Bob Piper
Bob Piper










Designed by Wibbler
Produced by Wibbler
Hosted by BatchTarget



Lies, damn lies... and statistics   » Permalink  |  TrackBack (0)

What a strange contribution over at Political Betting.

Firstly they reproduce a snippet from The Independent saying Poll finds public backs Davis on 42-day detention... which then goes on to show that 65% of respondents either wouldn't vote for him or 'don't know', and that only 39% of people thought he was right to resign on the issue. They then say that...

the national survey found that respondents would give him strong support if they were able to vote in the forthcoming by-election.
Now whilst I understand that they are disregarding those who say they wouldn't vote in order to replicate some sort of election result, to imply that the fact that 33% of people wouldn't vote in an election is stating that they are 'giving him strong support' seems to be stretching credibility. Surely in a contest in which the other two major parties are not standing the response of 33% saying they wouldn't vote is more likely to mean they don't actually support him.

Political Betting follow that up with a sub heading stating that 'Nearly three electors in five say they would vote for him'. Well, again, that just isn't true. 56% of respondents actually said they would not vote for him.

How very peculiar.

Posted by bobpiper on June 17, 2008, 10:43 AM  |  view comments (5) or add another



Trackbacks
TrackBack Link: http://www.bobpiper.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2217


Comments (or post a new one)

Stephen Newton said:
June 17, 2008 1:49 PM | permalink

It's like the cat food adverts, 'nine out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their cat preferred it'. The other forced moggy to eat food s/he didn't like.




Bob Piper said:
June 17, 2008 2:37 PM | permalink

Not really, Stephen, because in this case The indy and Political Betting seem to be counting the 33% who said they wouldn't vote as if they were irrelevant, and therefore saying they were implicitly backing Davis. It's perverse.




jailhouselawyer said:
June 17, 2008 3:06 PM | permalink

On a similar theme.

Bloggers cheer Davis as Wesminister sneers

You will be hard pressed to find evidence of bloggers cheers in the article "not shared by bloggers" is your lot.

Could this be White's Guido moment on Newsnight?




Anonymous said:
June 17, 2008 5:53 PM | permalink

In a sense, the 33% who wouldn't vote are irrelevant, when we get down the brass tacks of a poll in July.

You know how elections work; you are no less a councillor in Sandwell for the fact that 80% of your electorate didn't vote for you.




Bob Piper said:
June 17, 2008 8:48 PM | permalink

You make my point perfectly. The 33% cannot be counted as if they support Davis, which is what that piece was trying to do.

I certainly wouldn't claim that those who didn't vote in my ward would be 'giving me strong support'.





Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)