RE: ID cards - What wasn't mentioned about the results of the consultation exercise

["Owen Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 01 November 2004 09:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ID cards - What wasn't mentioned about the results of the
> consultation exercise
>
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Owen Lewis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >       -       The number of responses in the consultation
> (<800) is smaller that the
> >sample a professional polling organisation would have used (=>1000?).
> >Perhaps a statistician might like to give us an expert opinion on the
> >validity of a self selecting sample of this size?
>
> The American pollsters on TV this morning are saying that a *carefully
> selected* representative sample of 1000 voters [asked one question] will
> result in a +/- 3% accuracy. As one of then said "if the result appears
> to say Bush will win by 2%, then problems with the sample could mean
> that actually Kerry might win by 1%".
>
> They then said that to get 1% accuracy you'd need a sample of 3,000,
> which is suspiciously linear, and therefore I doubt it.
>
> As for consultation responses, all that really indicates is how well
> mobilised the various pressure groups are.

Amen to that.

An interesting piece last night (only half listened to, drat it!) on YouGov
and polling via internet. Sounded like a neat exercise in knee-capping (the
prog, that is).

The concluding part was comment to the effect that the body politic is peed
off with the inaccuracy of pollsters and the way that the media megaphone
effect on their pronouncement may actually be a mechanism in moving public
opinion. That seems quite possible to me. The corollary was that, unless the
pollsters 'put their house in order' (how, without losing the cream off the
top of their business?), legislation to curb the use of polls might be
necessary.

Owen