Getting it so wrong in Epsom
September 19th, 2005 at 4:21 pm by David FarrarLooking in NZ has a useful summary of all the incorrect predictions in Epsom.
This was not a minor issue as certainly it is logical that ACT would have got more list votes if the media had not universally claimed Hide could not win Epsom.
Considering how volatile the electorate is, I am very surprised that no public polls were done in Epsom in the last week.
No tag for this post.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Lessons from this election campaign: Everyone has agenda.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Logical, but not necessarily true. Outside of a few electorates, there simply weren’t viable party organisations, just candidates waving the flag.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
It is probably true that ACT would have got more party votes if people thought they were sure to win Epsom. But (almost) all of those extra party votes would have come off National’s total, so it wouldn’t have changed the overall result at all (unless National suddenly saw this happening and changed their policy settings at the 11th hour towards the centre -a very unlikely scenario).
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Why do you think that is, Aaron?
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
More votes for Act from where??? Unless the Act party can attract votes off Labour what is the point of them. People seem to think that National can increase its vote share out of thin air. It made its main target the Labour Party through-out the campaign. And so did the minors. The only thing that happened was that Labour held its vote but all the minors declined in favour of National.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
I do believe the media has a blameworthy role in all this. They tried so hard to make it into a two horse race, they almost succeeded. There are some, however, who didn’t fall for this scenarion. That is why we have the problems we do now.
Vote:When we have the next (years?) election, hopefully they will leave that aspect alone, give more time and/or weight to each party and leave the voting to the people. That way, a workable coalition or C&S agreement may become possible. The country hardly needs all the expense of another election so soon after this one, but sure will have to foot the bill.
September 19th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
I think the tragedy of the campaign was the invalid Colmar Brunton poll taken on Sept 9.
The media jumped on this, without thinking to critique the methodology.
I know of at least two other media outlets that were in the process of commissioning polls in Epsom, but changed the polls focus to the nationwide campaign after seeing the Colmar Brunton result.
Jeremy Todd of Colmar Brunton is either exceptionally lazy or incompetent. To suggest that a question designed to determine the level of electorate vote support across the country in their monthly nationwide poll could be appropriate in an electorate poll 8 days before an election is ludicrous. This should severally damage Colmar Brunton reputation as a quality pollster.
The impact of this one poll in the campaign is hard to quantify, but if you look at how ACT was polling in areas like Wellington in the weeks leading up to the election vs the election night result, I would suggest it cost Muriel and Stephen their seats, if not Graham Scott and others.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
I had posted on the problems of the method used by Colmar Brunton. As a pollster this was obvious.
I favoured the independent Roy Morgan poll and predicted Rodney Hide would take the seat.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Jeremy Todd incompetent & lazy ? – after conceding last night on TV3 that he/they extrapolated off one-third of telephone respondents he then stated the polls should be seen amongst all else for their ‘entertainment value’! Truly!
I bet all professional pollsters worldwide vomited.
Maybe – in view of the manifest bias & blatant unprofessionalism – the French system should be enhanced – ie no polls to be published for the duration of an election campaign. Full stop!Unless – if a concession is needed – the ‘dont knows’ recorded in the poll, the basis for the poll (demographic/country coverage by electorates, method of polling & sampling technique, total response, etc) coupled with a professional independent audit or verification.
What is the difference to publishing a Prospectus?
Vote:Should the requirements be any less from an alleged professional organisation?
September 19th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
If National had played MMP and did a little meet and greet with ACT instead of running away from them (like they did in Epsom) you would of seen ACTs vote rise. It’s simple math, ACT needed far fewer party votes to get extra MPs.
The true question should be, will the Nats figure out MMP in the next three years?
Vote:September 20th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
I agree with Clint, the Nats should have done that.
Jim Peron’s (LookinginNZ) list of media comments is useful but his ridiculous rant describing Classical Liberal Christians as “lunatic fringe” demonstrates his usual bigotry and confusion over Classical Liberalism.
Vote:September 21st, 2005 at 2:07 am
“public” polls? as in, which ones anywhere did you have in mind? regardless of who commissioned it, what about the Morgan poll?
Vote: