All polls are fraudulent, all polls are "push"

[JackRiddler]

In the U.S., average pct. who refuse to participate when approached in a poll : 70 percent

SEVENTY PERCENT DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THIS NONSENSE.

But every day you are bombarded with the latest numbers, which are little more than chits bet in a game of spin and counterspin, of manipulating expectations and buzz, of creating opinions where yesterday there were none.

All of the candidates also participate in this, and for that they are all guilty. And foolish, since almost all of them get whiplash from their own attempts at spin.

Now while some clever type from a university department prepares to explain why the 70 percent who hang up or refuse to stop on the street actually have the same opinions in the same proportions as the 30 percent who play along, read this:

http://www.retropoll.org/polling_fraud.htm

The Public Opinion Polling Fraud
from Z Magazine
by Marc Sapir and Mickey Huff

(...)

Like the corporate polls we buy phone lists from a company which randomly generates and sells these lists for surveys and marketing purposes. Of the several hundred Americans one of us (Marc) personally spoke with, about 25-30% agreed to answer the questions. The others either declined or hung up. This isn't surprising. It is commonly accepted in public opinion research that in random samples usually 70% or more of those contacted will refuse to participate. With that single act, the refusers destroy the claim that the poll sampled people randomly. The results of any poll can honestly reflect the views of the general population only if the 70% who refuse to talk have nearly identical views to those who agree to be polled. If there are significant differences, the results can not be said to equate to public opinion.

Polls usually report out a statistical "margin of error" for their results. The margin of error that polls report depends not upon the number of people called but upon the number who responded, the sample size. They usually report a margin of error of about 3% for a sample size of 1000. But this margin of error statistic that makes polls look highly accurate is, in essence, a cover to hide the 70% who refused to participate. Even if 99% refused to participate and we had to speak to 100,000 people to find 1,000 who would talk with us, the margin of error statistic would still be reported as the same 3%. It would be hiding the problem of non-responders. So the margin of error statistic is not only inappropriate in this circumstance; it suggests a level of certainty that is fraudulent.

While it is always possible that those refusing have similar views to those agreeing to be polled, Retro Poll has found evidence to the contrary. When we asked over a thousand people, "would you take a few minutes to respond to a poll on the impact of the war on terrorism on the rights of the American people", one woman responded: "You wouldn't want to hear our view on that. People wouldn't like what we think."

"That's ok", we said, "your views are important; they should be counted and reported as part of the democratic process. We want your opinion to count." "No," the woman said insistently. "We're against the war the way they did it. We think they should just bomb all of them, not send our troops over there...." We didn't ask whether she meant bomb everyone in Iraq or some larger group of Muslims, or nations of people, but the woman's self-awareness that her views were outside the "norm" caused her to refuse to participate. Undoubtedly others have specific and different reasons for non-participation that we have difficulty ascertaining because most won't talk about it.

(... next para describes a couple who are talked into participating despite initial reluctance; they reveal that they didn't want to answer at first because they would like the U.S. to "bomb them all" and realize this is a deviant opinion, at any rate nothing one is supposed to say in public ...)

If the "bomb them all" couple may seem the exception among non-responders, consider this: Fewer African Americans and Latin Americans agreed to be polled in both of our national samples (in the current poll 5.7% were African Americans and in the prior poll 4%; for Latin Americans the corresponding figures were 6.2% and 8%. Each of these groups make up about 12% of the U.S. population, actually 12.5% for Latinos). As a result, our poll sample ended up at 79.4% "caucasian" ( i.e. European American) but the actual White/non-Hispanic European American proportion of the population is 69.1% according to the 2000 Census.

MORE
http://www.retropoll.org/polling_fraud.htm

Discuss.

[fearnobush]

1. Just proves that polls are not all that accurate. but...

They can sway an opinion that may not have really been the true opinion at all.

