Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Comments on polls
I got two thoughtful emails about polls, and I want to share some thoughts with you on the topic.
First of all, eleven people have taken the first poll. Here's the poll's wording:
I would give to the Greens if they would spend the money on:
(Rank the candidates you support!)
5 candidates will be elected.
This is followed by 16 choices to rank, and you can rank as few or as many as you choose.
One of the emailers suggested that national polls at websites like this only tend to generate a sense of disunity. In other words, everyone can agree to be for running local candidates, but who should run national campaigns, even state wide campaigns, gets a less universally positive response.
Another points out that the question pre-supposes two things, that the voter does not already give to the national party, and that if not, the things that are keeping people from giving are on that list.
I am certain that both emailers are right. I know that sociologists design these surveys up to get really accurate info, but I was just taking a shot in the dark. I'm going to do a lot of that. Get used to it. ~Grin~
This survey will stay up until Jan 1st, then I'm thinking of a two week long survey for the future.
I also want to really complement the maturity of the folks who come here. With 11 votes I would guess about 1/4 of the regular visitors have voted. And since the cookie the voting system puts on your computer to keep you from double voting goes away after 12 hours, no one is double voting. I think that's a great sign for the future.
Again, we'll get better as time marches forward. More in the AM.
First of all, eleven people have taken the first poll. Here's the poll's wording:
I would give to the Greens if they would spend the money on:
(Rank the candidates you support!)
5 candidates will be elected.
This is followed by 16 choices to rank, and you can rank as few or as many as you choose.
One of the emailers suggested that national polls at websites like this only tend to generate a sense of disunity. In other words, everyone can agree to be for running local candidates, but who should run national campaigns, even state wide campaigns, gets a less universally positive response.
Another points out that the question pre-supposes two things, that the voter does not already give to the national party, and that if not, the things that are keeping people from giving are on that list.
I am certain that both emailers are right. I know that sociologists design these surveys up to get really accurate info, but I was just taking a shot in the dark. I'm going to do a lot of that. Get used to it. ~Grin~
This survey will stay up until Jan 1st, then I'm thinking of a two week long survey for the future.
I also want to really complement the maturity of the folks who come here. With 11 votes I would guess about 1/4 of the regular visitors have voted. And since the cookie the voting system puts on your computer to keep you from double voting goes away after 12 hours, no one is double voting. I think that's a great sign for the future.
Again, we'll get better as time marches forward. More in the AM.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 7:11 PM 
