Nepal will head to the polls on 5 March 2026 at a moment of heightened political tension, public distrust, and digital noise. As parties mobilise and citizens weigh their choices, a parallel contest is unfolding online: a flood of Facebook and social media polls claiming to predict who will win the election.

These polls are often shared widely, presented as snapshots of “public mood,” and cited in comment threads as evidence of momentum or decline. Yet beneath their apparent simplicity lies a serious problem. Many of these polls are not just informal—they are fundamentally misleading. In an election where trust in institutions is already fragile, such distortions risk doing real democratic harm.

The Structural Flaws Behind Viral Political Polls

At first glance, a one-click poll on Facebook appears harmless. Users select a party or leader, results update instantly, and the post gains traction. But when such polls are framed—implicitly or explicitly—as indicators of national electoral outcomes, they cross into dangerous territory.

1. Participation from Outside Nepal

One of the most serious flaws is geographic distortion. A substantial proportion of respondents to viral polls live outside Nepal—in the Gulf states, India, Europe, the UK, Australia, or North America.

Nepal has a large and politically vocal diaspora, and their views matter in broader political discourse. However, most Nepalis living abroad are not eligible to vote in the 2026 general election. When their responses are counted alongside those of residents inside Nepal, the result is a dataset that no longer reflects the electorate.

2. No Verification of Voter Eligibility

Social media polls do not—and cannot—verify whether a respondent is:

A registered voter
Of legal voting age
Eligible under Nepal’s electoral law

Anyone can vote multiple times across platforms, use alternate accounts, or participate casually without consequence. This lack of verification undermines the most basic requirement of credible polling: that respondents represent the voting population.

3. Absence of Methodology and Controls

Credible opinion research relies on transparent methodology:

Defined sample frames
Demographic and geographic balancing
Clear fieldwork dates
Disclosure of limitations

Social media polls offer none of this. They are self-selecting, meaning only the most motivated—or most partisan—participants respond. Urban users dominate. Younger demographics are over-represented. Rural voices, older voters, and citizens without regular internet access are largely excluded.

How Misleading Polls Shape Political Reality

The danger of flawed polls lies not only in their inaccuracy, but in their impact.

Distorting Public Perception

Repeated exposure to polls showing a particular party “leading” can create an illusion of inevitability. Even when users intellectually understand that a Facebook poll is unscientific, constant repetition shapes perception. Numbers, however flawed, carry psychological weight.

Influencing Undecided Voters

Research in political psychology shows that undecided voters are susceptible to bandwagon effects—the tendency to support what appears to be the winning side. Misleading polls can therefore nudge behaviour, not by persuasion, but by manufactured momentum.

Undermining Democratic Integrity

When election outcomes later diverge sharply from online “predictions,” trust erodes further. Citizens may conclude that elections are rigged, polls are useless, or democracy itself is performative. In fragile democratic environments, this cynicism is corrosive.

A Corrective Response: The NepGov Polling Initiative

Against this backdrop, NepGov has launched a polling initiative explicitly designed to address these weaknesses—not by competing with viral content, but by restoring basic standards of legitimacy.

Why Eligibility and Residency Matter

Elections are decisions made by eligible voters within a defined jurisdiction. Any attempt to measure electoral sentiment must start from that reality. By excluding ineligible respondents, polling shifts from noise to signal.

How NepGov Restricts Participation

NepGov’s approach introduces safeguards absent from social media polls:

Participation limited to individuals currently living in Nepal
Eligibility checks aligned with voter requirements
Clear separation between domestic opinion and diaspora views

While no polling system is perfect, these controls dramatically reduce distortion and prevent the conflation of national electoral sentiment with global online opinion.

Improving Accuracy and Public Trust

By publishing clear explanations of who can participate—and who cannot—NepGov prioritises transparency over virality. This clarity matters. Citizens are more likely to trust results when they understand the rules behind them, even if the findings challenge their preferences.

Polling, Responsibility, and Democracy

Opinion polling is not merely a technical exercise; it is a democratic responsibility. In election periods, numbers influence narratives, narratives influence behaviour, and behaviour shapes outcomes.

Social media platforms were never designed to function as instruments of public opinion research. Treating them as such—without safeguards, context, or accountability—invites misinformation by design rather than by intent.

Nepal’s 2026 general election will be decided at ballot boxes, not in comment sections. But the informational environment surrounding that decision matters profoundly. Responsible polling initiatives, grounded in eligibility, transparency, and methodological discipline, do not tell citizens how to vote. They simply ensure that when we talk about “public opinion,” we are actually talking about the public that votes.

In a democracy under pressure, that distinction is not academic. It is essential.