You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #97: this gobblebegook... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is locked.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. this gobblebegook...
is 100% documented in survey and measurement literature (at least in my circles). Sorry if I didn't take the time to go into details. It is not the first time that I've written something that is confusing. I have presented at ASA, but not at this division. You can see examples of the gobblegook in the titles of this link: http://www.amstat.org/Sections/Srms/Proceedings/y2005/y... if you get interested...maybe you were there?

My colleagues, consulting partners, and clients would recognize all these "sampling techniques" instantly. I just tried to tone down the terminology for the post. Heaven knows I didn't get into anything technical...even though I admit it was a quick list. I even avoided the obscure statistical things: decision theories, threshold analyses, etc. I suspect we all run in different worlds.

I already have a rather busy consulting calendar in 2008, but not with exit poll clients. I did some analysis as a volunteer in the last year and sent the results to interested parties who found them pretty useful and presented them in a report. In fact, I did get an offer to participate in a poll/election analysis, but I didn't pursue it. I also got a referral to a lawyer challenging an election here in Florida based on some analysis. I do consulting as a neutral expert (or openingly reveal any affiliation), and I would not take a contract that didn't allow complete and open external review of the process and data (except for identities of responders), so I guess I'll keep my day job.

I still think the exit poll process needs lots of sampling improvement. OTOH seems convinced that it's not the pollster's job to make some changes (if I understand correctly, I'm not trying to misrepresent OTOH) . You seem to be more interested in the parametric statistics of poll analysis, but not necessarily in changing the sampling methods (if I understand you correctly, sorry if I'm misinterpreting), but you likely think the entire voting process in the US is flawed and the polls don't have the power to detect most problems.

Since I don't read all the posts on DU or other blogs, I may have missed something. Unless I see something new, I'll continue to disagree with our and OTOH and suggest that exit pollsters broaden their data collection methods and be more responsive to the needs for public information about potential election manipulations. As I've read and explored over the last year or so, I'm more convinced than ever that exit polls could offer useful information to investigations of election "mistakes" or manipulation. TIA et. al. may not "prove" anything, but they are certainly suggesting where to look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC