Hard News: Poll Crunch
173 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Gio, I would indeed say that. I'd also mention the large error ratio. But in absence of information, and wanting a prediction, what other result would you pick?
But isn't the insistence on prediction sort of self-defeating? At that sort of level of undecideds (even at the current NZ levels mentioned in this thread) you're speculating without data, and that's not prediction, it's guess-work. At worst, it's highly misleading guesswork. I know polling tends to be more of an art than a science, but come *on*.
-
I have this very vivid childhood memory in which I overhear my father telling a phone pollster that he is going to vote for X, but I very well know he supports Y. I ask him why he lied to the man on the phone and he tells me "because it makes election night a lot more exciting". I think it was 1984.
-
Lucy, do we actually know that the assumption of proportionality is bad? It may be quite accurate. The accuracy may already be included in the margin of error calculation. I don't know.
-
Margin of error is a statistical concept that describes the statistical uncertainty associated with generalising the outcome of poll to a population. As Wikipedia notes "it does not represent other potential sources of error or bias such as a non-representative sample-design, poorly phrased questions, people lying or refusing to respond, the exclusion of people who could not be contacted, or miscounts and miscalculations." So problems caused by undecideds aren't effectively 'controlled for' in the reported statistics.
The other thing about margins of error is that they relate to generalising the results of the poll to the population (i.e., having an educated guess about how the whole of NZ would answer the poll) not generalising the poll to how the population will vote in an election. That requires us to also know about the statistical relationship that holds between poll results and voting.
-
potential sources of error or bias such as a non-representative sample-design, poorly phrased questions, people lying or refusing to respond, the exclusion of people who could not be contacted, or miscounts and miscalculations."
Another consideration, which is beginning to be acknowledged by some pollsters, is the dependence on land-line telephone polling--ignoring the significant shift to mobile phones. This further undermines the statistical validity of any findings.
Too many pollsters also ignore the 'don't know's' or refusals-to-respond. They tend to be treated as know-nothings, when they are perfectly valid responses to intrusive research methods.
Peter Dunne--I just wish he was done and dusted. He really is a political whore.
-
gio I'm not sure if we're talking at cross purposes.
I think Giovanni has it right.
To me, by divvying up the undecideds and apportioning them out appropriately, they're throwing away a useful piece of information.
If candidate A is on 43%, and candidate B is on 40%, candidate B is close. But if the number of undecideds is only 3%, then they need them all to fall for them to draw even - impossible. Or have candidate A outed as a paedophile, so that people who said they were going to vote for them change their mind.
Yet if the undecideds are 12%, they need to get 3/4 of them - difficult, but not impossible. Keep the paedophilia card in your pocket!
In NZ we throw this information away. To me, it'd be interesting to know, at this point, how many people replied "I don't know". If that's 12, 15%, wow, good moves by Labour could make this thing really close. If it's 5%... not so much. Then their only hope is the fact that it's a poll, and not an actual election, and coalition moves that they make afterwards.
-
The Herald arguments on Saturday: "Feeble minded or disingenuous".
I'm voting for disingenuous by the feeble-minded.
The Herlad clearly want to condition people for a return to FPP in the referendum they clearly expect from the national victory they yearn for.
As newspaper go.....they have moved over into propaganda.
-
Gio, I would indeed say that. I'd also mention the large error ratio. But in absence of information, and wanting a prediction, what other result would you pick?
Well, you'd be wrong then on election day, wouldn't you? And it's quality of information we're talking about. If a poll has a 20% proportion of undecideds, and doesn't acknowledge the fact but simply factors them out of the calculation, that poll is unreliable far beyond its MoE.
And, as Stephen notes, undecideds have nothing whatsoever to do with the margin of error. The margin of error is what accounts for the fact that you didn't ask every single New Zealander, but a sample of New Zealanders. Undecided voters are people who might vote but haven't made up their minds yet - knowing how many of them are there and what kind of profile they might fit is very interesting information, not only for people in the business of trying to persuade them to vote for them, but also for the public.
David Sedaris had a nice bit recently about undecideds in the current American election:
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
-
procatalepsis
Sounds like something I suffered from after my third pregnancy.
-
And where would we be without Chris Trotter jumping the shark:
If media outlets sympathetic to National’s cause attempt to cast as illegitimate the formation of any coalition government which leaves National sitting on the Opposition Benches, they will be guilty of engaging in activity subversive not only of the New Zealand constitution, the rule of law, and our democratic Westminster heritage, but also of creating a political climate likely to result in the outbreak of serious - perhaps fatal - public disorder.
In short, they will be guilty of treason.
Of course, Mr. Trotter's respect for the New Zealand constitution etc, doesn't extend to that tiresome convention you actually have to hold a fair trial before convicting anyone of treason.
-
Commisar Trotter has a nice Animal Farm ring to it.
-
Heh... Comrade Trotterski wouldn't be bad, but it sounds too much like something Sarah Palin would say. But seriously, Trotter accuses Guyon Espiner of "he careful crafting of a political “reality” which will enable National to cry foul if, after the election, it finds itself unable to attract sufficient support on the floor of the House of Representatives to form a government." All on the basis of what I say was a weak story on Monday based on a rather poor poll question designed to fluff the debate. But treasonous whipping of the booboise into rapine and pillage in the streets?
Fuck off. And the worse thing is, I don't believe Trotter believes a word of it either. But he's got his own political "reality" to construct, I guess, where if Labour doesn't win its because the media elites and Beltway insiders (shit, there's bloody Palin again!) stole it.
-
Of course, Mr. Trotter's respect for the New Zealand constitution etc, doesn't extend to that tiresome convention you actually have to hold a fair trial before convicting anyone of treason.
Or indeed, that parties should obey electoral law.
"Courageous corruption", anyone?
Reading Trotter's rant, I'm very glad we repealed sedition.
-
Reading Trotter's rant, I'm very glad we repealed sedition.
Sedition's for girlymen. It's treason or nothing.
-
Sedition's for girlymen. It's treason or nothing.
Pshaw... you're a fricking pussy, Brown. Burn 'em all at the stake and let Joseph Michael Savage sort them out. Forget all this limp-wristed namby-pamby nonsense about charges and so on.
-
Woo! New Pew!
McCain Support Continues Downward Spiral: Obama Leads by 19 Among Those Who Have Already Voted
And on the 10% who are undecided voters:
Undecided voters are less educated, less affluent, and somewhat more likely to be female than the average voter. Nearly half of undecided voters (48%) say they attend religious services at least weekly, which is same as the proportion of McCain supporters. Fewer Obama supporters (31%) say they attend religious services at least once a week.
-
Forget all this limp-wristed namby-pamby nonsense about charges and so on.
Send the judges out to work in the fields!