In the history of elections rarely does survey data conflict wildly when predicting the current frontrunner, but this year’s Jakarta gubernatorial contest is an exception.

In only a short period of time various pollsters have announced varying results for the threehorse race that have put all of the candidates in first place, raising concerns that the people behind the surveys are letting their biases show in their work.

In January alone four different pollsters released surveys with different results and every candidate has had polls showing them as the frontrunner.

Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono was named the frontrunner by PT Group Riset Potensial (GRP) and the Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI), Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama by Populi and Anies Baswedan by Polmark Indonesia.

Many have expressed worry that the poll results would sway voters toward a particular candidate by portraying him as the most likely winner. Former presidential candidate and chief Gerindra patron Prabowo Subianto, whose party backs Anies and running mate Sandiaga Uno, recently expressed concern. Prabowo called surveys a “political weapon used by people with money”.

Polmark Indonesia owner Eep Saefulloh Fatah told The Jakarta Post recently that a small survey with 400 respondents costs at least Rp 100 million (US$7,489), while one with 880 respondents costs between Rp 150 million and Rp 185 million. The cost could be higher depending on the number of respondents and survey’s geographical area.

Besides conducting polls, Polmark Indonesia is a political consultancy firm currently being hired by the Anies’ camp to help him win the election.

Polmark is the only pollster that has admitted to double as a consultant for a particular candidate. However, Eep claimed his survey results maintained the integrity of the method. As the only pollster that named Anies in the leading position, he argued that the very close margin between the three candidates and margin of error could explain the different results of his poll.

A series of accusations concerning possible polling bias has not only been faced by Anies and Polmark Indonesia. The Agus and Ahok camps have faced similar issues.

A recent survey released by LSI found Agus to be the most capable candidate to maintain diversity once he got elected and Ahok was the least. In December, LSI also revealed survey results that put Agus in first place with a strong lead over his competitors.

LSI researcher Ardian Sopa responded to questions from the press by saying his institution had no affiliations with the Democratic Party or Agus. “LSI can exist to date because we maintain a good track record and public faith,” Ardian told reporters.

Populi Center’s objectivity has also been questioned over its survey results that name Ahok the frontrunner, since Ahok’s former aide and friend Sunny Tanuwidjaja sits on the institution’s advisory council. Populi has also denied bias and claimed that Sunny has never influenced their surveys.

But even it was true, pollster bias is not a “new concept” in the country.

Back in 2014 four pollsters found themselves among a disgraced group of survey institutions following the victory of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo over Prabowo in the presidential election after their quick counts gave the contrary outcome, an incident that called their mathematical models, assumptions and survey method into question.

Pollster associations have been established to minimize such errors and the General Elections Commission (KPU) has prohibited pollsters from taking any sides or bringing advantages to particular candidates. However, the head of the Jakarta branch of the KPU, Sumarno, said taking firm action against those violating the regulation was not a simple matter.

He said the only thing the commission could do after confirming a violation was to report the perpetrators to their associations.

“However, things get complicated if the pollsters are not registered in the KPU and a survey association. We cannot do anything when such things happened,” he continued.