Why are the poll results so different?
October 24th, 2008
Wondering why some polls have Obama racing away with a 14 point lead, while others show a virtual tie? Alan Fram writing for the Associated Press has a nice set of answers to many question you probably have about polling and why things are looking a little crazy right now.
From the article:
Q: Don’t pollsters simply ask questions, tally the answers and report them?
A: No. After finishing their interviews – usually with about 1,000 people, sometimes more – they adjust the answers to make sure they reflect Census Bureau data on the population like gender, age, education and race. For example, if the proportion of women interviewed is smaller than their actual share of the country’s population, their answers are given more “weight” to balance that out. But some pollsters make these adjustments differently than others. And while most polling organizations including the AP do not modify the responses to reflect some recent tally of how many Democrats, Republicans and independents there are, some do.
Q: Are those the only changes made?
A: No. As Election Day nears, polling organizations like to narrow their samples to people who say they are registered voters. They often narrow them further to those they consider likely voters. That’s because in a country where barely more than half of eligible voters usually show up for presidential elections, pollsters want their polls to reflect the views of those likeliest to vote.
Q: Is that hard to do?
A: Quite hard, since no one will truly know who will vote on Election Day until that day is over. In fact, virtually every polling organization has its own way of determining who likely voters are.
Like many polling organizations, the AP asks several questions about how often people have voted in the past and how likely they are to vote this year, and those who score highest are considered likely voters.
Posted in Election 2008 | 3 Comments »
October 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am
This is the part that's difficult to take. In a so-called democratic environment you sort of have to believe the information you're being handed is verifiable and legitimate. When you find out it isn't it sort of throws your whole sense of the system as a functional entity. Of course, that said, I'm not one to extol the virtues of going by polls to decide who you're voting for — in my opinion you ought to vote with your heart and your head and decide on the candidate who's best for you. I don't know…this guy says it a lot clearer than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOk9B1hYr4g. Just my opinion.
November 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I've taken 2 university-level statistics courses and I look at it this way: If there are huge differences between the election results and the polls, we need to first ask whether there was vote fraud. Period. Revamping the science of polling can take years and could be considered, but election fraud can only be proven if we act quickly. IF you want to be safe we can do both, but one is long term and one is short term. Notice how we were prepared to accept the results being off from the polls by the media?
November 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Polling assumes many things, among them , that the polled are eligible voters and will vote. That is the much saner explanation.
And if you're wondering, I've take 3 university-level stats courses. So beat that.