Re: Do the phone polls capture the young vote?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Your Name, Nov 5, 2008.

  1. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    "thing2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just looking at the USA polling and there seems to be a clear % of <30
    > who are democrat. Translating that here and that our polling does not do
    > mobile phones and I just wonder what or if correction is needed...
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    All polls / surveys / "studies" are ridiculous and useless, including th
    idiotic Neilsen ratings and the box office numbers for movies. Most polls /
    surveys ask about 50 people out of a population of 4 million and yet people
    blindly expect realistic results?!
     
    Your Name, Nov 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Your Name

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Your Name" <> wrote in message
    news:gesuef$kdr$...
    >
    > "thing2" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Just looking at the USA polling and there seems to be a clear % of <30
    >> who are democrat. Translating that here and that our polling does not do
    >> mobile phones and I just wonder what or if correction is needed...
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing

    >
    > All polls / surveys / "studies" are ridiculous and useless, including th
    > idiotic Neilsen ratings and the box office numbers for movies. Most polls
    > /
    > surveys ask about 50 people out of a population of 4 million and yet
    > people
    > blindly expect realistic results?!


    Not true for election polling, maybe for the Nielsen ratings and box office.
    It's a popular but misguided belief that election polling and similar
    studies are "useless". I used to do computer admin at a market research
    company, and they used a tracking based system with the size of each sample
    being 750 (tracking as in, doing a series of surveys and tracking the
    results) which ran all the time, not just during election year, with the
    time intervals between each being weekly, changing to nightly leading up to
    an election. They usually predicted the results to within a couple of %,
    best year I think was a little under 1% off. The demographic questions that
    they ask at the end of surveys allow them to see how close to being
    representative the sample of people they talked to was by comparison to the
    results of the last census and there are ways to adjust the weighting of the
    poll results accordingly. That's somewhat of an oversimplification, but
    that's pretty much how it works.
     
    Nik Coughlin, Nov 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, thing2 <> wrote:

    >I think the numbers are 800~1000 people....they must have some logical
    >basis on looking for a sample that size, its going to be a balance of
    >numbers, time taken and cost, sure......


    ... and hopefully a power analysis at least :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 6, 2008
    #3
  4. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    "thing2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Your Name wrote:
    > > "thing2" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Just looking at the USA polling and there seems to be a clear % of <30
    > >> who are democrat. Translating that here and that our polling does not

    do
    > >> mobile phones and I just wonder what or if correction is needed...
    > >>
    > >> regards
    > >>
    > >> Thing

    > >
    > > All polls / surveys / "studies" are ridiculous and useless, including th
    > > idiotic Neilsen ratings and the box office numbers for movies. Most

    polls /
    > > surveys ask about 50 people out of a population of 4 million and yet

    people
    > > blindly expect realistic results?!
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    > Oops wrong group....
    >
    > I think the numbers are 800~1000 people....they must have some logical
    > basis on looking for a sample that size, its going to be a balance of
    > numbers, time taken and cost, sure......
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    Unless you survey EVERYBODY (and everybody actually gives a truthful
    answer!) the results are just mathemacially manipulated guesswork, and
    therefore not accurate and are usually misleadingly reported ... and far too
    many people actually believe such garbage results.
     
    Your Name, Nov 6, 2008
    #4
  5. In message <getv3r$80f$>, Your Name wrote:

    > Unless you survey EVERYBODY (and everybody actually gives a truthful
    > answer!) the results are just mathemacially manipulated guesswork, and
    > therefore not accurate ...


    Nonsense. They can actually be more accurate than a full census/vote of
    everybody.

    How come?

    Because it's actually impossible to do a census/vote of everybody. There is
    no such thing as 100% voting in an election (not even in Australia).
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 6, 2008
    #5
  6. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:geu026$8c2$...
    > In message <getv3r$80f$>, Your Name wrote:
    >
    > > Unless you survey EVERYBODY (and everybody actually gives a truthful
    > > answer!) the results are just mathemacially manipulated guesswork, and
    > > therefore not accurate ...

    >
    > Nonsense. They can actually be more accurate than a full census/vote of
    > everybody.
    >
    > How come?
    >
    > Because it's actually impossible to do a census/vote of everybody. There

    is
    > no such thing as 100% voting in an election (not even in Australia).


    I never said it was possible. I said it's the ONLY way to get accurate
    results. Anything elese is pure guesswork and must be viewed as such, but
    unfortunately far too many people don't understand that and fully believe
    the silly survey results are completely truthful, rather than the
    mathematically manipulated nonsense that they are. That's why "results" are
    always hidden behind percentages rather than telling you the actual numbers,
    ie. "50% of people" rather than "5 out of the 10 people we bothered to ask".

    So called "medical studies" are even worse since they usually "study" a
    ridiculously small number of people and then claim the results are "proof"
    .... for that week, and then another silly "study" changes that idea the
    following week.
     
    Your Name, Nov 6, 2008
    #6
  7. Your Name

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Your Name" <> wrote in message
    news:getv3r$80f$...
    >
    > Unless you survey EVERYBODY (and everybody actually gives a truthful
    > answer!) the results are just mathemacially manipulated guesswork, and
    > therefore not accurate and are usually misleadingly reported ... and far
    > too
    > many people actually believe such garbage results.


