Slashdot Mirror
Are Today's Polls Clueless?
Frisky070802 writes "As noted on electoral-vote, Jimmy Breslin has an interesting article in Newsday on why polls are broken. This is because they poll only landline phones, and a substantial fraction of younger people have only cell phones -- so they hit a biased demographic. If a majority of younger voters tend Democratic, the polls could be giving Kerry a raw deal. Hmm, could this be why two polls released this week vary so widely?"
Most polls lack the all-important CowboyNeil option.
Ceci n'est pas un post.
Based on my experience as a college graduate of this year, I can say pollsters are definitely missing a huge segment of the 18-25 population. NONE of my friends (yeah, I have friends, thank you very much) have a landline to their apartment, and instead rely on cell phones, as do I. Of course, this is in NYC--which raises the question, do rural and suburban areas (read: swing states) also have large populations ditching their landlines for mobiles? If not, it wouldn't seem to affect polls in those areas as much.
The people who say they want to vote for Bush are generally in the older age brackets, and they don't have as much trouble with the lies told by Bush and his people.
Biased anyone?
The key thing to remember is that people who carry cell phones tend to be younger and more liberal than people with land lines. As such, polls that ignore cell phones tend to have fairly skewed results.
Going door-to-door is probably the best alternative at this point, though there are flaws with that as well.
The devil is in the details here. First, of the 168 million cell phones, how many of those are owned by people who have no landline? And of those, how many are likely to vote?
.4*.35*.36*168 million is about 8 million votes that aren't included in the poll. Of those (at the very most). I bet it's 60/40 Kerry/Bush. I don't think it's really large enough to cause a dramatic turnaround in the election, but it is big enough to increase the margin of error in the polls.
Using my unscientific survey (i.e. my life as a college student) about 40% of 18-22 year olds don't have a cell phone. I would estimate that segment of the population to own maybe ~35% of the cell phones. In the last election we voted at about 36%. Thus,
On a side note: does anyone know if they survey all of the likely voters in a household, or just the person who answers? (I've never been polled)
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
I have seen a lot of sloppy polling. You have the big problem of the callers cheating, faking data and all kinds of crap you wouldn't belive. when they say + or - whatever % don't belive it for a minute
http://Lenny.com
I don't think this is the problem. Demographics like gender, race and political party, preference, etc., are usually corrected for, although I don't know about these polls specifically. They will either adjust the group they poll so that they are half men and half women, for instance, or adjust the weighting of the answers so they are effectively half men and half women. Unless people with cell phones hold different opinions that those with land lines--that is not accounted for by gender, race or political party, etc.--this will not be a problem.
I think the difference is just the inherent inaccuracy in conducting a political poll.
Now, while I agree that Bush has told some whoppers in the White House, pointing out this non-sequitur in an article that's supposed to be about bad polling methods really undermines his message. If he hopes to get better youth representation in future polls, the writer has best not look like a partisan shill while he's trying to influence the pollsters into changing their methods. He may as well have just wrote down a Dean-esque "YEARGH!" in print... his advice is going to be ignored as if he did so.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
The 18-25 demographic doesn't vote.
See http://www.fec.gov/pages/agedemog.htm
Year after year, Americans under age 25 fail to do their civic duty. Why do you think the drinking age is 21?
Young adults might support Kerry over Bush... if they bothered to *vote*.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
HA-HA!
What comes around goes around, I guess.
About 10 or 15 years ago, some dude named John Zogby surmised that the standard political telephone polls we skewed toward the left because their methodologies involved making the calls during the day, when older Americans -- who tended to be more conservative -- were more likely to be preoccupied with activities like working, shopping and running errands. He started company to prove he was right. Here's his bio.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
While I understand your comment is tongue-in-cheek, there's actually a number of states that make it quite difficult for homeless to vote.
There's been attempts to get them voting, but it's quite a challenge. In Oregon, for example, ballots are all sent in the mail. Now, you can use the election clerk's office as a mailing address, but that means physically picking it up. I suspect most homeless people are more interested in little things like shelter and food than going through the hassle it takes to vote.
I've been polled twice. They wanted to talk to a regsitered voter. I suspect they just talk to the first one, or in one case play recorded messages and record touchtones of the first one.
The people who say they want to vote for Bush are generally in the older age brackets, and they don't have as much trouble with the lies told by Bush and his people.
Yeah, because we all know that older people don't mind when a president and "his people" lie to the nation. And clearly everyone knows the president has lied to all of us. It's just that older people don't mind. Huh?
The young people on cell phones appear not to be listening and they hear every syllable. They punch out a number without looking. They are quicker, and probably smarter at this time, and almost doubtlessly more in favor of Kerry than Bush.
Yeah, and we all know that the younger people who are also smarter will doubtless vote for Kerry (probably a direct consequence of their increased intelligence). Only the old, stupid, slow people would not mind Bush's lies and vote for him and "his people."
Older people complain about Kerry's performance as a candidate. Younger people don't want to get shot at in a war that most believe, and firmly, never should have started because it was started with a president lying.
And obviously the older generation will be more concerned with trivial details such as the candidate's "political record" and "performance" while the younger, smarter people don't want to die and therefore don't want to vote for a liar who sends people to their death for a pointless cause.
