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

Reply #13: Firstly [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
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Firstly
Do you understand that the E-M exit polls are not even intended to monitor elections? They are designed for a quite different purpose, which they accomplish rather well.

For more information, see here:

Secondly: AFAIK, and IK fairly well, OTOH has no "agenda" other than trying to find out what went wrong in 2004, and to figure out the best way of preventing it, or worse, happening again.

Thirdly: the patterns observed in the exit polls are not particularly difficult to account for, and in fact in the analysis I did for Mitofsky, I accounted for them fairly well, mostly in terms of factors likely to be associated with selection bias.

Fourthly: you are making an allegation that the pollsters are "hiding data". They have released a very large amount of data, including detailed responses from all the questionnaires used in the crosstabulations, and aggregate statistics of the discrepancies between their models and the official vote by state and also for the last five years. What has not been released is information that might allow respondents to be identified, and this is, of course, because the data were collected on the condition that the responses would be regarded as confidential.

If you think you can run an exit poll that would be of assistance in monitoring elections, why not contact Steve Freeman, and offer your services. I'm sure he would be very grateful. But the E-M poll was not designed to do that, and when reverse-engineered to try to do it, the findings did not support the theory that the discrepancy was due fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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