by DemFromCT
Some interesting polling data has been collected over the last few weeks, some about Terri Schiavo and some not. Polling Report has a nice compilation of Schiavo-related wording and results of polls; for those who feel the polls have been slanted one way or another, Mystery Pollster has a helpful post reviewing the aggregate. The polling importance is to support the analysis (see Kagro X) of how the country is responding to events related to this tragic scenario, and along with it the inevitable political fallout. Why concentrate on the data? Because the slanted 24/7 cable coverage might fool you into thinking Tom DeLay is the most astute politician in the country, with his finger on the pulse of America. If you thought so, you'd be wrong.
Another non-Schiavo issue has also come up, and that is further analysis of Stephen Freeman's paper. We previously discussed the Social Science Research Council entitled A Review of Recent Controversies Concerning the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Polls (pdf format). While breaking no new ground, it is a nice summary of the controversy. Now, Rick Brady, a frequent contributer to the MP site has written a critique of Freeman's paper. Interestingly, As MP summarizes:
For MP, the most interesting aspect of Brady's review is his discussion of a subsequent paper by a team of PhDs (including Freeman) affiliated with the organization US Count Votes. Kathy Dopp, the President of US Count Votes (USCV), issued a public challenge "for any PhD level credentialled (sic) statistician who is affiliated with any university in America to find any statements in our 'Response to Edison/Mitofsky Report' that they believe are incorrect and publicly refute it."
Brady may be just a Master's Degree candidate, but he steps up to the challenge, essentially picking up where the [SSRC] Traugott paper leaves off.
Now why one has to be a PhD to properly challenge USCV seems odd and a bit contrived, but the paper exists nonetheless, and raises some good points about the stats suggested by Freeman and company. The most important aspect of this is to put the data out so that it can be reviewed by whoever wants to do so. This 'net 'peer review' should prove invaluable in working through the claims and counter-claims. The 'shy voter' theory is once again discussed:
Reviewing the NEP report, Brady concludes:
Given the number of NEP Report conclusions that included qualifiers such as "likely," "may," and "could," I understand how US Count Votes is concerned with the analysis. In effect, the NEP Report never (from what I can tell) rejected the null hypothesis in a classical sense. However, the contention that "[no] data in the report supports the hypothesis that Kerry voters were more likely than Bush voters to cooperate with pollsters" is not in the least bit accurate. The NEP Report presented volumes of information that most analysts agree "suggests" support for the hypothesis that differential non-response was the cause of the observed bias in the exit polls [pp. 13-14, emphasis added].
None of the conclusions presented are yet definitive, transparency in all aspects of voting is called for, and another small step in voter reform is taken when data is presented for review. None of this changes our need for electoral reform. Every effort by us to keep this on the agenda for the politicians is a step in the right direction. But any way you slice it, we've still got a ton of work to do.
Comments