One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
1–10 of 565 posts
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#2This presumably also affects polls on things that measure support for individual issues related to trust in society - for example Gun control.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#3One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people. I think I agree that there is a large skew introduced by the simple fact of only reaching people willing to answer a call from an unknown number.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#4One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people. I think I agree that there is a large skew introduced by the simple fact of only reaching people willing to answer a call from an unknown number.
[deleted]
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#5I'm curious where polls actually work, are there any retrospectives polling agencies conduct and post online for scrutiny and constructive feedback?
It'll probably help to enumerate all the premises that polling begins with and question whether those premises are in fact the case.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#6Could you select a random group of individuals up front and then bid on their collective participation in a poll (say, beyond 95%, you all get $10)? You might have to pick a few groups and bid between them.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#7One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people. I think I agree that there is a large skew introduced by the simple fact of only reaching people willing to answer a call from an unknown number.
This isn't strictly true though, there are any number of polling methods that pollsters use these days including online polling and essentially pre-approved call databases. One of the examples in this article was an in-person poll with 70% response rate.
It's probably more accurate to say it's harder to effectively weigh or average responses in a setting where there are 4 or 5 different channels you are collecting responses from.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#8Could you select a random group of individuals up front and then bid on their collective participation in a poll (say, beyond 95%, you all get $10)? You might have to pick a few groups and bid between them.
In the future if you are chosen to be polled, you will be stalked, harassed, and bribed until you respond.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#9Has anyone done a study that maps voting machine software used vs. "polling error" in key states?
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#10One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people. I think I agree that there is a large skew introduced by the simple fact of only reaching people willing to answer a call from an unknown number.
This isn't strictly true though, there are any number of polling methods that pollsters use these days including online polling and essentially pre-approved call databases. One of the examples in this article was an in-person poll with 70% response rate. It's probably more accurate to say it's harder to effectively weigh or average responses in a setting where there are 4 or 5 different channels you are collecting re…
The GSS spends (according to Shor) $1000 per response. It's not at all similar to the "polls that were wrong" in the election.