How can 1,500 out of millions be an accurate poll sample???

Hi. I just checked the major polls at politico.com and I noticed the samples ranged between 500 and 1,500 per polling agency. Then I noticed that ONLY democrats and republicans are listed with their respective percentages.

There is an undecided or other classification ranging from 1 to 8 percent.

I think the whole concept is a bad joke that no one in their right mind should take seriously. Do the pollsters even know the other parties by the name of libertarian, constitution, green, socialist, justice, communist, etc?

I agree.

The way they can be manipulated too is unbelievable...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

How can 1,500 out of millions be an accurate poll sample?

That's why it is called 'A Sample'.

Sample

1: a representative part or a single item from a larger whole or group especially when presented for inspection or shown as evidence of quality: [A specimen]

2: a finite part of a statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information about the whole

Is it an accurate sample? I don't know. Probably is though.
Is it accurate for the still yet to come definitive conclusive results? Nope.
Why not? because it is just a sample.

What annoys me is the level of disrespect given to the so-called "small parties" by not listing their names.

I strongly resent the "undecided" and "other candidate" because it implies there are only two parties in america to choose from and if you don't vote for them then you are voting for an independant.

Virgil Goode is not an independant! He is the presidential candidate for the Constitution party!

Gary Johnson is not an independant! He is the presidential candidate for the Libertarian party!

The same goes for others getting substantial votes listed under "other candidates" in the national election.

Why do we tolerate so much disrespect from the system

That is why it is completely unrealistic YET they pass it off as SCIENTIFIC when in fact it is simply a COVER for VOTE FRAUD.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Is it an accurate sample? I don't know. Probably is though.

You MUST be kidding! 1,000 out of lets say 10 million registered voters is NOT accurate by ANY MEANS!

Maybe 1 percent would be, but then again 1% is still tiny.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Why do we tolerate so much disrespect from the system

Because we are mostly apathetic who won't budge until it directly affects us.
Because the ones who do stand up are the ones the media chooses to either ignore totally or make a joke of.

These polls are B.S. They are used to sway peoples vote. There are people dumb enough to see these polls and think 'Well, since the majority is voting for such and such maybe so should I."

How could we every verify the results of any of these polls without doing one yourself?

For about a month or so with a new cell phone number, I was getting 2 or 3 phone calls a day from "Ann from politico".

I even answered a couple of times, mostly I hung up right away.
I can't remember what the 3 questions were, other than relating to US politics.
Medical coverage was one of the questions.
I answered like a true Canadian.

How true are the polls if they're polling Canadians ......

Come to think of it, if lets say 33% of the 330 million american voters were registered and actually do vote, that means someone has to count 110 million votes. The diebold machine would be tasked for that job.....

then the absentee ballots in the mail have to be counted by hand...and who really would bother counting a few million votes in the mail?? They would have to hire thousands of goons to do that and I think they would not!

It is much easier just picking some random pie-in-the sky figure and declare a winner. Probably based on the debates of the two major candidates, of whom only they are allowed to participate in anyway because no one can get 15% in the fixed polls of .00001% sampled.

Do people see just how big this sick joke is? Yet thousands of soldiers fight in the middle east to install "freedom". The freedom to cast a vote for what puppet you would like.

I was planning to register for an absantee ballot in europe and when I thought about it said to myself.... WHY BOTHER...especially since I like socialist parties and that would make me a potential terrorist to the terrorist states of america.

How can it be accurate or representative? Statistically, it just is. There is a minimum sampling subset for the population that is just as representative of the population as a high sampling number. If honest, random samples are taken, they are accurately representative of he entire population just as much as if nearly everyone in a population were polled. That's just the way it happens to work, and why true random samples generally accurately reflect the population.

There is, of course, margins or error due to outliers, etc, but this why why samples are generally statistically sound, and why scientific polls generally accurately reflect the outcome.

Gee OP, I don't know. Why is it that George W. Bush became President, when Al Gore won the election?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Is it an accurate sample? I don't know. Probably is though.

You MUST be kidding! 1,000 out of lets say 10 million registered voters is NOT accurate by ANY MEANS!

I would not have thought that it was possible for you to miss my point entirely.
You have proven me wrong.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Hi. I just checked the major polls at politico.com and I noticed the samples ranged between 500 and 1,500 per polling agency. Then I noticed that ONLY democrats and republicans are listed with their respective percentages.

There is an undecided or other classification ranging from 1 to 8 percent.

