Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Regarding the statements from the Edison representative, I would take that with a large grain of salt, seeing how their explanations in 2004 were statistically unsound.

National Election Archive Project - Home

Our statisticians analyzed Edison/Mitofsky's own explanation of their exit poll discrepancies, and found serious flaws in their argument. Exit polls have been used for years to detect corruption of official vote tallies - most recently in Ukraine.

If you do not want to read through the back and forth, Edison/Mitofsky's explanation is pretty much the shy republican voter (who does not want to admit their Bush preference). National Election Archive Project analysis shatters that assumption.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 09:41:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, the National Election Archive Project wasn't that hard on Edison/Mitofsky. You can read it in this pdf.

The position taken by the Edison/Mitofsky group is consistent with professional norms and practices. Election survey analysts ordinarily assume that official election results are the objective standard against which their own findings must be weighed, and perhaps found wanting. We admire Edison/Mitofsky's willingness to find fault with their methods and interview results. However, nothing in their report demonstrates that such errors could account for the gap between the exit polls and the election results.

Furthermore, I read into NEAP's actual arguments against the Edison/Mitofsky hypothesis for the exit poll - election result discrepancy. The hypothesis is, basically, that 56% of Kerry voters but only 50% of Bush voters were willing to respond to exit pollsters. There is no data to test this hypothesis directly. What NEAP did was to check the overall (e.g. Bush+Kerry+Other) rate of exit poll response as a function of the actual vote for Bush. The result was this graph:

However, note: (1) NEAP commits the sin of not conducting a trend significance analysis themselves, (2) something that should have been conducted by taking the different number of precints in the different bins into account, (3) there are a lot of possibilities for unaccounted-for systematic errors (a systematic error is a non-random bias, say correlation with race or settlement type), that is, factors that make people in general and Republicans especially more paranoid of pollsters in less red or blue areas.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 12:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the sidelines, I also note that those who viewed the Orange Revolution as another colour-coded fake revolution, argued that the exit poll was commissioned by Western-paid NGOs and constituted the sole evidence, what's more, earlier something like that happened in Venezuela, too: the Venezuelan opposition posting ill-sampled exit polls as proof of a Chávezista election fraud with the US-imported (but not Diebold) electronic voting machines.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My own personal take is that the exit polls were a crock as they were initially given to us (prior to the Zogby data released for study noted downthread).  It smells like ass-covering by the polling firm to me, and, unfortunately, all the news media use the same poll from the same firm.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series