Each state is not necessarily winner-take-all. Several states permit their
electoral votes to be split. I believe either Kansas or Nebraska is one of
those states.
reg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Error in polls, Part 2
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 14:02:48 GMT, Gene Gallagher
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A URL for the 1 Nov Gallup poll:
> >
> > http://www.gallup.com/Poll/releases/pr001101c.asp
> >
> > This poll has Bush over Gore 48% to 43% with margin of error of 2%.
> > Wolfgang's post and the thread below indicates that this +/- 2% is the
> > 95% CI, which makes sense given the sample size. With the 2% 95% CI, we
> > can conclude that these estimates are significantly different at the
> > 0.05 level, can we not?
>
> Basically, yep, that difference would be "reliable." Thanks for the
> URL. That article was more informative than the usual -- it gives
> results for three different totals per survey, and reports consistency
> of results over time.
>
> Yesterday's NY Times had an interesting article which explicitly
> converted its own "3%" size of the +/- error, to the same confidence
> in a 6 point difference.
>
> The article went on to describe various differences, where the state
> by state polls are (it seems) guiding the candidates in spending their
> last-minute millions in TV advertising. Both candidates will ignore
> the states with an 8-point margin. Too big, and too late to matter.
>
> The results in the NY Times article showed a lead for Bush of about
> 3%, nationally, "among likely voters," at the same time that Bush
> could lose in the ultimate Elector College tabulation. Based on those
> chances, I guess, TV reporting has started trying to re-teach us all
> this distinction -- each state is winner-take-all for its lump of
> votes (ranging from 3 to about 50: however many California has), so
> winning a national, popular majority does not ensure victory.
>
> Do I mis-remember, or did Zogby have results, this week, that showed a
> Gore lead nationally? I can believe that the two polls would differ,
> because the "error" claimed by each does not include "differences in
> method." The claimed error describes how their own sampling should
> reproduce itself, and not whether it under-represents, say, Latinos
> among the people who will vote this year;
>
> > What is the correct formula for the confidence interval for the
> > difference in proportions from the same poll? Is the 5% difference
> > different at the 0.05 level?
>
> Assuming multinomial, the "difference" in proportions has to take into
> account the strong covariance between large counts. When there are
> only two cells, then the total adds to 100%, the covariance is 100%,
> and it takes twice as many points as the claimed accuracy to describe
> the accuracy of the "difference." Question: Does the Nader vote
> "covary" especially with the Gore vote? Does the Nader run
> especially hurt Gore?
>
> Differences between two polls? - Yes, you do need to account for
> "sampling" in each, and the size of the CI would increase by that
> fraction:
>
> > < snip, some > For similar sample sizes and proportions not
> > too different, tt would be roughly equivalent to multiplying the 95% CI
> > for one poll times sqrt(2) to get the 95% CI for the difference.
> < snip, some more >
>
> > I may not be the only one confused on what these confidence intervals
> > mean. In the above press release, the Gallup organization provides this
> > description of what their +/- 2% means:
> >
> > "For results based on the total sample of likely voters, one can say
> > with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is +/- 2
> > percentage points."
>
> Those guys are supposed to be professionals, and they should have
> been polishing their syntax for 50 years, but my first reaction to
> that statement was "UGH."
>
> Is that what you are pointing to?
>
> I think that I want to say, with 100% confidence, that I have computed
> certain results. Beyond that, I am not sure how to describe them to
> the public.
> "The 95% CI is +/- 2 points" -- seems too technical.
> "The 95% margin of sampling error... "?
>
> The public has to have trouble with the "95%," but I haven't yet
> accepted the solution quoted above. In addition, that phrase, "margin
> of sampling error," annoys me. (But, I am closer to accepting it
> today, than I was yesterday.)
>
> Is this just me? Or, what should they be saying?
>
>
> --
> Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
>
>
> =================================================================
> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
> =================================================================
>
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