I think the whole concept is a bad joke that no one in their right mind should take seriously. Do the pollsters even know the other parties by the name of libertarian, constitution, green, socialist, justice, communist, etc?

edit on 14/10/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: hit return by accident while starting the thread

Agreed. I would question the accuracy of these things being truly representative of the majority. Much in the same way I did not see 82 Million Egyptians out there in the streets protesting in their revolution.


"There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Originally posted by Liquesence
How can it be accurate or representative? Statistically, it just is. There is a minimum sampling subset for the population that is just as representative of the population as a high sampling number. If honest, random samples are taken, they are accurately representative of he entire population just as much as if nearly everyone in a population were polled. That's just the way it happens to work, and why true random samples generally accurately reflect the population.

There is, of course, margins or error due to outliers, etc, but this why why samples are generally statistically sound, and why scientific polls generally accurately reflect the outcome.

So you think 0.00000001% of a sample is statiscally accurate. I don't know what to say because I am lost of words that would fit the terms and conditions of the site. Perposterous does not begin to describe anything!

No sample is anywhere close to being 100% reflective of reality. Say you poll 1% of a state population and by devil's coincidence they ALL happen to be republicans, the media takes it as truth but when the actual vote is counted the democrats win by a landslide 99% to 1%. Go ahead and prove me wrong!

Statistics is a precise and accurate science. Whoever pays for poll gets a result that they want, in the limits of plausible ofc.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Liquesence
How can it be accurate or representative? Statistically, it just is. There is a minimum sampling subset for the population that is just as representative of the population as a high sampling number. If honest, random samples are taken, they are accurately representative of he entire population just as much as if nearly everyone in a population were polled. That's just the way it happens to work, and why true random samples generally accurately reflect the population.

There is, of course, margins or error due to outliers, etc, but this why why samples are generally statistically sound, and why scientific polls generally accurately reflect the outcome.

So you think 0.00000001% of a sample is statiscally accurate. I don't know what to say because I am lost of words that would fit the terms and conditions of the site. Perposterous does not begin to describe anything!

No sample is anywhere close to being 100% reflective of reality. Say you poll 1% of a state population and by devil's coincidence they ALL happen to be republicans, the media takes it as truth but when the actual vote is counted the democrats win by a landslide 99% to 1%. Go ahead and prove me wrong!

Apparently you missed my point entirely and don't understand samples and statistics.

I never said 100% are always representative. Read my post again. There is a minimum subset (a minimum number), that IF THE SAMPLE IS TRULY AN HONEST RANDOM SAMPLE, the results are GENERALLY representative of the population (with a margin of error). This why sampling is *generally* accurate. Notice i said generally, NOT always.

By devil's coincidence if you polled 1% of a population and got ALL republicans, that sample would obviously NOT be representative. Have you EVER seen a truly random scientific poll that was 100% one way or the other? I doubt it.

Keyword is GENERALLY accurate and representative, which is why statistical sample have been proved to be largely accurate in most situations. It's just a statistical fact. Study statistics and you'll see.

OP, it is impossible to get any accuracy in an honest manner when those polled for the questions about let's say romeny are

1) do you think Romney won the debate based on his attacks on Obama
2) would you vote for Romney if he lowered taxes on the rich
3) if romney were President would he make the right choice of keeping Obamacare alive
And then poll mostly democrats. They will answer no to all, and so the poll will say "most of those polled don't like Romney"

It is all biased, first they rigg the questions, then they rigg the individuals polled, there have been many instances of primarily dems being polled to show Romney isn't popular

There are of course the same reversed polling problems when asking about Obama to make it look like he is unpopular.

They could do a real poll of millions of Americans if they wanted, and be totally unbiased in those polled. They don't because it isn't about the truth.

It is now and always has been about manipulating people to think and beliee what they want, not about finding out the truth about what the populous actually thinks.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



You are a day late in this rant. There are two people running in the election right now, a repugnant and an ass. If you wanted your voice to be heard in the polls a long time ago, you should have used it.

Look at the back of a dollar bill. The wings on the eagle represent a two party system, and that is the way it will remain, like it or not, unless you, and millions of other people make their voices heard.

Yeah. Only 3 percent of the 1000 polled think obama and romney are unqualified, especially since they know better alternatives exist, because they have seen the choices available from a previous national election. Its not like the other parties are hidden....like on the polls!

makes a lot of sense.

If you want to understand walk into your local community college and sign up for a statistics class. Of course as I have said before it does not matter what you or I think about the results because the candidates do believe them and direct their campaign resources according to them.