Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-11-13 Thread Rich Ulrich
I posted a week ago, On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 17:00:27 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: < ... > > Further -- actual people who will vote are named as "Electors" by the > party conventions (or, is there variation here?). This is a reward > for being a party stalwart. I remember seeing n

Error in polls, Part III

2000-11-06 Thread Gene Gallagher
The latest polls are out. The New York Times gets an A for describing the precision and accuracy of their poll. Gallup gets a C- or D in my book. The New York Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/politics/06METH.html In theory, in 19 cases out of 20 the results based on such samples

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-11-05 Thread Rich Ulrich
On 3 Nov 2000 14:10:23 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reg Jordan) wrote: > 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 And Reg posted later that Nebraska and Maine aren

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-11-03 Thread Gene Gallagher
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > "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

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-11-03 Thread Radford Neal
>> 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 th

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-11-03 Thread Reg Jordan
, 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 > > > >

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-11-03 Thread Rich Ulrich
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

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-11-02 Thread Gene Gallagher
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 c

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-10-27 Thread Rich Ulrich
uh-oh, what am I saying ... On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:21:36 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: < snip, cite > > No, you have it wrong. Think about the case where the two > candidates/options add exactly to 100% -- the "4% error" is exactly > the same 4% for both, since one goes down e

Re: Error in polls, Part 2

2000-10-27 Thread Rich Ulrich
On 27 Oct 2000 07:26:43 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Rolke) wrote: < snip, about polling ... > > A very nice > discussion of the issues involved can be found at > http://slate.msn.com/framegame/entries/00-10-26_92147.asp . An explanation of the

Error in polls, Part 2

2000-10-27 Thread Wolfgang Rolke
Hallo again, A couple of days ago I wrote a message concerning the polls for the presidential campaign that are currently being published on a daily basis, and especially the usual +-4% error and how it is computed. I received three replies pointing out some of the difficulties such as the fa

Re: Error in polls

2000-10-24 Thread Shareef Siddeek
> Wolfgang, > Even if we use a binomial prob. value of 0.5 (under null hypothesis), we will > get 3.5% error at 95% CI. Maybe, they are rounding up to 4%! > Cheers > Siddeek > > > Wolfgang Rolke wrote: > > > Today the following polling results were given on cnn.com for the > > Presidential race

Re: Error in polls

2000-10-24 Thread Shareef Siddeek
Wolfgang, Even if we use a binomial prob. value of 0.5 (under null hypothesis), we will get 3.5% error at 95% CI. Maybe, they are rounding up to 4%! Siddeek Wolfgang Rolke wrote: > Today the following polling results were given on cnn.com for the > Presidential race: > > CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POL

Re: Error in polls

2000-10-24 Thread Donald Burrill
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Wolfgang Rolke asked: > I am wondering how they find the Sampling error of +/-4% pts. The usual > estimate for the standard error of a binomial would be (for Bush) > > SQRT(0.46*(1-0.46)/769) = 0.01797 > > The error in a 95% CI would then be 1.96*0.01797 = 3.5% > > and in

Error in polls

2000-10-24 Thread Wolfgang Rolke
Today the following polling results were given on cnn.com for the Presidential race: CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL October 20-22 Likely Voters' Choice for President Bush 46% Gore 44% Nader 4%