Posted on 10/30/2004 8:50:31 AM PDT by CloudyI
I have a question. All the polls are supposedly still within the margin of error. My question is: If all the polls pretty much consistently show President Bush ahead of John Kerry, and they all pretty must show the same percentage points for each candidate, doesn't this diminish or eliminate the margin of error?
If they jumped around a bit I could understand---but they seem to consistently show the President ahead by 3-7 points.
Am I way off base or does this indicate that Yes--the President really is ahead and outside the margin of error?
Forgive me this is my first post but haven't seen this discussed.
It's the margin of fraud that worries me.
One term I have heard a bit, both by John Fund on radio, and by Ron Silver on tv, is the 'margin of litigation,' which is an interesting concept, for sure.
I'm with you. I don't understand the MOE.
Me too. All these polls are "likely voters".
I think "registered voters" would better weigh Dem fraud.
I'm not so sure about the polls, which are typically among "likely voters" because of the closeness of the percentages and the "fraud factor". I think if the election is close among legitimate voters, there is a real possibility in this election that fraudulent votes may push Kerry ahead.
I hope and pray that I am wrong.
I guess what I mean to say is that if you just look at 1 poll then you should take the margin of error into consideration but when you are looking at many, many polls such as realclearpolitics.com then isn't the margin of error irrelevant?
Each poll is an individual snapshot. You can't just add them together and use that to reduce the margin of error to nothing. Probability and statistics doesn't work that way. It is fashionable to add different polls and average them, but that really isn't statistically valid.
Statistically, I am not convinced the MOE are that accurate. There are way to many assumptions and imperfect sampling that drives the MOE higher than what they quote. Polls are impefect and relying too much on them is an error.
Someone explained a few days ago that the margin of error depended on the sample size, or something like that. They said that if you could poll everyone, there would be no margin of error, and the smaller the sample, the larger the margin of error.
Last night on Fox they showed both, Likely and Registered Voters. Bush was ahead in both. If my memory is correct the figures were 49/45 for Bush among likely.
But don't you have to take into account that all the polls are basically saying the same thing---Bush is ahead 3-7 points---Doesn't this help to validate the polls to show that Bush is indeed winning?
So, if all the polls show Bush ahead, but within the margin of error, you can't assume that Bush is really ahead. However, the odds are certainly in your favor that he is.
But to further complicate matters, each poll uses different methodology, so it's wrong to lump them together and believe you're seeing a consistent result.
The best thing to do is to focus on voting as often as you can, and making sure your dead relatives vote also.
> Someone explained a few days ago that the margin
> of error depended on the sample size, ...
It does when:
- you have access to all the data
- the accessible data represents all of the data
- the samples taken are reliable data, and
- the samples aren't lying to you
None of which is true for political polling.
No. Margin of error is a poll's reality check. Suppose a poll says that Bush leads Kerry by 50-45, with a three percent margin of error. What this means is that if the poll was done correctly so that the sample is truely random, then
1. There is a 95% probability that Bush will poll anywhere from 47% to 53%, while Kerry will poll anywhere from 42% to 48%;
2. There is an 80% probability that Bush will poll anywhere from 48% to 52%, while Kerry will poll anywhere from 47% to 43%; and
3. There is a 50% probability that Bush will poll anywhere from 49% to 51%, while Kerry will poll anywhere from 44% to 46%. In other words, a lead is relevant even if it is within a margin of error, but the smaller the margin of error, the more certain you can be that the reported lead is correct or at least close to correct.
Don't forget that most sheepole want to vote for the winner.
The MOE is a mathematical function. It has to do with sample size. The larger the sample, the smaller the margin. The margin drops quickly as the sample size grows--until you reach a point. Then it drops very slowly. The cost of increasing the sample size is expensive.
So, when you are doing a survey/poll you have to ask yourself where the tradeoff is between MOE and the expense of sample size. For example, to get 300 RV in a proper distribution of the population (R/D/I) you probably have to make at least 1,500 phone calls. Not a simple thing to do in a short time frame--every day with a new sample--for a campaign. My expereince was about ten years ago--so the calling population has declined while the sample size stayed the same. THIS is what will lead to MOE problems.
Since most polls are about the same size, they are targeting the same MOE. This means they are using a manageable sample size, which can be repeated throughout the campaign.
It does not mean tha the poll IS off by that much, it just means that it COULD be off by that much.
When you are asking pretty basic questions, the MOE is manageable. When there polls are this close, the MOE is more critical.
RE: MOE
Johnny (or Janey) on the spot correct!
with all the assumptions they use, MOE simply can't be determined accurately. The MOE is assuming that the real world is perfect and that the poll takers understand the underlying distribution, which they don't.
But I agree that the fact that most of the polls show Bush ahead is what is important (other than fraud, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.