Exit polls aren't what you think they are
nuttersandnuttier.com
Exit polls aren't what you think they are
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#2> The reason for the initial error in the 2016 primary is obvious: the rural/urban split caught exit pollsters — who probably assumed things would look a lot like 2012 — completely by surprise.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the 2012 dem primary as a basis instead?
> And if you hear anyone say the exit polls are a sign of a rigged election, please do tell them that I told you to tell them that I said to say that they’re not very knowledgeable about the subject.
Yeah, it's too bad. Now that I know this info about exit poll results it would be nice if they could qualify the numbers a little when reporting them.
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#3He didn't choose Springfield at random for his example, this particular bit of counter-intuitive statistic is called the Simpson's Paradox.
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#4He didn't choose Springfield at random for his example, this particular bit of counter-intuitive statistic is called the Simpson's Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
Oh man, you said Springfield and Simpsons in the same sentence so I thought the name might be derived from The Simpsons. Well, it isn't.
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#5He didn't choose Springfield at random for his example, this particular bit of counter-intuitive statistic is called the Simpson's Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
Doh! That wasn't what I thought it would be.
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#6> The reason for the initial error in the 2016 primary is obvious: the rural/urban split caught exit pollsters — who probably assumed things would look a lot like 2012 — completely by surprise. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the 2012 dem primary as a basis instead? > And if you hear anyone say the exit polls are a sign of a rigged election, please do tell them that I told you to tell them that I said to say…
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the 2012 dem primary as a basis instead?
Not if you're interested in cases where unaffiliated voters went DEM in the general election, or if GOP-registered voters crossed over. Certainly those are interesting cases.
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#7He didn't choose Springfield at random for his example, this particular bit of counter-intuitive statistic is called the Simpson's Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
I like how the Wikipedia article uses "Lisa and Bart" for their examples, instead of "Alice and Bob".
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#8> The reason for the initial error in the 2016 primary is obvious: the rural/urban split caught exit pollsters — who probably assumed things would look a lot like 2012 — completely by surprise. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the 2012 dem primary as a basis instead? > And if you hear anyone say the exit polls are a sign of a rigged election, please do tell them that I told you to tell them that I said to say…
There wasn't a 2012 Democratic primary. Not a meaningfully contested one anyway.
In New York State in 2008, Clinton beat Obama with support coming from both urban and rural areas (with Clinton perhaps doing better in rural areas than Obama):
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&fips=...
It's also not necessarily the case that the turnout for past elections will be a sound guide to the turnout for the next election. A lot of people vote as a result of affinity for a particular candidate or because of a motivating issue.
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#9He didn't choose Springfield at random for his example, this particular bit of counter-intuitive statistic is called the Simpson's Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
His example isn't Simpson's paradox. I don't think you can have an analogue of Simpson's paradox in this case (if every subgroup votes more for Ronald Clump than Tirllary Swinton, then Ronald Clump wins, period). You could have something like: women are more likely to vote for Trillary Swinton in both districts than men are, but overall women still vote for Ronald Clump more than men do. That would need one distrit overall voting for Ronald Clump and also having lots of women in it, while the other district votes mostly for Trillary Swinton but has mostly men. For example.
Re: Exit polls aren't what you think they are
#10He didn't choose Springfield at random for his example, this particular bit of counter-intuitive statistic is called the Simpson's Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
I don't think this is really Simpson's paradox (which is named after Edward Simpson, from 1951). In Simpson's paradox, you have a statistic X that is lower than Y in both of cases, but overall, Y is higher than X.
It would sound like Simpson's paradox if one candidate won a higher percentage of the vote in both East and West springfield, yet lost the election. But this is of course impossible.
Simpson's paradox arises when you compare two different percentages, say belonging to Candidate A and B, across two different treatments, say East and West Springfield, but you don't compare the sample sizes. It doesn't apply here because everyone who votes is assumed to vote for either A or B.
An example of Simpson's paradox would be like this. We look at the percentage of their own party that a candidate wins. Then it could be that Candidate A wins 90% of the Democrats in East Springfield while B wins only 80% of the Republicans; and in West Springfield, A wins 60% of the Democrats while B wins 50% of the Republicans. Yet, due to differences in population between East and West, A overall only wins 65% of the Democrats while B wins 75% of the Republicans.