<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exit Polling needs a change, and they are the ones who screwed up this election. How do we know people don't lie? How do we know they are succesfully spacing apart the demographics?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do we know the elections weren't erroneous? How do we know the electronic voting machines weren't tampered with?
Simple... we don't. But the fact that exit polls have been accurate in the past, while electronic voting hasn't warrants some attention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why do other polls, such telephone polling pick Bush as the winner? This is clearly an error with the exit polls, and not the election process.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Telephone polls barely made it for bush, much lower than the ballots even. And telephone polls of course have margins of error. But I still trust exit polls more than phone-polls for reasons I mentioned earlier but you refuse to even acknowledge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conviencing polling has severe limitations. Convience polling is great for small communities and quick results; for a nationwide effort there is bound to be problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First you need to explain how telephone polls aren't convenience sampling and exit polls are. To have a non-convenience sample in a telephone poll, you would need to select thousands of people across America, not telephone numbers. And then you would find a way to interview those samples no matter how hard it is, and they have to accept.
You still have yet to refute or even mention either kent's, mine, or the site's assertions that precincts are chosen to best represent statewide voting and scaled appropriately.
Okay I'll go into how conviencing polling is bad tommorrow.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Telephone polls barely made it for bush, much lower than the ballots even. And telephone polls of course have margins of error. But I still trust exit polls more than phone-polls for reasons I mentioned earlier but you refuse to even acknowledge. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 10 2004, 01:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 10 2004, 01:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The telephone polls said 1.5 in Bush's favor. Bush won with only 1% in his favor. (popular vote wise)
That's PRETTY damn accurate, no? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Over an 8% range. Not so precise. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Whereas exit polls last year were less than 1% off average over a 4% range (worse case scenereo) and a likewise much lower standard deviation (smaller range, many more degrees of freedom). I'm wondering now if you have ever taken a course in statistics, because the choice is pretty clear to me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay I'll go into how conviencing polling is bad tommorrow.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Keyser+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Keyser)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First you need to explain how telephone polls aren't convenience sampling and exit polls are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DiscoZombie+Nov 9 2004, 01:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Nov 9 2004, 01:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Beast+Nov 6 2004, 07:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Beast @ Nov 6 2004, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Most important issue: taxes (5%): majority for bush (57%) education (4%): majority for kerry (77%) iraq (15%): majority for kerry (73%) Terrorism (19%): Majority for bush (86%) Economy (20%): majority for kerry (80%) <b>Moral values (22%): majority for bush (80%)</b> healthcare (8%): majority for kerry (77%) *looks like only 42% cared about the important things (health, education, economy). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is the scariest thing IMO. the largest % consider 'moral values' the most important issue in their president...
yes. whether homosexuals can marry and fetuses can be aborted is more important than education, healthcare, and taxes combined.
I assume that's what people mean when they check 'moral values'. 450% more people think these things are more important than educating our children. Scary indeed.
I bet a similar poll even in an islamic extremist country would yield more people caring about education than here in the US... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> quoting myself because I just found a columbia prof who noticed the same thing I did... democrats are actually considering going conservative on issues like **** rights and abortion because it might get the stupid people who care about nothing but those things to vote in a way that would actually benefit them...
edit: forgot teh linkeh <a href='http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041110.html' target='_blank'>Should Democrats Move to the Right on Cultural Issues? </a>
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 8 2004, 10:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 8 2004, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 8 2004, 05:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 8 2004, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are many problems with that graph (for instance, it never shows Bush loosing votes, I can only assume that certain states were chosen specifically for this reason), but I still found the results interesting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure that there were states in which Bush had more votes in the exit poll than he did in the final tally. Everything I've read said that Kerry was up in the exit polls by 3-4 points in the swing states.
However, as compelling as this looks, there is a very good chance that it is just the result of response bias. There are a lot of places in the country in which voting for Bush isn't something people would want to disclose because it isn't popular. Kerry supporters tend to be more vocal and defiant. Also, a lot of the "get the government out of my life" people probably voted for Bush in higher numbers than they voted for Kerry, and a significant percentage of them, I suspect, wouldn't respond to an exit poll.
That said, we can't be sure unless we can somehow verify the results independently. If this is important to you, put your money where your mouth is, and donate to <a href='http://www.blackboxvoting.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.blackboxvoting.org/</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I also noticed a problem with those charts.
I live in Pennsylvania and the majority of our voting systems are punch cards. I would trust those statistics as much as I would trust a dyslexic child with ADHD to pack my parachute.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I live in Pennsylvania and the majority of our voting systems are punch cards. I would trust those statistics as much as I would trust a dyslexic child with ADHD to pack my parachute.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DiscoZombie+Nov 10 2004, 06:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Nov 10 2004, 06:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> quoting myself because I just found a columbia prof who noticed the same thing I did... democrats are actually considering going conservative on issues like **** rights and abortion because it might get the stupid people who care about nothing but those things to vote in a way that would actually benefit them...
edit: forgot teh linkeh <a href='http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041110.html' target='_blank'>Should Democrats Move to the Right on Cultural Issues? </a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know if it's an indication of that or not, but just yesterday I watched the House Democrats give a press conference where they made many many references to "<i>our</i> moral values." Emphasis mine, that seemed to be the way they were spinning it. I consider this, at least at the moment, nothing more than an interesting political move. But I thought it was noteworthy anyway.
