They'll tell you how they dealt with the problem ~ that being the loss of randomnessin the process.
BTW, that's not a 'theory' ~ W. Edwards Deming had a corollary to the problem of declining responses or selections ~ that is, that the more samples you take over a long enough period of time, the closer you get to random selection ~ which means that the fellows with the month after month, week after week, day after day recurring samples of population where they asked the same question actually approached randomness ~ but not for a specific day, or a specific week, or even a specific month ~ those who took static highly stratified surveys could not possibly make enough sample selections to manage the flow of data. They'd never approach randomness in the process.
The point being that the only way to beat the small minority effect is to increase your total sample size into at least 11 times as you've ever planned on doing for a given situation.
If you were doing 1000 calls, you'd need to do 11,000 calls. If you had a multi-question, multi-issue sort of poll or survey, you could easily find yourself needing to do over 100,000 samples just to maintain randomness and to overcome the small minority effect.
Maybe some of them tried that ~ I've been listening closely and no one to my knowledge has come forward and volunteered such information.
What is this? You're just babbling and hoping to bluff your way through this debate? Who's fooled? Conservatives that didn't believe the polls leading into November 2012 and had to admit they were wrong and the polls were right?
Man, you are not smarter than all these pollsters when it comes to methodology. You read a few articles and think you know what you're talking about, yet the poll results speak for themselves. These folks know their business pretty well - and are getting better and better at it.
You're STILL avoiding the fact that the 2012 election proves you wrong. The polls were very accurate - especially the state polls. And an aggregate of those polls, as evidenced by statisticians like Nate Silver, allowed him to predict all 50 states correctly. Almost all the polls showed Obama winning, and he won. The state polls painted an ever clearer picture in forecasting an Obama victory AND strong Democratic Senate victories. There were many conservatives, for example, that didn't believe the polls that showed Akin, Mourdoch, etc, losing. Yet they all lost just like the polls said they would.
The point being that the only way to beat the small minority effect is to increase your total sample size into at least 11 times as you've ever planned on doing for a given situation.
Look, you can drone on and on about your theory, but it's just wrong. The response rate is good enough for polling to be accurate. Obviously not every poll is trustworthy as some of them use loaded questions to achieve a result, but basic generic ballot questions, presidential approval, x versus y, etc, are extremely accurate (especially when you can generate an aggregate of polls). We know some polling, such as primary polling, is tough to do and the margin of error is often greater than normal. In the end though, the science and methodology behind polling has come a long way and the results are very accurate. As I keep saying, you only need go back to the 2012 election to see that.