70
How pollsters have adapted to changing technology and voters who don’t answer the phone
(theconversation.com)
Get drunk and throw darts at a dartboard.
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
70 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3350 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I remember when self-reported online polls were considered dirty and useless.
Oh, how the times have changed.
If anyone managed to send me a poll I would assume it is a scam to steal my identity or beg for donations.
The goal, as ever, is to present to the public an accurate reflection of what the people as a whole think about candidates and issues.
Can this not simply be harvested from the endless volumes of online posts made to the public internet? Why do they act like they need to go on the hunt for something that is normally difficult even to avoid?
Because then louder people get counted more
What, you don't want audience participation voting?
Fun fact, my hometown in NH still votes this way unless someone asks for a count
Because based on online posts, Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Bernie sanders all won by a wide margin?
The types of people that offer their political opinions online are not themselves representative of the whole voting public. This would introduce an instance of sampling bias.
No. Not even before now since you could make as many accounts as you want on a given platform.
But especially not now since the cost of text content generation has dropped to basically zero.
In short: They're not. They're basically guessing at this point for anyone under 50.
Not only that but anyone under 50 who they do reach is the type of person who doesn't use an ad blocker. In other words, iPhone users and the ignorant.
I answered a phone call for a poll a few weeks ago. I knew it was a poll, but I wasn't doing anything too important and talked to them for a few minutes. I was receiving texts and phone calls that I ignored (blocked), but since I picked up the call, the volume has increased. I realized my mistake of trying to let them know my opinion. The increase from before the poll to after was pretty drastic for the first week. I won't make that mistake again.
That is why people don't answer even if we are free. No good deed goes unpunished.
Weird clarification, but the iPhone has shitloads of adblock, much more so than Android. There are YouTube apps that block all video ads, for instance. iOS even has a vpn built into the OS.
Hey, don't forget about the lazy.
I mean, even if they “reach” you doesn’t mean you have to pick up the phone or respond to texts. As a matter of policy I don’t answer calls from numbers not in my contacts. If it’s important they’ll leave a voicemail.
iPhone user here, with an ad blocker in Safari and DNS-based ad blocking. Don't assume all iPhone users are in that category...
ONE OF US
ONE OF US
Tl:dr sample bias is people who don't use ad blockers
So a conservative luddite bias.
Luddites weren't conservatives and they weren't anti technology, they were anti-technology being used to destroy the livelihood of workers rather than being used to improve their lives.
Imagine that AI / robots suddenly made your entire career field obsolete overnight and suddenly you couldn't find a job anywhere. You would be pretty upset, ya? Now imagine being called anti-technology just because you argued that technology should be used to help the workers that are displaced rather than leaving them destitute.
Alternative title: how annoying people have adapted to not being able to annoy everyone as easily as before.
The Conversation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Conversation:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - Australia
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://theconversation.com/how-pollsters-have-adapted-to-changing-technology-and-voters-who-dont-answer-the-phone-240283