For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I'm talking about actual elections, not polls.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Those annoying polls should be banned before elections. They end up becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, with people voting for whoever seems to be on the 'winning side'. I've never been asked, and I don't know anyone who's been asked. It's probably just a few people in the office.
They are more important, that why we over here actually count the results and don't have electoral colleges.bobevenson wrote:Nielsen does it for TV ratings and product brand shares sold through grocery and drugstores, where accuracy is of paramount importance. Are political elections any less important?
Gary, I do notice your snotty view of "for-profit" institutions as supposedly compared to "non-profit" institutions like the government, which, of course, have never contributed anything to mankind except war and violence.Gary Childress wrote:Some juristictions have turned over management of their prisons to "for profit" insitutions. I guess why not just hand over the whole electoral process to them as well.
It's actually a question of accuracy, and the companies that pay Nielsen millions of dollars would go broke if the data they received had the same accuracy as political elections.Arising_uk wrote:Who's rigging your elections?
What are you talking about? Over here companies use our electoral role all the time and the results of our elections are pretty much as accurate as you can get, especially compared to sampling as the results are the largest sample you can count.bobevenson wrote:... they received were on the same level as political elections.[/size][/b]
Another nonsensical statement since sampling the entire universe is the same as counting all of the voters.bobevenson wrote:There are all kinds of problems and irregularities trying to count millions of votes that could be minimized by sampling the entire universe of voters.
"Snotty"? I thought I was being conciliatory. I could have answered worse but chose to be more agreeable. Learn to count your blessings, Bob.bobevenson wrote:Gary, I do notice your snotty view of "for-profit" institutions as supposedly compared to "non-profit" institutions like the government, which, of course, have never contributed anything to mankind except war and violence.Gary Childress wrote:Some juristictions have turned over management of their prisons to "for profit" insitutions. I guess why not just hand over the whole electoral process to them as well.
Please, people vote twice, dead people vote and there are human errors of all kinds.Arising_uk wrote:How can they be more accurate? They are a sample.
Please, you make a snotty comment and then deny it was snotty. I'd have more respect for you if you simply defended your argument.Gary Childress wrote:Snotty"? I thought I was being conciliatory. I could have answered worse but chose to be more agreeable. Learn to count your blessings, Bob.bobevenson wrote:Gary, I do notice your snotty view of "for-profit" institutions as supposedly compared to "non-profit" institutions like the government, which, of course, has never contributed anything to mankind except war and violence.Gary Childress wrote:Some juristictions have turned over management of their prisons to "for profit" insitutions. I guess why not just hand over the whole electoral process to them as well.