[JackRiddler]

2. exactly, exactly

Polls are an instrument of tyranny. Of mind control. Of the day-to-day, minute-to-minute hysteria of the new. Must have news. Must toss numbers. Must provide spin. Must fill all this dead air space. Must avoid issues. Must avoid complexity. Just give me the score.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Very majestic prose. Now get back to the real world.

What you say is only partly true. Polls are not exact. But the track record has usually been correct within the margin of error (+/- 3%).
In fact, the last race which was called incorrectly was Truman/Dewey in 1948. But that was because they stopped polling two weeks early.

Yes, they are overrated and can sway opinion. I don't like the fact that there are too many polls, either. But to disparage their historical track record serves no purpose other than to camouflage the real issue: the fact that the media makes it a horse race of polls rather than discussing the issues themselves.

Zogby was correct in 2000 by within 1%; others within 2 or 3%. Certain pollsters like CNN/Gallup or Fox are not to be trusted; they inflate Bush by about 5%. Look to Zogby, Harris, CBS, ABC with more confidence.

By the way, check out the Iowa Electronic Voting Futures markets. That's where investors bet real money daily on the race. It's got an excellent track record.

[JackRiddler]

6. Sorry, TIA, you know we've long disagreed...

on the value of these numbers.

What kind of statement is it to say "usually correct within the margin of error"? This is just the pollster's fancy way of saying, "OFTEN WRONG." Can't you even give me a solid statistic for that?

By "the last race which was called incorrectly" I take it you are restricting the set to presidential general elections in the final polls just before Election Day. And the last time the majority of pollsters blew that was not in 1948, as you say; it was in 2000, notwithstanding Zogby being close.

What about all these endless push-spin-mutilate polls of likely left-handed voters in Podunk for dogcatcher on primary day? What about the amazing tendency of polls to reinforce the hopes and expectations of the commissioning client?

Every day there's some poll result that purports to measure what Americans or some subset thereof believe, and these vary enormously from week to week and are USUALLY WRONG when stacked up against the actual election results or other verifiable samplings. (The most reliable polls are exit polls, for obvious reasons.)

Since you agree on "the real issue" being "the fact that the media makes it a horse race of polls rather than discussing the issues themselves," it would help if you admitted the poor reliability and inherent manipulativeness of falsely named scientific polling.

Pollsters are but advertisers disguised as mathematicians.

(To say nothing of Internet polls, or the All-Star vote.)

[salinen]

3. This just in from Zogby ABC reuters

cent-com new world order pollsterettes - "This guy is ahead of the other guy"

margin of error +/- 99%

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. that may be

but I still like the poll that has Bush behind Kerry by 9 points. It gives me hope, and an easy-to-read score.

[JackRiddler]

7. oh really?

June 1988: Dukakis Leads Bush by 18 Percent.

Plus, shouldn't we be worrying more about DIEBOLD than the current poll results?

[HuskerDem]

16. and then

[stickdog]

17. He should have never SCREAMED like that! (nt)

[JackRiddler]

19. Are you proving my point?

Unless you agree with my basic gist that manipulation dominates the process?

Remember Dukakis was attacked for this not because of the militarist subtext, but because he supposedly looked ridiculous. Does he? Could be any soldier in a tank, anywhere.

In this case, the picture is not worth a thousand words. It is worth only what the caption says it was worth.

You could write: "Funny Little Greek Guy Plays With Big Toy."*

OR you could write: "Recalling George Patton, Dukakis cuts a confident - and competent - figure in command."

And if every channel repeated either one as though it were true...

How does he look any different from AWOL in the flight suit - which got a free ride for months (and only fell apart later due to "Mission Accomplished" and the AWOL scandal)?

------
*Full disclosure: I'm Greek as Dukakis and twice as hairy, so no PC objections please.

[Lexingtonian]

8. Denial is not a river in Egypt

The fact about sample polling is that as practiced by major U.S. organizations it provides enough data. The 70% who don't respond productively turn out to have the same gradient of opinion as those who do.

