Re:Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided ...
by listenallyall on Sunday November 08, 2020 @01:43AM
(#25023638)
when polls don't match up with reality, as they didn't in 2016, the pollsters have a responsibility to re-calibrate the way they conduct the poll. Ask different questions, find new ways of obtaining respondents from all demographics, adjust raw data, etc. A professional pollster doesn't just get to say, hey, some people didn't want to talk to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re:Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided ...
by dragonwriter on Sunday November 08, 2020 @01:52AM
(#25023676)
> when polls don't match up with reality, as they didn't in 2016, the pollsters have a responsibility to re-calibrate the way they conduct the poll.
Pollsters do that for continuously, and there were definite recalibrations in the wake of 2016.
OTOH, the conditions which produce non-sampling errors aren't static, and it's impossible to reliably even measure the aggregate of non-sampling error in any particular event (because sampling error exists, and while it's statistical distribution can be computed the actual error attributable to it in a by particular event can't be, so you never no how much actual error is due to non-sampling error much less any particular source of non-sampling error.)
Yes, they do. Because (among many other reasons) humans have a choice whether or not to respond, you can't do an ideal random sample subject to only sampling error for a poll. All polls have non-sampling error on top of sampling error, it is impossible not to.