Yes, this is the point I am making. Sample size is but one of many factors that influence the reliability of a poll, and it is not the only consideration for good polling technique. A large sample does not mitigate those factors.

If there is an issue with the underlying polling technique, making the sample larger does not guarantee more correctness. You simply end up with a larger set of bad data.

Even if the sample size is the same size as the population?

1. Possibly, if they are different populations.

2. This sample in the Telegram poll is ~20% the number of voters in Belarus.

So what it it wasn't random, but captured 90% of the population?

Where are you seeing 90%?

The poll itself says 59% of the 2.3m respondents were people who voted in the election.

That's 1.4m people, which is 15% of their population and 21% of their eligible voting population.

Forget the percentage - there are more people who said they voted for the second-place contender than the second-place contender's official vote count.

Yes, clearly the evidence demonstrates the election results are less than trustworthy.

But that’s not what I was taking issue with. Above, I was disputing the claim that a large sample size “guarantees correctness”

Likely, neither this Telegram poll nor the election are statistically sound in their results, for different reasons.

I am not saying that the Telegram poll has to be statistically sound to be valuable evidence.