Skip to main content

Blame the Polls for Trump

Here we go again. The polls unanimously predicted a victory for Clinton, and we all know what happened. The polls also unanimously predicted that Britain would remain in the EU, but they were wrong there too. Only months earlier the UK polls predicted every sort of party combination to form a government, except for the one that won.

Why do polls get it completely wrong, especially when they're unanimously predicting a close result? Perhaps it's because of the Observer Effect (sometimes confused with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Simply put, it states that by measuring something, you can affect it. In the case of opinion polls, this is what happens:

  1. The polls all predict a close result
  2. If the person or party you like is losing, you become more likely to vote because you can make difference
  3. If the person or party you like is winning, you become less likely to vote because you don't need to
There's a sweet spot for this effect. If the polls are predicting the person or party you like is a long way behind in the polls, you might doubt your own judgement and you might not want to waste your vote. The further behind they become in the polls, the less likely you will be to vote. Equally, the further ahead the person or party you want to win becomes, the less likely you are to vote because your vote is probably not needed. So the effect of a poll that's not close is to reduce voting at both ends of the scale (as we see in typically low turnout UK and US elections). The results of such polls are consequently more accurate than when they are closer. The polls have had an 'observer effect', but it's equally applied to both sides so not noticed in the result.

If, on the other hand, it's very close so much so that the polls themselves become divided, then both sides will be encouraged to vote - probably in equal proportions. The result will then also be close to what the polls predict. The Observer Effect has increased the volume of voters, but the vote will remain tight.

So the Observer Effect on polls is only evident where the polls unanimously predict a reasonably close win for one side. Supporters for the side predicted to lose will believe their votes will make more of a difference than the supporters for the side predicted to win. This sweet spot is probably around 5% margin between the candidates. Which means it needs only a 2.5% increase in predicted loser voter numbers to reverse the prediction. It wasn't god supporting Trump (as I heard some whackos claim this morning), it was maths and the polls.

If I'm right and this is the main reason we have a bozo as the leader of the free world, then instead of agonising over what policies and hairstyles our candidates should adopt in future, we simply need to stop doing polls! Or at least agree amongst all the mainstream media to ban them for a couple of weeks before the vote. Don't forget that if you think America looks stupid this morning, the media and 'experts' look even more incompetent. It's in their own interests to prevent this from happening again.

No doubt when my blog post goes viral, I will be vilified for #BanThePoles, but that too is bound to be on the orange chap's agenda at some point.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo
7 comments
Read more

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite
Post a Comment
Read more

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat
Post a Comment
Read more