Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP will try TO STEAL THE VOTE AGAIN - Details Here (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the connection (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error

    between those 2 sentences.  You don't hear exit polling very much (like those election nights of 2000 and before) except as a mention tossed in not to predict results, but to predict how long before a winner is announced.   And nobody, but nobody in the media points out when the exit polls don't match the election results.

    Exit polling is different from regular polls because it's not predictive - it doesn't ask about a future event;  it's asking people about something they just did (who did you vote for) so it's always been a reliable indicator of the results.  When they don't match or the results are vastly different, it indicates a problem with the results.  And exit polling during the Walker recall showed a toss up which was not reflected in the "official" results.  In other words, the results should have been much closer than they were.

    Election observers in countries where elections are not terribly reliable use exit polling data to validate results.  We stopped using them here after the 2000 Bush-Gore fiasco because they were pointing to serious problems in our own elections.

    There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

    by Puddytat on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 10:27:52 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK, but crucial pieces of this are untrue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Judge Moonbox
      Exit polling... [has] always been a reliable indicator of the results.
      In my experience, people who were knowledgeable about exit polls before 2004 don't agree with this statement. For one thing, it's known that there were substantial exit poll discrepancies in 1992. For another, it's questionable in principle: no matter how hard one works to randomize the exit poll sample, it's up to voters to decide whether to participate, and there is no way to ensure that participation isn't biased.

      The 2004 exit poll showed John Kerry winning Minnesota by 14 points, New Hampshire by 15 points, Pennsylvania by 14 points. None of those margins made any sense. Frankly, Kerry's exit poll margin of 6.5 points in Ohio didn't make much sense. (Many people don't realize how large these margins were, because the margins depicted on websites used "composite" projections that factored in pre-election polling.) Here in New York, the exit poll had Kerry winning by 31 points.

      And exit polling during the Walker recall showed a toss up which was not reflected in the "official" results.  In other words, the results should have been much closer than they were.
      The nominal margin of error on the difference hasn't been reported (it can't be calculated directly from the number of respondents), but I would guess it was at least 6 points. That's disregarding experiences like the ones I mention above. I don't think any seasoned observers were hugely shocked to see Walker win by 7.
      Election observers in countries where elections are not terribly reliable use exit polling data to validate results.
      Well, Sumate used an exit poll to argue that Hugo Chavez had rigged an election in Venezuela, but that doesn't get shouted out too often here. Neutral election observers generally don't use exit polls to validate results; the Carter Center explicitly has recommended against it.
      We stopped using them here after the 2000 Bush-Gore fiasco because they were pointing to serious problems in our own elections.
      I don't know what you mean. The network-sponsored exit polls actually haven't changed much since 2000.

      Election protection: there's an app for that!
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 11:11:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site