First, they failed to predict the emergence of so-called "far right" parties in Europe that are anti-immigration, anti-EU, and fiscally conservative. Now, they're failing to accurately predict Ron Paul's frontrunner status in the 2008 US Presidential Election. What is it with these so-called "scientific" polls? Why are they so inaccurate?
2007-07-17 11:20:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
They have the capability of being accurate. Polling 200 people if random and the questions are not bias, would be very accurate. However, even Gallup has been bought out by the owners of the main stream media and they have an agenda. Primarily, their agenda is to exclude and minimize the results for Dr. Ron Paul because he is the only Presidential candidate they have not bought and paid for. All the others will do their bidding so they have no agenda regarding them.
Even the honest people on this site will lie. Certainly the liars that own the polling companies will distort the results. Note how the main stream media lied and deleted all comments after Ron Paul won every poll after each of the debates.
2007-07-21 17:03:44 · answer #1 · answered by John 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The main reasons they are inaccurate is because
1. people's opinions change. The current favorites for frontrunner status in the 2008 elections will probably not be the same in 3 months.
2. wording of the questions. Many times they manipulate the wording to get the results they want. For example, "Do you approve of the job President Bush is doing?" and "Do you have objections to the job President Bush is doing?" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
2007-07-17 12:38:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have to remember that a poll is only a poll. Meaning, it's a statistical slice of the population's view on a subject at THAT MOMENT AND TIME.
They shouldn't be relied on for anything serious.
They also tend to be inaccurate because they use to small a group for a survey. Or they aren't responsible in using a sampling of different communities. So the information tends to be invalid or listed improperly.
But generally, a poll is only good for a day's time. The minds of "The people" are fickle and change with the wind.
2007-07-17 11:33:04 · answer #3 · answered by Pooka 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Look who's taking the polls and the people they are asking! It's just a guess at best or you could roll the dice, flip a coin etc and be about as accurate as any poll. Statistics can be slanted to any point of view if you are a smart pollster.
2007-07-23 10:55:03 · answer #4 · answered by TexasDolly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at the groups taking the "polls" when they seem to time and again have polls that report what they "wish" would happen that is a pretty good sign, the measurments are flawed from the start.
2007-07-18 11:57:01 · answer #5 · answered by Space493 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Polls only take in a small minority of people. They do not take into account the swinging voter or the grey brigade.
Pome Paul
2007-07-24 20:52:14 · answer #6 · answered by spill1946 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Current Pollsters are sophisticated enought to know the results of the poll when they formulate the question. They have no interest in accuracy or objectivity. The examples you cite are good examples
2007-07-17 12:12:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They aren't accurate because they only poll a small part of the population and from one area of the US. One so called "scientific poll" that I looked at had only polled 367 people from a small area.
2007-07-17 11:42:46 · answer #8 · answered by Tanya T 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most scientist believe that we came from slime in a muck hole, so why should they get anything else right after that goof.
2007-07-25 09:52:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are pretty dead on about Ron Paul
2007-07-17 11:33:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