tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4485266386769806559.post4718731569009102163..comments2023-06-03T03:51:36.883-07:00Comments on Canadian Election Watch: New Angus ReidElection Watcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10276655533153494264noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4485266386769806559.post-62711948895762907902009-12-16T08:17:41.800-08:002009-12-16T08:17:41.800-08:00I have no doubt that the eligible vs. likely voter...I have no doubt that the eligible vs. likely voter effect explains *some* of the discrepancy with the high Green numbers by some polling firms, and actual election results. However, I think that it would be a mistake to attribute all of the difference to that effect. For example, frustrated voters may say "Green" to a pollster, even though they don't actually support the Green Party, and wouldn't pick the Green candidate even if they actually show up to vote. Such protest responses to pollsters are much more likely when "Green" (or any other minor party) is explicitly given as an option.<br /><br />So I would agree with the assertion that the true level of Green support is probably somewhere between the ~6% given by Nanos, and the ~10% given by EKOS and others. However, Nanos would produce results closer to actual vote tallies. You might say that this occurs by luck (they get lower numbers because they don't prompt, while the actual reason is likely vs. eligible voters), but it doesn't negate the fact that the Nanos numbers tend to be better predictors of election results. Your point that all this might change if Green voters become more motivated is well taken, but I believe that this is unlikely to happen on a large scale.Election Watcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10276655533153494264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4485266386769806559.post-78926732655824678822009-12-15T08:47:16.082-08:002009-12-15T08:47:16.082-08:00The notion that the Nanos and Angus results are mo...The notion that the Nanos and Angus results are more reliable measures of "true" Green support is incorrect and shows a (commmon) misunderstanding of the nature of polling between elections. The parameter which we are interested in estimating is the incidence of all eligble voters who currently prefer the Green Party . To compare this to the last election and conclude that because the lower figures must be "right" confuses the issues of predicting some future hypothetical election with the problem of modelling current support levels amongst the overall population of eligible voters. <br />Clearly the Green Party support is higher amongst eligible voters than it has been amongst the smaller population of voters who will actually vote. This problem of the gap between eligible and likely voters becomes more meaningful as we approach an actual election . It may , in fact make sense at that point to report two separate estimates (likely and eligble voters). At this point, however, it makes no sense to do so and it is ill advised to discount those who would select the Green Party when given a choice on a ballot (if they actually showed up). By not prompting with GP one will achieve a lower estimate but this will bias the estimate of how all eligible voters are choosing . A correction for likely voters will make the proper adjustment as an election looms . In the interim I have no doubt that the higher estimates are a better measure of the overall popularity of the Green Party.<br />We are not interested in predicting a hypothetical future election now and the lower estimates are indeed the biased indicators of the current intention of the entire eligible population. It is , however, important to note the caveat that current GP supporters are hsitorically much less likely to actually vote than supporters of other parties. It remains to be seen if the attrition from eligible to actual voters will be of the same magnitude in the next election as it was in the past one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com