    Not accurate or not 100% accurate? 90% and upwards accurate, which is what
    many surveys/polls etc. manage is a hell of a lot better than just guessing,
    wouldn't you say? I'd rather know something to within that margin of error
    than have no idea whatsoever... why so hostile? Was your family murdered by
    a telemarketer or something?
     
    Nik Coughlin, Nov 6, 2008
    #7
  8. In message <geu1pp$9id$>, Your Name wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:geu026$8c2$...
    >
    >> In message <getv3r$80f$>, Your Name wrote:
    >>
    >> > Unless you survey EVERYBODY (and everybody actually gives a truthful
    >> > answer!) the results are just mathemacially manipulated guesswork, and
    >> > therefore not accurate ...

    >>
    >> Nonsense. They can actually be more accurate than a full census/vote of
    >> everybody.
    >>
    >> How come?
    >>
    >> Because it's actually impossible to do a census/vote of everybody. There
    >> is no such thing as 100% voting in an election (not even in Australia).

    >
    > I never said it was possible. I said it's the ONLY way to get accurate
    > results.


    If it's not possible, then it cannot be a way, can it?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 6, 2008
    #8
  9. In message <>, Carnations wrote:

    > Also, why do you think that Statistics cannot be used to accurately
    > predict the view of an entire population of votes cast to within a
    > percentage point or two?


    In fact, it's well known that censuses tend to miss people belonging to
    particular social groups (low-income, living in rental accommodation or
    homeless, that kind of thing). And since censuses are commonly used for
    such things as setting electoral boundaries, this can influence election
    outcomes in undesirable ways.

    For instance, back in the 1990s (or was it 1980s?), there was a proposal in
    the US to amend its census procedure to get around this problem, by using
    statistical extrapolation to fill in the gaps. The Republicans, who had the
    most to lose from the kind of voters who would be picked up by such a
    proposal, managed to block it as "unconstitutional".
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 6, 2008
    #9
  10. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    news:geu605$58b$...
    > "Your Name" <> wrote in message
    > news:getv3r$80f$...
    > >
    > > Unless you survey EVERYBODY (and everybody actually gives a truthful
    > > answer!) the results are just mathemacially manipulated guesswork, and
    > > therefore not accurate and are usually misleadingly reported ... and far
    > > too
    > > many people actually believe such garbage results.

    >
    > Not accurate or not 100% accurate? 90% and upwards accurate, which is

    what
    > many surveys/polls etc. manage is a hell of a lot better than just

    guessing,
    > wouldn't you say? I'd rather know something to within that margin of

    error
    > than have no idea whatsoever... why so hostile? Was your family murdered

    by
    > a telemarketer or something?


    You must be an engineer: "close enough is good enough". :-\

    I'd rather have actual results that mean something are are not guesswork.
    Results that are published saying they are either guesswork or accurate only
    to those few people they bothered to survey.

    As I said, far too many people do not understand how these things work and
    take them as being 110% truthful, which in the case of silly "medical
    studies" that are announced on TV News can be dangerous.
     
    Your Name, Nov 6, 2008
    #10
  11. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >
    > And why do you think such polls are "just mathematically manipulated
    > guesswork"? (ie why do you think there is no value in predicting such
    > outcomes)


    Yhey have marginally more value than weather forecasting ... ie. next to no
    use at all in any real terms, but still used by fools in high places to make
    major decisions based on corrupted / manipulated data. Survey results are
    often manipultes to show exactly what those paying for them want them to
    show.
     
    Your Name, Nov 6, 2008
    #11
  12. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:24:56 +1300, Your Name wrote:
    >
    > >> And why do you think such polls are "just mathematically manipulated
    > >> guesswork"? (ie why do you think there is no value in predicting such
    > >> outcomes)

    > >
    > > Yhey have marginally more value than weather forecasting ... ie. next to
    > > no use at all in any real terms, but still used by fools in high places
    > > to make major decisions based on corrupted / manipulated data.

    >
    > Why do you think weather forcasting is of no use at all?


    Because they almost never get it right. :-\
     
    Your Name, Nov 7, 2008
    #12
  13. Your Name

    Your Name Guest

    "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:07:47 +1300, Your Name wrote:
    >
    > >> > Yhey have marginally more value than weather forecasting ... ie. next
    > >> > to no use at all in any real terms, but still used by fools in high
    > >> > places to make major decisions based on corrupted / manipulated data.
    > >>
    > >> Why do you think weather forcasting is of no use at all?

    > >
    > > Because they almost never get it right. :-\

    >
    > What medications are you taking for your condition?


    Luckily for me, it's apparently not as much medication as the rest of the
    sheep on this planet are taking. :-\
     
    Your Name, Nov 8, 2008
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. GeekyChick79

    young MCSE's

    GeekyChick79, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    2,041
  2. Plato

    Neil Young

    Plato, Apr 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    630
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian_H=B9=A9?=
    Apr 19, 2004
  3. asj
    Replies:
    569
    Views:
    14,235
    Matthew L. Martin
    May 11, 2006
  4. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    OS polls...

    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 2, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,176
    Mike Dee
    Oct 4, 2004
  5. ian field

    If the BNP got ahead in the polls tomorrow.........

    ian field, Nov 18, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    345
    Aardvark
    Nov 18, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page