A fascinating little aspect of voting emerged with the exit polls done by pollsters after people had voted in the Bush-Kerry presidential election in 2004.
People were randomly interviewed after voting in a number of key voting districts in the country and the results showed Kerry ahead by 51% to 48%. The evidence was consistent and influential enough that the Kerry camp wrote acceptance drafts. The final results were about the reverse. A flap developed. The Democrats thought they had won and this discrepancy made them suspect fraud--quite a large fraud would be necessary. Eventually it was decided that people were either reluctant to admit they voted for Bush and lied or Bush voters declined to be interviewed.
There are a number of scenarios possible here, not the least being that Bush voters resented the press and were reluctant to help them in their interviews. But some may have been reluctant to admit voting for a guy for whom there was so much popular displeasure.
One wonders if such a polling error is brewing now.
People were randomly interviewed after voting in a number of key voting districts in the country and the results showed Kerry ahead by 51% to 48%. The evidence was consistent and influential enough that the Kerry camp wrote acceptance drafts. The final results were about the reverse. A flap developed. The Democrats thought they had won and this discrepancy made them suspect fraud--quite a large fraud would be necessary. Eventually it was decided that people were either reluctant to admit they voted for Bush and lied or Bush voters declined to be interviewed.
There are a number of scenarios possible here, not the least being that Bush voters resented the press and were reluctant to help them in their interviews. But some may have been reluctant to admit voting for a guy for whom there was so much popular displeasure.
One wonders if such a polling error is brewing now.
No comments:
Post a Comment