![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/oppolls.jpg\")
The wild
\n swings in recent polls suggest the race is volatile. The nonpartisan
\n Pew Research Center and Harris Interactive polls this week indicated
\n that the race is essentially tied, while a new Gallup survey indicated
\n that Bush holds a lead of 13 percentage points over Kerry. A New York
\n Times\/ CBS poll of registered voters published today indicated that
\n Bush leads Kerry, 50 percent to 42 percent.<\/p>\n
from today’s Boston Globe<\/a><\/p>\n To the Dowbrigade, the widely divergent polls released this week, showing Rather, they suggest social scientific ineptitude at best, and more After all, public opinion polling, although complicated, is supposed The truth is, given the importance of accurate information in this area and the growing sophistication We should be able to identify and reward those who are making accurate The only thing all the polls agree on is that the far majority of the from the Boston Globe<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The wild swings in recent polls suggest the race is volatile. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center and Harris Interactive polls this week indicated that the race is essentially tied, while a new Gallup survey indicated that Bush holds a lead … Continue reading
\n everything from a 14 point Bush landslide to a virtual dead heat, to
\n a slight Kerry lead don’t suggest a volatile race.<\/p>\n
\n likely deliberate efforts to mislead and influence the electorate.<\/p>\n
\n to be scientific. Professional pollsters will wax lyrical about
\n the difficulties of their task, selecting a representative sampling,
\n people deliberately joking with or lying to pollsters, determining who will actually
\n vote come election day, but these are just mealy-mouthed excuses.<\/p>\n
\n of our computer models, modern polling SHOULD be able to predict the outcome
\n of an election with increasing accuracy. After all, the predictions are
\n all on record, and in every case culminate in the actual election results,
\n which can theoretically be used to evaluate the predictions, fine tune
\n the polling procedure, adjust the methodology used, and produce a series
\n of ever
\n more accurate polls.<\/p>\n
\n predictions, and count on their ever-increasing accuracy. The
\n fact that the current crop of supposedly professional public opinion
\n pollsters
\n are so all over the map seems to be direct evidence of perfidy and\/or
\n lack of ability, and leave the poor public more in the dark than before,
\n only now armed with sharp and dangerous statistical weapons.<\/p>\n
\n voting public have already made up their minds. Why is it so hard to
\n find out what they think?<\/p>\n