- + Tracy Barret voted on the debate Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Golmindalin joined Debatewise
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Plally7 edited the debate Will mankind make it to the next century?
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Arnavnarian joined Debatewise
- + Explonential joined Central London Debating Society
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are London Underground staff justified in their strike action?
- + Thebabeofbengal edited the debate Are women superior to men?
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Crissieboy joined Debatewise
ARE POLLS ACCURATE PREDICTORS OF ELECTION RESULTS?
Polls have become an indispensable way for us to try and determine public mood. However, they’re not always accurate. They’ve been wrong many times in the past, most recently by predicting Obama would win primaries Clinton ended up taking. So do they tell us who’s going to win, or are they nothing more than an educated guess?
Are polls accurate predictors of election results?
Yes, because... Research companies worldwide, such as YouGov, which provide data and statistics for election polls provide a fair representation of the population, and therefore a fair representation of public opinion.
Assuming that the company in question is a reputable one, hence the example listed above, it is possible to find out how many people YouGov assign to their panels. In the UK this number totals 200,000. A sizable portion of the voting population, taking into account low turnout numbers in the UK. A wide sample, including different locations and ages, means that the resulting poll will provide a certain indicator of public opinion, and though this may not be exact it is still valuable nonetheless. It would be impossible to say if a resulting poll in America said that Obama led by 4% in the polls, however, if it said that he led by 98% across a nationwide sample of a suitable number in relation to America's population, then this would signal a massive problem for the opposing candidate.
We already know they are inaccurate. The past five polls have significantly exaggerated Labour support - most notably in 1992 when they consistently, and right up to polling day, predicted a defeat for John Major who went on to win the election with the largest number of votes ever polled by a party in a UK election. The suggestion that polls are accurate because they attempt to cover a fair representation of the population is a non-sequitur. The sample may be representative, but even if it is 100 percent so (which seems unlikely) that doesn't mean it will accurately reflect how the sample will vote (particularly in an election with such a large number of undecided voters).
Vote on this point: Research companies worldwide, such as YouGov, which provide data and statistics for election polls provide a fair representation of the population, and therefore a fair representation of public opinion.
See history of changes to this point
Are polls accurate predictors of election results?
Yes, because... They are a good indicator of the closeness of the race
The current polls in America show a close race between Republicans and Democrats. Voters can be assured that their vote will count, which is possibly the most important result that these polls have. Inversely, this may make people turnout who were possibly thinking about abstaining.
Are polls accurate predictors of election results?
No, because... The only accurate poll is the exit poll, as evidenced through history
In 1948, the American polls and the American newspapers had branded Harry S. Truman a loser. The Chicago Tribune even ran the story 'Dewey defeats Truman'. All of this was the result of inaccurate polls. The only accurate polls in America are the exit polls, and even then these can come in early, as they did in the Gore Bush standoff over Florida. Polls do not take into account swing voters, and assume that the answers received by participants are solid and firm. Therefore, poll results can be taken for granted by those parties that the polls favour, which may be the reason why parties that originally lead in the poll lose, because they alienate their original supporters through negligence or overconfidence.
Are polls accurate predictors of election results?
No, because... Voting is not a predetermined decision
Despite many American citizens being party members, seen in the high turnout of the Caucuses, there are still many registered voters who have no concrete affiliation to one party or the other. The voter, not voting on the party line, has up until the moment of punching their ticket to decide who they will vote for. Obviously, a poll conducted a week before an election is immediately out of date and loses any relevance as an indicator of victory, especially in the final week of elections, when PR and spin are at their highest in order to sway swing voters.
Vote on this debate: Are polls accurate predictors of election results?
Modified:
05 May 2010
Point 1. Research companies worldwide, such as YouGov, which provide data and statistics for election polls provide a fair representation of the population, and therefore a fair representation of public opinion.
Assuming that the company in question is a reputable one, hence the example listed above, it is possible to find out how many people YouGov assign to their panels. In the UK this number totals 200,000. A sizable portion of the voting population, taking into account low turnout numbers in the UK. A wide sample, including different locations and ages, means that the resulting poll will provide a certain indicator of public opinion, and though this may not be exact it is still valuable nonetheless. It would be impossible to say if a resulting poll in America said that Obama led by 4% in the polls, however, if it said that he led by 98% across a nationwide sample of a suitable number in relation to America's population, then this would signal a massive problem for the opposing candidate.
We already know they are inaccurate. The past five polls have significantly exaggerated Labour support - most notably in 1992 when they consistently, and right up to polling day, predicted a defeat for John Major who went on to win the election with the largest number of votes ever polled by a party in a UK election. The suggestion that polls are accurate because they attempt to cover a fair representation of the population is a non-sequitur. The sample may be representative, but even if it is 100 percent so (which seems unlikely) that doesn't mean it will accurately reflect how the sample will vote (particularly in an election with such a large number of undecided voters).
Point 2. They are a good indicator of the closeness of the race
The current polls in America show a close race between Republicans and Democrats. Voters can be assured that their vote will count, which is possibly the most important result that these polls have. Inversely, this may make people turnout who were possibly thinking about abstaining.
Point 1. The only accurate poll is the exit poll, as evidenced through history
In 1948, the American polls and the American newspapers had branded Harry S. Truman a loser. The Chicago Tribune even ran the story 'Dewey defeats Truman'. All of this was the result of inaccurate polls. The only accurate polls in America are the exit polls, and even then these can come in early, as they did in the Gore Bush standoff over Florida. Polls do not take into account swing voters, and assume that the answers received by participants are solid and firm. Therefore, poll results can be taken for granted by those parties that the polls favour, which may be the reason why parties that originally lead in the poll lose, because they alienate their original supporters through negligence or overconfidence.
Point 2. Voting is not a predetermined decision
Despite many American citizens being party members, seen in the high turnout of the Caucuses, there are still many registered voters who have no concrete affiliation to one party or the other. The voter, not voting on the party line, has up until the moment of punching their ticket to decide who they will vote for. Obviously, a poll conducted a week before an election is immediately out of date and loses any relevance as an indicator of victory, especially in the final week of elections, when PR and spin are at their highest in order to sway swing voters.