Is a “Scientific Poll” more meaningful than an Internet Poll?
Recent online discussions about the 2008 Presidential race have quickly dismissed online and cell phone polls as being non-scientific and therefore meaningless. These statements assume that all scientific polls are meaningful. Because one candidate has taken the internet by storm and is still mostly ignored by the mainstream media due to having a low results in “scientific polls” a discussion as to if this is sound logic is needed if we are to have a well informed electorate which is an essential element of any Democracy.
Why is a discussion as to polling methods important? Because media coverage and peoples perception of which candidate has a chance of winning driven by how candidates due in “The Polls”. In addition there is always a strong force among establishment politicians and the corporate media to narrow down the field before we get a chance to learn about all our choices.
Specifically Ron Paul’s campaign, while still in its infancy has caused great confusion as to how to measure the popularity of a candidate. Never before have we seen such a swing in poll results for a single candidate. Surveys and polls attempting to categorize support for the republican party presidential candidates have produced results for Ron Paul as low as 0% (early Gallop and Zogby) to as high as 95% (ABC’s post-debate online surveys). Is the truth is somewhere in between? These internet Polls typically rate Romney, Giuliani and McCain 2nd thru 4th which agrees with the “Scientific Polls” so why are they meaningless just because a candidate who is not being covered yet by the main stream media is doing well in them?
While the “Scientific Polls” use a statically valid method to sample a population and are useful to measure how that population thinks about a candidates from what they know about them so far they do not accurately measure how much a candidate appeals to voters. The flaw in the early “Scientific” polls is that many voters are not paying much attention yet and have done very little research of their own so far. As the Traditional Media continues to not cover Ron Paul’s campaign or several of the other candidates this limits what the person being polled is aware of. If I only tell you about 3 candidates and then ask you which of these 10 candidates you are most likely to support most people would choose 1 of 3 choices they have heard about. That is hardly a fair assessment of 7 of the candidates appeal to voters. Now since those polls come to voters they are more likely to find voters who are not informed on all 10 candidates. Internet polls and polls such as the Fox News cell phone poll right after the 2nd Republican debate on Fox News require people to act in order to participate and allows those participating to gather information on all 10 candidates equally. Since these polls are not random and there for not considered “Scientific” they are quickly dismissed as meaningless, should they be? I for one think they are more of a measure of what informed voters are thinking and of which candidates have motivated support. Are they accurate? NO. Are they meaningful? YES, perhaps more so than the “Scientific Polls”.
Based on the demographic information of the typical Ron Paul supporter, an analyst at USAElectionPolls.com claims that Ron Paul's support is higher then the conventionally excepted as “Scientific” Polls show. The latest of these polls show that Ron Paul is registering 1% to 3%. A different perspective is that the while the “Scientific” polls have their accuracy determined statistically they do not account for all types of support. Ron Paul's base is younger, independent and technically savvy. Many do not use a landline and many are voters that were previously disenfranchised with the political process. I for one support Ron Paul and would not ever get a phone call poll as I only pick up after I know who it is to avoid telemarketers. In addition most of the Polls are of Republican voters. I myself am a Libertarian and will vote in the Republican primary for the first time this year in order to support Ron Paul. As there are more independents than either Republicans or Democrats and even more voters who do not normally vote Polling Republicans leaves out the biggest chunk of potential voters and of Ron Paul’s support.
The below post New Hampshire
debate internet poll on CNN.com (58% for Paul) ) like the WND (World Net Daily
43% for Paul) and MSNBC.com (53% for Paul) polls about who won the 6-5-07 televised
debate on CNN all show that among the motivated and informed potential voters
Ron Paul is clearly the most popular. Surely that means something. I think it
means as interest in the 2008 election grows and voters go to the Internet to
learn about candidates Ron Paul’s support will grow. The only question left is
what percentage of the voters will seek out information on the candidates and
which will rely on the traditional media for their information. Hopefully,
traditional media sources recognize the need to inform voters of the choices
before accepting any poll labeled as “Scientific” being any more meaningful
than the non-statistically random polls.
|
Who do you think won the debate? From CNN.com poll 6-7-07 |
||||
|
1. Ron Paul |
58% |
|
13051 votes |
|
|
2. Rudy Giuliani |
12% |
|
2661 votes |
|
|
3. John McCain |
12% |
|
2603 votes |
|
|
4. Mitt Romney |
10% |
|
2172 votes |
|
|
5. Mike Huckabee |
4% |
|
932 votes |
|
|
6. Tom Tancredo |
2% |
|
377 votes |
|
|
7. Sam Brownback |
1% |
|
230 votes |
|
|
8. Duncan Hunter |
1% |
|
211 votes |
|
|
9. Jim Gilmore |
0% |
|
92 votes |
|
|
10. Tommy Thompson |
0% |
|
92 votes |
|
|
Total: |
22421 votes |
|||
Libertarians such as Paul have always fit somewhere between the Republican/Democrat duopoly in American politics. For every policy position that appeals to liberals, such as opposition to the death penalty, there is an equally appealing position to conservatives, such as his opposition to preferential treatment. Paul’s appeal comes from his consistent ideals and his resistance to corporate money.
He currently has the largest percentage of individual donors contributing to his campaign of any presidential candidate. Paul has also has grassroots Internet campaign, his YouTube channel has more subscribers than the next-closest candidates from either party. The betting Web site www.gambling911.com recently slashed Paul's odds of winning from 200-1 to 15-1. Paul may not be the favorite yet but his honesty and integrity endear him to citizens disaffected with Republicans and Democrats alike.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL VOTES: 2929 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So who is Ron Paul ? He is a real life John Galt for those Atlas Shrugged fans.
In his family medical practice he never accepted Medicare or Medicaid as he believes these programs are not authorized in the US Constitution. He has instead provided medical care at no charge to those patients.
He has opted out of the free to him, Congressional pension plan out of principle.
He has never voted for a tax increase.
He has never voted for a congressional pay raise.
He has never taken a paid political junket.
He has always returned a portion of his congressional office budget to the US treasury rather than waste taxpayers money on more than what is required to perform his duties as a congressman.
He is a member of the House Banking Committee who has been warning for years of the pending financial crisis due to over spending in Washington DC.
Not only would he cut federal programs he would cut federal departments
.