On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:01:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.
Williams) wrote:

>It appeared at first it was Gore winning Florida.  No, wait.  It's
>Bush.  He's the next President.  No, now it's too close to call.  All
>of it based on the exit poll consortium used by the networks.  This
>appears to be the reason all the networks got it wrong.  To save
>money, the networks pool their resources and receive one set of
>predictions.  Now, the talking heads are blaming (pick one): bad data,
>goofy statisticians, precinct fraud, and on and on.  As I have
>indicated in earlier years, these telephone polls and "exit"
>interviews are very troublesome --- particularly in close races.  How
>many people are willing to detail their "secret" ballot to a stranger
>whether on the phone or in person?  I think there are many who either
>refuse or ignore such requests.    I know I would.  It is no one's
>business how I voted.  Precinct history is not etched in stone either.
>Sampling and the consequent polls have taken a hit.  I suppose I can
>understand how the general public and various courts are concerned
>about how the Census should be conducted vis a vis sampling instead of
>actual head counts.  Cynicism about sampling and polling will be alive
>and well after this election---regardless of who wins.

For reason why the Voter News Service and the their sponsoring
networks got it wrong see this PollWatchers column from the
Washington Post.
 
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45950-2000Nov8.html

It is also important to realize that it looks like the difference
in the popular vote in Florida will be in the range of <2,000
votes out of about 6,000,000 valid votes cast.  It would have
been impossible to call Florida as anything but too close to
call.
-- 
Leo G. Simonetta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
                  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================

Reply via email to