- Harper "Polls, How do I Use Thee, Let Me Sample the Ways"

Submitted: 7:40am, PST, 3 Mar.'11 the Toronto Star
Conflicting numbers fuel debate over political polls, Mar 2 2011, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/947710--conflicting-numbers-fuel-debate-over-political-polls

[Harper "Polls, How do I Use The" = "Polls, How do I Use The^e" - I'm blaming my word processor]

"Bricker said he welcomes the proliferation of horse race polls since “the more repetition you have, the more you know if you’re getting reliable results” and the easier it is to spot a rogue poll.
. . .
Moreover, Nanos said, given the margins of error, there’s really very little difference between Harris-Decima’s latest numbers and those of Ipsos Reid. Both could actually be finding the Tories hovering at about the 40 per cent mark — almost precisely where Nanos’ last poll put them."

Herein lies the rub.

Statistically the Polls may not differ by much, but their impact on the people 'consuming' them can.

Polls are not simply another form of entertainment. They are a manifestation of the information age, sound bites and information through media.

Polls are important and they do have an influence on what people think. They can and do shape policies or changes in policy.

The fact that they are a multi-billion dollar industry is sufficient evidence to this. One must keep in mind that the Media, to my understanding, are not the ones usually paying either.

The political parties always say they pay no attention. However, I think you'll find that, for example, Harper and the Con's are 'Poll-Masters'. The polls may be internal, and they can afford it, but they know the importance in tailoring messages that are going to resonate with the people. Harper and the Con's have built the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western Democracies in recent history, and polling is central to it.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention, when Harper says he doesn't rule by polls, first that is a sure sign that he does. But, what he really means is that he does not rule by polls and admit it.

The results of Polls are very sensitive to the methodology , timing, etc., and people reading them may not understand what margin of error means.

It is analogous to doing a search of some 'phrase' on the Web. If you use Google you will get so many hits. If you use some other search engine, the number of hits may be very different. It the same Web and the same search string, so why the difference. Scientifically, this analogy is closer to 'polling' than one might think.

When Nanos says that the results of the two polls really differ by very little, people have a difficult time since how can 43% be no different than 36% (and Nanos puts his observation into question when he uses it to plug his own poll).

Herein lies the rub. Scientifically the Polls may not differ by much, but their impact on the people 'consuming' them does.

Bricker is right to say the more repetition the more reliable the results and the 'rogue' polls can be spotted.

However, this is conceding that there are 'rogue' polls' and that the must be dealt with. Then there is always the question, what made that poll 'rogue'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html