Kucinich uses stuffable-box unscientific non-random-sample poll to his advantage; will he apologize?

[LoZoccolo]

If you look on the Kucinich web site, you can see that he has an article about the dehp.net poll where people can choose a bunch of stands on issues and see who they match up with.

http://www2.kucinich.us/node/4871

His campaign had this to say:

“When people vote exclusively on the issues that are important to them, without being influenced by name recognition, celebrity, or millions of dollars in advertising, Congressman Kucinich wins in a landslide,” his campaign said today.

What they do not mention is:

- The box can be stuffed without any effort; I voted three times from the same computer without resetting cookies or anything.
- There are little to no social welfare issues; all I found was universal health care.
- The population was not selected randomly and therefore the results cannot be generalized to a larger population.

ON EDIT: I know the poll has been posted before, but I am posting about the fact that it is also on his website and his campaign is using it. People portray him as Mr. Honest Guy.

[Ian David]

1. You are correct. He is mis-using the data.

However, when I took it, I gave Kucinich an 89%.

The results that an individual gets may be somewhat meaningful to them, personally, but the aggregate information of all those polled is NOT.

[MuseRider]

2. Lemme guess.

You did not vote for Dennis.

[LoZoccolo]

4. No, it said Ron Paul, which is ridiculous.

I support a lot of social welfare programs because I think it's fair, and that a stable nation is a strong and productive one. But because this survey didn't really have many of those, but did have a lot of civil liberties questions (including guns, I am a RKBA Democrat), it selected a libertarian. That is simply not accurate.

[w13rd0]

3. I'm sure you've heard this before...

...but without posting statistical analysis, methodology and source data, people can say whatever they want about "polls", and they can claim those "polls" say whatever they want them to say. They rely upon people neither understanding, nor wanting to understand, anything deeper than the very surface. It's one of the reasons why the mainstream candidates do their best to just fly right above the baseline of their polling data. They don't want to do anything to create spikes in either direction. If they need to "improve their percentages", they want a slow steady incline, not wild spikes. And it shows in the "stands" they are willing to take.

Of course, this is something that, at least in the past couple decades, only seems to exist on the left side of the divide. On the right side, they use another calculus. By flailing wildly to the right, making outrageous and erroneous claims, lying, being willing to justify the means to achieve the ends (consolidation of power unto themselves usually), they rely upon being able to wear the world down. Boil it down to its lowest common denominator and then keep it there. The process of enlightening people, evolving them, is a far more difficult task than the process of grinding them down and keeping them mired in ignorance.

"I voted three times from the same computer without resetting cookies or anything."

Why? Because you could? What does that say about you as a person?

[LoZoccolo]

5. I voted three times to see if the poll was bunk.

And it was. It was bunk before I did that.

What does that say about you as a person?

It says that I raise issues.

[w13rd0]

6. But if it was bunk before you did that...

...why do it? And wouldn't twice have proved the point? Why three times?

[LoZoccolo]

7. Because I didn't know it was bunk.

I found out it was bunk because I could stuff the box.

Three times adds to the effect.

[rjones2818]

8. Now over 90,000 respondants.

Even if every person was as unethical as you (ie a poll box stuffer), that would mean some 30,000 actual people have taken the poll (perhaps even most, though a bit unethical, aren't quite so unethical as you and figured out they could vote more than once as soon as they voted the second time, which would mean some 45,000 people have voted, or even better, let's say that only 1000 people were as unethical as you...). 30k, 45k even 80-90k are pretty good numbers of people to take the poll. What it says about the poll is that in the way it was constructed and with the questions asked, Dennis is more popular than the rest of the candidates. I think its quite reasonable for him to use the info.

:evilgrin: on the unethical part in case you didn't realize it.