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 #53: TIA, I would like to thank you for your work on this as well. [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 archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. TIA, I would like to thank you for your work on this as well.
Here's what I am seeing from your analysis. The problem ISN'T whether there was a "bandwagon" effect to those polled in 2004 aabout whom they voted for in 2000, that is irrelevant. The PROBLEM is the data gleaaned from that question was very easily varified by the hard data of number of votes as recorded in the 2000 election.

To show my point let's pretend that EVERYONE who answered the question in 2004 said they voted for bush* in 2000. That would mean that 100 percent of 2004 voters would have voted for bush* in 2000. We can clearly see this is BAD DATA and in no way, shape, or form should we use this # to adjust our final exit polling data. That would mean we would have to say John Kerry got ZERO votes.

So what is a valid number? Easy, once the final number of votes are in simply divide the number of bush* votes in 2000 by the TOTAL number of votes recorded in 2004. So forgetting any of the factors of people changing from bush* votes in 2000 to nonbush* votes in 2004 the MAX percent the question should garner with the actual numbers you come up with a MAX of 42 percent. It doesn't matter then if 70 percent of the people answered due to the "bandwagon" effect because an upper limit is easily figured and any number above that should be thrown out as garbage.

The evidence of shenanigans is this number being above what it could possibly be. It appears the data was massaged by reverse engineering. That is they had the total number of votes received and in order for the result to be what it ended up being they had to fall back into the exit poll data and were stuck with an impossible result.

So how can any final poll be adjusted using a number that is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve? In my far fetched example of 100 percent we can see it leads to a crazy result, but in reality only a point or two is needed to produce the desired results, but the deception is the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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