Celebrate the finer things in life
they only get to ask those people who dont hangup on them.
it would be interesting to see a poll that showed the response rate. A lot of people hang up on pollster calls, thinking they're telemarketers or something, often before the questions even get asked. Therefore, if Gallup or USAToday or Quinnipeac (sp?) phoned 20000 numbers, show how many or what percentage of them took time to actually answer the pollster's questions.
the other thing I would like to see on these public opinion polls are how the questions are presented to the pollee. E.g, phrasing of the questions, multiple choice or open ended, etc.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Anytime I see a caller I don't recognize on Caller ID, I don't answer the phone and let the answering machine deal with it. Such calls have increased in frequency over the last few months; I wonder how many of those calls I don't answer are pollsters or campaign fundraisers?
I wonder if Caller ID has a neutral or skewing effect on the accuracy of polling today?
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
This is a tad unrelated, but I've got a big problem with polls on newspaper sites. For instance, CNN may run an article on how the war in Iraq was a bad thing (a viewpoint article), then, have a poll attached to it with the Q: "Do you think the war in Iraq was bad?" Yes/No ... of course, someone who just read an opinion article about how bad it was will probably vote the way the article did.
Just irritating. Anyone else seen stuff like this and wish to add to it?
-- Jinsaku
The only votes that truly matter are the middle-aged middle-class votes. Period.
There is an easy workaround for this, next time you are voting. See that box labelled "middle-aged, middle-class"? Check it, even if it isn't true. They can't verify it, after all.
Once you do that, you'll find your vote counted along with all the rest of our votes.
The reason for Gallop's very high poll numbers for Bush was based on its bizarre assumptions on turnout. This is well documented in Zogby's critique of Gallop:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=859
Gallop assumes for that poll assumes that the turnout on election day will break down as follows:
Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)
However, as zogby noted:
If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000
So Republicans are badly over-sampled and Democrats badly under-sampled, giving systematically biased results. Awful polling, but used to keep Republicans motivated and Democrats depressed.
I live in rural Minnesota and have done some calling for local politicians. Political parties can't even get their contact lists right, I can't imagine a polling entity being any more accurate.
Even within rural areas like this it is almost impossible to get a handle on who is for or against whom. In this divisive political environment people are not speaking their minds because they are afraid of being singled out and of hostility. This alone pretty much guarantees that polls will not be accurate.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
This article may help support my comment. To be fair, that age group tends to be pretty volatile. Earlier this year, I think they were fairly evenly tied. In recent months, the war on Iraq is making a greater difference in that age group, probably due to worries about a potential draft.
And before anyone asks about evidence for young people's concern over the Iraq war, here's a recent survey
they tend to be the most uninformed voters. and who wants uninformed voters voting?
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00] ...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits 'would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
George Bush does. He wants voters who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. He wants voters who don't understand what "deficit spending" is. He wants voters who don't know anything about how he got into the National Guard while others were being sent to Vietnam. He wants voters who don't know how "nuclear" is pronounced.
John Flip Flop Kerry!
Bush is the king of Flip-Flops:
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
Given that Bush has been caught in a stream of lies; outright lies and lies of omission (as well as blatent attempts to mislead the American voters and vast distortions), it's not "partisan" to say he's a liar. It's a statement of fact.
I think it's better when a candidate is able to change their stance based on new information.
It's too bad this election has been showing this as a bad thing.
Lots of people remember the Chicago Daily News headline, but this story harkens back to the 1948 race.
Back in 1948, Thomas Dewey (he-of-the-new-york-state-thruway-fame) was polling ahead of President Truman. No one expected that Truman would win. However, after the votes were counted, Truman won.
Afterward it was discovered that extra Truman support came from urban and rural poor, the people who didn't have phones, and therefore they weren't polled.
There was even a third-party candidate back then: Strom Thurmond, the "Dixiecrat" who bailed on the Democratic party because Truman had the gall to support civil rights reforms (like integrating the military). "Ol' Lizard King", as I like to call Thurmond, apparently felt it was okay to secretly father children with "Negroes" (although he preferred a different N-word), but southern states shouldn't have to give up segregation.
Of course, back in 1948 you had two decent, qualified people running for president, today we're lucky if we get one.
My father is a blogger.
Flip flops aren't a bad thing.
Usually yes, being flexible is a good thing, if you "flip flop" for the right reasons. The list presented above were all "flip flops" Bush did based on what was most politically expedient.
Voters hate it when politicians seem to change their minds to get votes. It makes the candidate seem like they're whoring or lying and aren't to be trusted. Why Kerry, who has a decades long political career, gets slammed for a few minor revision to his overall political philosophy and Bush, who has managed all these 180 degree turns in 10 years (and most in the last 4) gets a free ride is beyond me.
-dameron
----
DailyHaiku.com, saying more in 17 syllables than Big Media says all day.
You might want to preview your opinions as well before people think you're a nutbag.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
That's what Rush Limbaugh argued - that they were skewing results so that they could show Kerry momentum in the future. I am saying that you need to find out what assumptions the pollster made about the population they are sampling to see if there is a systemic bias in the polling results. Right now you have a body of polls with the race as a dead heat and two polls consistently showing a Bush landslide. These two sets of polls are outside each other's margins of error - which means that there must be fundamental differences in statistical techniques between the two.
The real kicker about polls isn't so much who's asked, but what they're asked. Small variations in wording on the surveys result in very different answers by those being polled.
Polls are pretty accurate, but what's reported isn't always an accurate representation of what was queried.
There's another group too, *totally* unaccounted for by the polls: Americans living overseas. Here's a couple of factoids:
I got the first point from this site a few days ago. The front page keeps changing, so here's the text:"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again into bondage."
Alexander Frasier Tytler
"The decline and fall of the Athenian republic"
It looks like we're at "apathy" now. Time to break the cycle.