All the whining in this article assumes a failure to sample each subgroup of the (voting) population adequately. And don't forget that people who don't cooperate with polling may very well be the people who don't ever actually vote. (If you feel left out of polling but never act on your opinion(s), do your opinions really matter to anyone, and why should they even?)

Zogby, for example, predicted Hillary Clinton's victory in the New York Senate race in 2000 to within 2%. Where New York is extremely diverse and rates of miscooperation or noncooperation with polling of the kind is predictably average or high. Rick Lazio's people were claiming exactly the sort of thing said in the article you cite.

[JackRiddler]

9. Did I say this was coming, or what?

Oh, and how did anyone survey the 70 percent who don't respond to discover they have the same gradient of opinion?

I love it, this is like those studies that always discover the non-voters would have voted exactly like the voters did, so as to legitimate the results of elections in which the majority gagged at the prospect of voting for one of two semi-identical bozos.

So why are you giving me anecdotal evidence about how Rick Lazio's wishful thinking turned out to be wrong? If you are serious, shouldn't you be able to support your case by citing the findings of a survey of a sufficiently large sample of cases in which the accuracy of polling results was in dispute, but turned out to be good?

And does your argument address the self-fulfilling dynamic of the polls?

Which, next prediction: you are, of course, going to deny. It made no difference to turnout in 1988, say, when the media spent the final three weeks of the election cycle saying it was over and Bush had already won handily.

I REQUEST FULL DISCLOSURE:

WHO AMONG THOSE POSTING ON THIS THREAD WORKS PROFESSIONALLY AS A STATISTICIAN OR IN P.R., ADVERTISING, OPINION AND MARKETING STUDIES, CONSULTANCY, OR FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS?

[Lexingtonian]

10. Hey

You don't have to be a chicken to know what an egg is or a climatologist to tell what the weather outside is.

those studies that always discover the non-voters would have voted exactly like the voters did

But you don't %$#@ing get many of them to the polls at other times either, so in practice no one gives a crap what their whimsy (which they well never act upon) is at what moment in time. The person who acts on her feelings proves hers, the ones not acted upon are only good for being noted in a diary for future gleaning of lessons. The people too indifferent to act on the flowery stuff they tell people with microphones have simply taken themselves out of the game.

Personally, I think the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your wild and irresponsible claims. The agent provocateur method of getting an education on the cheap is overused and an insult to people who have actually done the work of figuring it out for themselves.

[JackRiddler]

12. Confusing politics with science.

A look at your unspoken assumptions:

But you don't %$#@ing get many of them to the polls at other times either, so in practice no one gives a crap what their whimsy (which they well never act upon) is at what moment in time.

So are you satisfied with the present system, which a) alienates people through predetermined outcomes, b) narrows the choices down to a false duality that simply avoids most of the real issues? (Example: how we handle the 95% of the world who don't get to vote but are still subject to our power.)

Voting aside, aren't you conceding my point with regard to polls? You're not really saying the 70 percent have the same break up of opinions as the 30, since you couldn't possibly back that up.

You do seem to be saying that since they're not answering, to hell with what they might have thought! As though it's my duty to answer to Zogby. Even if true, doesn't that make pollsters dishonest when they present their results as surveys of the population?

(And are you equating hanging up on a pollster with not voting?)

The person who acts on her feelings proves hers, the ones not acted upon are only good for being noted in a diary for future gleaning of lessons. The people too indifferent to act on the flowery stuff they tell people with microphones have simply taken themselves out of the game.

So are you saying action on feelings = voting?

Why conflate diaries with microphones? People who are speaking on microphones out of conviction are often "acting" more effectively than is the majority of the population, including most of the voters. Most of the latter decide on a half-informed hunch, pull a lever or touch a screen, let political operators do the unverifiable counting, and go back to being apolitical for the next 2-4 years (or grumbling pointlessly).

