作者swallow73 (吃素、环保、救地球)
看板IA
标题[资讯] 十个理由为什麽出口民调不可信
时间Tue Nov 4 23:50:53 2008
不过还是推荐点连接直接看原来的网页。网页板的点
超连结看文中的索引资料比较方便。
http://tinyurl.com/6z3y25
Oh, let me count the ways. Almost all of this, by the way, is lifted from
Mark Bluemthnal's outstanding Exit Poll FAQ. For the long version, see over
there.
http://tinyurl.com/5hlm9p
1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular
polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit
polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof.
Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be
reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity
for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been
canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins
for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable
telephone surveys.
2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote.
Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls
suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had.
But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit
polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back
and watch The War Room, you'll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville
gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and
Texas, which of course he did not win.
3. Exit polls were particularly bad in this year's primaries. They overstated
Barack Obama's performance by an average of about 7 points.
4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit
polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample --
essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the
polling place -- in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place,
particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the
polling place itself because of electioneering laws.
5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls. Related to
items #1 and #4 above, Scott Rasmussen has found that Democrats supporters
are more likely to agree to participate in exit polls, probably because they
are more enthusiastic about this election.
6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for
people who voted before election day in most (although not all) states by
means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the
polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and
sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance,
there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year
was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al
Gore's share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the
state.
7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By "late" voters I mean persons who
come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the
exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about
which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds
another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts
with long lines or extended voting hours.
8. "Leaked" exit poll results may not be the genuine article. Sometimes,
sources like Matt Drudge and Jim Geraghty have gotten their hands on the
actual exit polls collected by the network pools. At other times, they may be
reporting data from "first-wave" exit polls, which contain extremely small
sample sizes and are not calibrated for their demographics. And at other
places on the Internet (though likely not from Gergahty and Drudge, who
actually have reasonably good track records), you may see numbers that are
completely fabricated.
9. A high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult. Just as
regular, telephone polls are having difficulty this cycle estimating turnout
demographics -- will younger voters and minorities show up in greater
numbers? -- the same challenges await exit pollsters. Remember, an exit poll
is not a definitive record of what happened at the polling place; it is at
best a random sampling.
10. You'll know the actual results soon enough anyway. Have patience, my
friends, and consider yourselves lucky: in France, it is illegal to conduct a
poll of any kind within 48 hours of the election. But exit polls are really
more trouble than they're worth, at least as a predictive tool. An
independent panel created by CNN in the wake of the Florida disaster in 2000
recommended that the network completely ignore exit polls when calling
particular states. I suggest that you do the same.
本文愿意开放自由转载
--
Obama doesn't need extra votes, especially votes
in safe bule states like California or Vermont.
Vote Nader, vote your conscience, give those arrogant
Democratics who take your votes for granted a warning!
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 122.127.66.160