2nd March 2006
The Malta
In evidence that we are
gracefully slipping into a pre-election mode, we are witnessing increased
frequency of supposedly scientific-opinion surveys which tend to indicate which
political party is ahead in the race to gain the electorate’s mandate for
governing the next legislature.
All surveys I have seen so far can hardly be termed scientific. They suffer from strong in-built defects or biases which nullify their claim of being a representative sample of how people would actually vote if an election were to be held tomorrow.
The first major defect in all surveys lies in the disregard of the sizeable section in the chosen sample that refuses to participate in the survey. Where such refusals form a sizeable part of the targeted audience and the base is extended until the minimum quantity of respondents is reached, the results based on those who actually reply become automatically unrepresentative of the whole electorate. Those who refuse to participate in the survey will certainly not refuse to participate in the actual general election whenever it comes.
The second evident defect in such surveys is that they often disregard also a sizeable section of those who actually participate in the survey but answer that they will not vote, or do not know if they will actually vote or that they have not yet decided whom they will vote for. In all surveys, these undecided participants form a very large part of the chosen sample and they cannot be excluded from the final results as if they will not be voting in the general election. Given that the historical difference between winners and losers in the general election often boils down to a handful of percentage points, the undecided sector is too big too ignore. It is often made up of the voters who will ultimately decide which side the electoral scale tips in the end.
A further defect of most surveys is that they do not attempt to make a scientific adjustment to results to reflect the dishonesty bias in such surveys. This is often tricky but there are ways how to measure this dishonesty bias by asking historical questions (whom did you vote for in the last elections?) which can then be measured against historical facts to measure the extent of the inbuilt dishonesty bias.
So in the end, the only conclusion I would safely draw from such surveys is that they are unreliable as a forecast to the outcome of the next election. The parties have to gear up in the coming months in order to sway the undecided voters their way.
I can see that the main political parties will adopt very different strategies to achieve such objective.
The PN know that their biggest handicap for winning the next elections is the length of their tenure in office. A good part of the undecided voters are eager for a change in administration as they perceive the present government as fatigued, arrogant and as a failure in delivery of the eternal spring they promised at the last elections. They are eager to give Labour a chance but are somehow not yet convinced that in fact Labour would be a better alternative. So they remain undecided.
The PN strategy versus these voters would focus on the personality of the Prime Minister and party leader. Their campaign will focus on his personality and will put the organisation in the secondary line as a blurred background. The Prime Minister regularly beats the Opposition Leader in direct personality opinions polls. The PN will focus their campaign to portray him as a counterbalance to the party’s fatigue and long tenure in office by depicting him as young, relatively new in office, practical and sensitive decision-maker who stands no non-sense and is making substantial headway in lightening the substantial baggage he inherited from his predecessors who were more lax with the public purse and did not have his high governance standards.
Labour on the other hand know that in the public perception their current leader suffers considerable disadvantage through the bitter experience of his performance between 1998 and 2003 and can hardly make much headway by focusing on his personality.They also have a problem in focusing their campaign on past achievements of the organisation as these are way in the past, somewhere in the period between 1971-1980 which serves little purpose except for historical records in which undecided voters can hardly be interested.
Consequently Labour’s strategists know that their best chances for winning over the undecided voters would be on exposing the defects of the incumbents rather than on promoting their own merits. They will bend over backward to portray the current Prime Minister as part of the old guard who are responsible for the country having had to swallow bitter fiscal discipline of these last few years to bring back sanity to public finances.
The respective parties’ success in conducting focused, fresh and effective election campaign will largely determine the outcome of the next general election which is still very much in balance. It will be decided by the way my dog votes.
All surveys I have seen so far can hardly be termed scientific. They suffer from strong in-built defects or biases which nullify their claim of being a representative sample of how people would actually vote if an election were to be held tomorrow.
The first major defect in all surveys lies in the disregard of the sizeable section in the chosen sample that refuses to participate in the survey. Where such refusals form a sizeable part of the targeted audience and the base is extended until the minimum quantity of respondents is reached, the results based on those who actually reply become automatically unrepresentative of the whole electorate. Those who refuse to participate in the survey will certainly not refuse to participate in the actual general election whenever it comes.
The second evident defect in such surveys is that they often disregard also a sizeable section of those who actually participate in the survey but answer that they will not vote, or do not know if they will actually vote or that they have not yet decided whom they will vote for. In all surveys, these undecided participants form a very large part of the chosen sample and they cannot be excluded from the final results as if they will not be voting in the general election. Given that the historical difference between winners and losers in the general election often boils down to a handful of percentage points, the undecided sector is too big too ignore. It is often made up of the voters who will ultimately decide which side the electoral scale tips in the end.
A further defect of most surveys is that they do not attempt to make a scientific adjustment to results to reflect the dishonesty bias in such surveys. This is often tricky but there are ways how to measure this dishonesty bias by asking historical questions (whom did you vote for in the last elections?) which can then be measured against historical facts to measure the extent of the inbuilt dishonesty bias.
So in the end, the only conclusion I would safely draw from such surveys is that they are unreliable as a forecast to the outcome of the next election. The parties have to gear up in the coming months in order to sway the undecided voters their way.
I can see that the main political parties will adopt very different strategies to achieve such objective.
The PN know that their biggest handicap for winning the next elections is the length of their tenure in office. A good part of the undecided voters are eager for a change in administration as they perceive the present government as fatigued, arrogant and as a failure in delivery of the eternal spring they promised at the last elections. They are eager to give Labour a chance but are somehow not yet convinced that in fact Labour would be a better alternative. So they remain undecided.
The PN strategy versus these voters would focus on the personality of the Prime Minister and party leader. Their campaign will focus on his personality and will put the organisation in the secondary line as a blurred background. The Prime Minister regularly beats the Opposition Leader in direct personality opinions polls. The PN will focus their campaign to portray him as a counterbalance to the party’s fatigue and long tenure in office by depicting him as young, relatively new in office, practical and sensitive decision-maker who stands no non-sense and is making substantial headway in lightening the substantial baggage he inherited from his predecessors who were more lax with the public purse and did not have his high governance standards.
Labour on the other hand know that in the public perception their current leader suffers considerable disadvantage through the bitter experience of his performance between 1998 and 2003 and can hardly make much headway by focusing on his personality.They also have a problem in focusing their campaign on past achievements of the organisation as these are way in the past, somewhere in the period between 1971-1980 which serves little purpose except for historical records in which undecided voters can hardly be interested.
Consequently Labour’s strategists know that their best chances for winning over the undecided voters would be on exposing the defects of the incumbents rather than on promoting their own merits. They will bend over backward to portray the current Prime Minister as part of the old guard who are responsible for the country having had to swallow bitter fiscal discipline of these last few years to bring back sanity to public finances.
The respective parties’ success in conducting focused, fresh and effective election campaign will largely determine the outcome of the next general election which is still very much in balance. It will be decided by the way my dog votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment