----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One could hardly argue with Brauer and Brandt on the issues of an > editorial/polling link, timing and dearth of polling, and an increasing lack > of concern for core city issues. > > But Steve's alternative explanation regarding undecideds breaking for Rybak > in 2001 actually reinforces concerns that undecideds may well have broken to > Rybak so to be seen as having sided with the winner. > > To suggest that polls do not influence voter behavior means a > head-in-the-sand misunderstanding of the importance people place in > associating themselves with winning sides absent overwhelming merit for > doing otherwise. That is, "when in doubt...go with the winner." I would > guess that between 10% and 20% of voters for whom the choice, if they've > waited this long already, is Tweedledum or Tweedledee, settling on the > likely winner feels best - or they stay at home, remaining undecided past > poll-closing. > > This stuff is old hat. Newspaper defend their polling as reflective when > most of us who have been on both sides (candidate and media) for several > decades believe we have a fair grip on voter behavior and know damned well > that late polling (esp., as Brauer says, in the absence of early trending) > can affect undecided votes. It also depresses turnout when preference gaps > are running as widely as they are now in both mayoral contests. > > Polling is absolutely unnecessary, especially in later days, except for the > egotistical need of editors and reporters to be seen as seers of all truth. > It's a waste of money and a degradation of the democratic process. > > Worse, they are solidly unreliable when races are close. They should be > stopped. > > Andy Driscoll > Saint Paul I see no way of stoping polls short of amending the Constitution regarding freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The problem is that the press and public don't empasis key facts about statistics. 1) Polls are only a snapshot in time and not of election day itself. In sequence over a period they can show trends (as was alluded to). The trend in the Minneapolis race, given the few polls there have been recently, seems to be the undecideds breaking towards Rybak. The 1998 gov polls, as an example, showed a solid trend of improving support for Ventura from summer on until late October (single digits to mid 20s) forshadowing a possible upset. 2) Given point 1, polls are not "solidly unreliable when races are close". Most polls are accurate given the final margain of error. So if the final poll for a campaign shows candidate X with 49% and candidate Y with 45% with a 4% MOE and Y wins 52%-48% that does not show that the poll is unreliable. Either candidate could have been ahead in the final poll given the MOE and how undecideds might break, either could win this race. I will agree with the idea that there is too much emphasis by the big press on polls and the horserace aspect of campaigns rather than the issues of the campaign. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
