed at promoting transparency in survey methodology. These include AAPOR’s transparency initiative and the Roper Center archive . Polling organizations that participate in these organizations have less error, on average, than those that don’t participate, an analysis by FiveThirtyEight found .

Participation in these transparency efforts does not guarantee that a poll is rigorous, but it is undoubtedly a positive signal. Transparency in polling means disclosing essential information, including the poll’s sponsor, the data collection firm, where and how participants were selected, modes of interview, field dates, sample size, question wording, and weighting procedures.

There is evidence that when the public is told that a candidate is extremely likely to win, some people may be less likely to vote . Following the 2016 election, many people wondered whether the pervasive forecasts that seemed to all but guarantee a Hillary Clinton victory – two modelers put her chances at 99% – led some would-be voters to conclude that the race was effectively over and that their vote would not make a difference. There is scientific research to back up that claim: A team of researchers found experimental evidence that when people have high confidence that one candidate will win, they are less likely to vote. This helps explain why some polling analysts say elections should be covered using traditional polling estimates and margins of error rather than speculative win probabilities (also known as “probabilistic forecasts”).

National polls tell us what the entire public thinks about the presidential candidates, but the outcome of the election is determined state by state in the Electoral College . The 2000 and 2016 presidential elections demonstrated a difficult truth: The candidate with the largest share of support among all voters in the United States sometimes loses the election. In those two elections, the national popular vote winners (Al Gore and Hillary Clinton) lost the election in the Electoral College (to George W. Bush and Donald Trump). In recent years, analysts have shown that Republican candidates do somewhat better in the Electoral College than in the popular vote because every state gets three electoral votes regardless of population – and many less-populated states are rural and more Republican.

For some, this raises the question: What is the use of national polls if they don’t tell us who is likely to win the presidency? In fact, national polls try to gauge the opinions of all Americans, regardless of whether they live in a battleground state like Pennsylvania, a reliably red state like Idaho or a reliably blue state like Rhode Island. In short, national polls tell us what the entire citizenry is thinking. Polls that focus only on the competitive states run the risk of giving too little attention to the needs and views of the vast majority of Americans who live in uncompetitive states – about 80%.

Fortunately, this is not how most pollsters view the world . As the noted political scientist Sidney Verba explained, “Surveys produce just what democracy is supposed to produce – equal representation of all citizens.”

• Survey Methods
• Trust, Facts & Democracy
• Voter Files

Scott Keeter is a senior survey advisor at Pew Research Center .

Courtney Kennedy is Vice President of Methods and Innovation at Pew Research Center .

How do people in the U.S. take Pew Research Center surveys, anyway?

How public polling has changed in the 21st century, what 2020’s election poll errors tell us about the accuracy of issue polling, a field guide to polling: election 2020 edition, methods 101: how is polling done around the world, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center