I find it disturbing , if not shocking , that so few americans care about the possibility of massive fraud. How can you put any trust in various voting machines proven unreliable ? Here in France we proceed the old way , no need for optical scanners , we count the votes by hand. Having taken part in the votes counting , I'm pretty confident that the multiple checks don't allow any kind of fraud or vote spoilage whatsoever. It's not too long either ; now , considering the american voting population is only about twice as large as the french , what justifies such an irresponsible attitude ?
Comments
How do we know the elections weren't erroneous? How do we know the electronic voting machines weren't tampered with?
Simple... we don't. But the fact that exit polls have been accurate in the past, while electronic voting hasn't warrants some attention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why do other polls, such telephone polling pick Bush as the winner? This is clearly an error with the exit polls, and not the election process.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Telephone polls barely made it for bush, much lower than the ballots even. And telephone polls of course have margins of error. But I still trust exit polls more than phone-polls for reasons I mentioned earlier but you refuse to even acknowledge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conviencing polling has severe limitations. Convience polling is great for small communities and quick results; for a nationwide effort there is bound to be problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First you need to explain how telephone polls aren't convenience sampling and exit polls are. To have a non-convenience sample in a telephone poll, you would need to select thousands of people across America, not telephone numbers. And then you would find a way to interview those samples no matter how hard it is, and they have to accept.
You still have yet to refute or even mention either kent's, mine, or the site's assertions that precincts are chosen to best represent statewide voting and scaled appropriately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Telephone polls barely made it for bush, much lower than the ballots even. And telephone polls of course have margins of error. But I still trust exit polls more than phone-polls for reasons I mentioned earlier but you refuse to even acknowledge.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html' target='_blank'>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html</a>
The telephone polls said 1.5 in Bush's favor. Bush won with only 1% in his favor. (popular vote wise)
That's PRETTY damn accurate, no?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fact_sample.html' target='_blank'>http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fact_sample.html</a>
What you need to do is explain how exit polls use convenience sampling (hint: they don't).
That's PRETTY damn accurate, no? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Over an 8% range. Not so precise. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Whereas exit polls last year were less than 1% off average over a 4% range (worse case scenereo) and a likewise much lower standard deviation (smaller range, many more degrees of freedom). I'm wondering now if you have ever taken a course in statistics, because the choice is pretty clear to me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay I'll go into how conviencing polling is bad tommorrow.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Keyser+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Keyser)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First you need to explain how telephone polls aren't convenience sampling and exit polls are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
taxes (5%): majority for bush (57%)
education (4%): majority for kerry (77%)
iraq (15%): majority for kerry (73%)
Terrorism (19%): Majority for bush (86%)
Economy (20%): majority for kerry (80%)
<b>Moral values (22%): majority for bush (80%)</b>
healthcare (8%): majority for kerry (77%)
*looks like only 42% cared about the important things (health, education, economy). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is the scariest thing IMO. the largest % consider 'moral values' the most important issue in their president...
yes. whether homosexuals can marry and fetuses can be aborted is more important than education, healthcare, and taxes combined.
I assume that's what people mean when they check 'moral values'. 450% more people think these things are more important than educating our children. Scary indeed.
I bet a similar poll even in an islamic extremist country would yield more people caring about education than here in the US... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
quoting myself because I just found a columbia prof who noticed the same thing I did... democrats are actually considering going conservative on issues like **** rights and abortion because it might get the stupid people who care about nothing but those things to vote in a way that would actually benefit them...
edit: forgot teh linkeh
<a href='http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041110.html' target='_blank'>Should Democrats Move to the Right on Cultural Issues? </a>
I'm not sure that there were states in which Bush had more votes in the exit poll than he did in the final tally. Everything I've read said that Kerry was up in the exit polls by 3-4 points in the swing states.
However, as compelling as this looks, there is a very good chance that it is just the result of response bias. There are a lot of places in the country in which voting for Bush isn't something people would want to disclose because it isn't popular. Kerry supporters tend to be more vocal and defiant. Also, a lot of the "get the government out of my life" people probably voted for Bush in higher numbers than they voted for Kerry, and a significant percentage of them, I suspect, wouldn't respond to an exit poll.
That said, we can't be sure unless we can somehow verify the results independently. If this is important to you, put your money where your mouth is, and donate to <a href='http://www.blackboxvoting.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.blackboxvoting.org/</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also noticed a problem with those charts.
I live in Pennsylvania and the majority of our voting systems are punch cards. I would trust those statistics as much as I would trust a dyslexic child with ADHD to pack my parachute.
Good input.
edit: forgot teh linkeh
<a href='http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041110.html' target='_blank'>Should Democrats Move to the Right on Cultural Issues? </a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if it's an indication of that or not, but just yesterday I watched the House Democrats give a press conference where they made many many references to "<i>our</i> moral values." Emphasis mine, that seemed to be the way they were spinning it. I consider this, at least at the moment, nothing more than an interesting political move. But I thought it was noteworthy anyway.