Honestly, who has accomplished more in changing this system in the last 100 years?

Strikers?

Protestors, civil rights movement?

Media activists, loudmouths of all stripes?

Organizers of cooperatives, political clubs, associations, progressive businesses?

Or voters?

The agent provocateur method of getting an education on the cheap is overused and an insult to people who have actually done the work of figuring it out for themselves.

Agent provocateur? Do you mean the methodology of probing the unspoken axioms underlying the epiphenomena? You know, the Socratic method?

Can you at least acknowledge there are multiple potential paths to knowledge, or would you prefer to rule out all philosophy?

You seem to be implying that those who haven't read the same studies and come to the same inevitable, scientific conclusions are merely getting their ideas on the cheap.

Now, you know nothing about my education. I'd call this an ad hominem attack, but actually it is a retreat: "I know, you don't, shut up."

Do tell us, how did you figure "it" out for yourself? Give us your syllabus.

[indigo32]

14. I think this is the real point you can and should be expressing

"So are you satisfied with the present system, which a) alienates people through predetermined outcomes, b) narrows the choices down to a false duality that simply avoids most of the real issues? (Example: how we handle the 95% of the world who don't get to vote but are still subject to our power.)"

1. I think polls indeed have proven to be accurate, I suspect that you're fighting a losing battle on that issue. But it would be VERY interesting to see what would happen if people just went and voted without all the gaming involved.

2. YES VOTING IS ACTING! Naturally it's not the only way to ACT.... but I'll tell you something... I've never been so disallusioned as to watch the Anti-War movement be called a "Focus Group" We have to VOTE to remove people like that.

[JackRiddler]

15. Oh, voting is acting...

Often pointless but not always. I don't want to discourage people from voting. Nor, however, am I going to do much to get them to vote. GOTV is not my highest goal, in the absence of a credible system. If you do devote yourself to GOTV, god bless you.

I prefer to affect views on issues, which will also affect how people vote.

I was simply rejecting Lexingtonian's implicit equation of voting with acting.

I'm not trying to get anywhere with my analysis of polling. It's about telling the truth as you see it, regardless of its political usefulness or futility.

[stickdog]

18. Your post clearly illustrates as much. The fact is that the samples are

self-selected and not random, and hence the margin of error can not be accurately quantified by the traditional statistical methods that polls use to produce their margins of errors.

That is a mathematical fact. It cannot be disputed by anyone who understands statistical analysis.

[Dookus]

11. If polls are so useless and unreliable

why does every candidate commission them? Why do they reflect actual voter results better than any other existing measure? Why do they tend to be so damned right?

[JackRiddler]

13. Right? Back that up please...

Let's get some data on how right they turn out to be. (And if they're right 88 percent of the time, what good are they?! It's still gambling.)

Of course, the vast majority of polls are taken long in advance of elections and are almost all "wrong," shifting wildly before approaching the later voting results. What you mean is that the last polls, just before a vote, turn out to be relatively accurate predictions of that vote.

Yet by then, the earlier polls have been used to influence the debate and the results. The polling numbers are constantly blared out in advance of the vote. Do they not have an effect? Of course they do, and all the candidates and spinmeisters consciously use them to have an effect.

Example, try to be objective: Imagine there had never been any information, months in advance, that Dean and Gep were "leading" in Iowa (which probably encouraged people to move to them). Imagine there had not been, in the final two weeks, the sudden news that Kerry was "surging" (which definitely encouraged people to move to him). What would have been the outcome?

You don't know. Numbers may serve as a fig leaf to cover that ignorance, but you do not know.

Some countries prohibit (or used to prohibit) announcing polling data in advance of an election. I love the First Amendment above all, but those who understand and love democracy would want to follow that rule.

[stickdog]

20. Well, the margin of error is unknown -- but that doesn't mean they can't

"guess" right.

In addition, polls often INFLUENCE voters -- many of whom look to them to make their decisions about who is and is not viable.