Comments on: False dawn

By: Mick Quinlivan

Mick Quinlivan — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:38:43 +0000

looking at these sums it is possible that the alp wins
Currumbin,gavan and retains Bundaberg
this would be 61 alp which is where matters stand at the moment approx

By: Darryl Rosin

Darryl Rosin — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:20:42 +0000

Graeme,

Here’s a half-informed layperson’s view. There’s a lot of subtlties in the correct use and description of probability, so forgive me if I put my foot in it.

if you have a sample of 1000, and if that sample is representative of the population (that is, it’s a truly randomly selected sample), you can say that your results have a margin of error of +/- 3%, 19 times out of twenty. In other words, if you take twenty different representative samples and compare them to the result for the entire population, 19 of the 20 will be within 3% of the population’s result.

The Confidence Interval and MOE are linked, so the 3% MOE with 95% Confidence is equivalent to about 4% at 99% or 2.6% at 90%.

So, assuming two different polls are reported with the same confidence interval, and that both have taken a representative sample, then the chance of a ‘rogue poll’ is the same.

By: Geoffrey Keed

Geoffrey Keed — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:13:13 +0000

If I have correctly totalled the Poll Bludger’s predictions he suggests that the Nationals will gain 2 (Bundaberg & Gympie), the Liberals gain 1 (Kawana, Mudgeeraba & Noosa, but forgoing Chatsworth & Redcliffe) … leaving a final tally of ALP 58, Ind-O.N. 5, Lib 8, Nat 18.

I will with amateurish enthusiasm boldly predict that the Nationals will also pick up Hervey Bay, Toowoomba North, & Keppel. With more trepidation also that the Liberals will still manage to win Clayfield, Indooroopilly & Barron River, (despite themselves). Final tally… ALP 52, Ind-O.N. 5, Lib 11, Nat 21.

By: cameron

cameron — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:04:05 +0000

“Does the chance of a â€˜rogueâ€™ poll increase with small sample size?”

yes it does purely because the more people you sample the less likely you are to get an uneven sample.

ie if you flip a coin ten times its much more likely to get 6 heads than if you flick a coin 100 times and get 60 heads.

By: Dave S

Dave S — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:44:51 +0000

Steve Irwin is dead. The campaign is over. The Pollbludger has posted his predictions.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:36:21 +0000

Sorry- it was four seats which makes it 36%

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:32:02 +0000

I think the unknown 10% is still a worry for the ALP. I do agree however that the sample size is ridiculous, it is however no worse that the one the Courier Mail presented on Saturday. After polling 1000 voters across five seats it qoutes the National’s primary at 9% but fails to mention they are only contesting in one of the 5 seats polled. (ie 45% of the primary for that seat)

By: David Jackmanson

David Jackmanson — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:10:46 +0000

I agree with Gary Bruce that it seems to be a good way for Morgan to get free advertising…

When I follow the link to Roy Morgan, I find at the bottom of the introduction:

“Voting Intention
The Morgan Poll conducted on August 29/30/31 with a sample of 165 Queensland electors found the ALP with a 5 percentage point lead on a two-party preferred basis â€” ALP 52.5%, L-NP 47.5% (published in Saturdayâ€™s Melbourne Age [September 2]). This is despite 73% of those surveyed who think Labor will win next Saturday compared with 13% the Coalition and 14% undecided.

More details are available on a subscription basis.”

Morgan seems to be saying further down the report that Beattie’s approval rating drop is in some way linked to Wayne Goss’ rating drop in 1995-6. I think he is trying to imply that there is indeed a ’sleeper’ anti-Beattie vote out there.

However in 1995, Queenslanders had a competent Opposition to vote for.

By: Graeme Orr

Graeme Orr — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:57:55 +0000

If Morgan polled 268 – and the article admits 10% were undecided so he only has 244 responses – the MoE is +/- 6.5%. That suggests Beattie is only half pulling our legs when he says there’s a discernible swing against Labor. Does the chance of a ‘rogue’ poll increase with small sample size?

By: Gary Bruce

Gary Bruce — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:37:22 +0000

Morgan is playing the publicity game. What better way to get attention for your polling company, particularly from essentially a conservative press, than by predicting against the accepted opinion, that being that Labor will be returned comfortably. To do this of course you need to poll fewer people and provide as little information about the poll as possible. As Piers Ackerman said, pollsters believe that around 1000 people or more is needed to get a fair sample of the opinions of the population. If Morgan was being more responsible and doing his job correctly and getting the same results as other polling organisations, he would not be rating a mention in the media. Most papers and radio ignore him for most part.