Legalize it Already

The number of people is only one of a large number of factors affecting a polls accuracy. It is not the dominant and only factor. After a sufficiently large number of people, it becomes largely irrelevant. The methodology is much more important. When a number of scientific polls over a period of time consistently predict simialar results, it becomes inane to argue against them. To claim that the polls are signifigantly off and the percent supporting legalization is much lower, you would have to depend on a small, 1 in 10000 or less chance. Then you pretty much lose credibility.
 
The number of people is only one of a large number of factors affecting a polls accuracy. It is not the dominant and only factor. After a sufficiently large number of people, it becomes largely irrelevant. The methodology is much more important. When a number of scientific polls over a period of time consistently predict simialar results, it becomes inane to argue against them. To claim that the polls are signifigantly off and the percent supporting legalization is much lower, you would have to depend on a small, 1 in 10000 or less chance. Then you pretty much lose credibility.

For something like this that is going to effect people's medical health, the margin of error should be <.02% the way a valid medical study would be, otherwise I'm not going to buy into your bullshit, Watermarxist!

:)
 
The number? It doesn't matter. It's a scientific poll, you ignorant fool. A scientific poll of 1000 people is a thousand times more accurate than a straw poll of ten million. The number is enough to make the margin of error within 3%, and that is all you need to know, child, because it's too much for your mind to comprehend.

US"FREEDOM", scientific polls are the best way we have of predicting support issues, and when multiple polls predict a certain number reliably multiple times you can draw certainty from the conclusion that support has greatly increased since 1969.

Then what number(s) were used, for the poll.

By the way; are you aware of all the polls that have been wrong, in the past??

OH; if you're going to keep kissing your wife with that mouth of yours, I'm going to have go have my dick checked for STD's.
Are we now through with the insults??
 
how do we know the margin of error isn't really 45%??? are we supposed to just take their word?

I'm not responding to you, Grind, I'm responding to US who would take this post seriously.

To prove my point and explain it all to him, I would have to literally refer him to a college course in statistics, which would probably be above his intelligence level anyway. Let me just make the point that that people aren't being paid millions of dollars for this for no reason. The market is not that ignorant.
 
Then what number(s) were used, for the poll.

2034. I just feel like you are making the point that it's irrelevant because of the number. I'm just trying to make you aware of the fact that a scientific poll is reasonably accurate despite the number, and that the number is not the only factor that effects accuracy.

By the way; are you aware of all the polls that have been wrong, in the past??

Every poll is slightly wrong. This poll can be said to have accuracy within 2% for every 95% of the population. There methodology is complex, US. It can be off and they admit that, but I can say with a reasoanble level of certainty that they aren't far off, because of the consistent polls over a period of time within the 35% range.

OH; if you're going to keep kissing your wife with that mouth of yours, I'm going to have go have my dick checked for STD's.
Are we now through with the insults??

No.
 
2034. I just feel like you are making the point that it's irrelevant because of the number. I'm just trying to make you aware of the fact that a scientific poll is reasonably accurate despite the number, and that the number is not the only factor that effects accuracy.



Every poll is slightly wrong. This poll can be said to have accuracy within 2% for every 95% of the population. There methodology is complex, US. It can be off and they admit that, but I can say with a reasoanble level of certainty that they aren't far off, because of the consistent polls over a period of time within the 35% range.



No.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

The US has an estimated population of 306,341,718 and you're trying to say that a poll that used 2034 is accurate. :lmao:

Well I guess it was accurate for those 2034 people; but it in no way is a representation of the US. :readit:

Now I know why you picked the name watermark, it's because you piss the bed over everything that excites you. :tongout:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

The US has an estimated population of 306,341,718 and you're trying to say that a poll that used 2034 is accurate. :lmao:

Well I guess it was accurate for those 2034 people; but it in no way is a representation of the US. :readit:

Now I know why you picked the name watermark, it's because you piss the bed over everything that excites you. :tongout:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

If you ever study research methods you will learn that 2000 is a legitimate sample for a national study.

Smaller studies usually only require 200.

Appeal to ignorance is NOT an argument, btw...
 
I think the most dramatic way to compare this would be to compare the straw poll of 1936, which took a poll of about 2.3 million people (one third of households in the US) in 1936 and predicted a Landon win, and the Gallup scientific polls, which took about a three thousand and correctly predicted the race. As you all know, it was one of the biggest landslides in history. The poll that predicted the Landon win was WAYYYYY off. You can't invalidate a poll because of the number of people. To say that the number of people is the primary factor just marks you as the ignorant oaf you are.

http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/1936_presidential_election_polls

One of the most significant phenomenons in the history of presidential elections is the development and success of political polls. Today, mathematicians and statisticians develop entire careers calculating percentages of opinion favoring or rejecting one candidate or another. George Gallup, a name almost synonymous with opinion polls did a great deal to change the methods of presidential political polling in the United States.
Gallup Transformed the Way of Presidential Polling in 1936

George Gallup made a name for himself in the 1936 presidential election. At the time, the Literary Digest magazine, was respected as the top pollster in the U.S. They predicted incorrectly that Alf Landon would defeat Franklin Roosevelt in his re-election bid. Roosevelt won in a landslide that gave him a higher percentage of popular and electoral votes than he received in 1932. Gallup confidently predicted that the Literary Digest would get it wrong and F.D.R. would win. He got it right in a big way.

Although the Literary Digest had correctly predicted the outcomes of the previous five presidential elections, George Gallup understood the flaws in their polling method. The Digest had relied on the technique of conducting straw polls. Such polls basically queried a given number of people, posed the questions of who is and is not favored, and tabulated the responses. This seemed logical because straw polls were used for over 100 years in predicting the results of U.S. elections.

However, Alf Landon lost the election and the Digest lost most of the credibility they had established. Straw polls also lost status as a respected method for measuring public opinion in presidential elections. In this election, George Gallup altered the course of “business as usual” in polling methodology. Gallup’s newly formed polling service, the American Institute of Public Opinion, would grow to become a significant fixture in discerning public opinion.
A More Scientific Method of Opinion Polling

From the responses of approximately 3,000 to 5,000 surveys, Gallup’s minor polling service, predicted accurately. However, the Literary Digest received 2.3 million completed surveys from the 10 million surveys that had been sent out that year. This represented about one third of all households in the U.S. at the time. But, Gallup understood that large samples would not guarantee accurate predictions.


George Gallup, as well as other pioneers in the polling industry, utilized a method known as “quota sampling” which was a technique to obtain answers to surveys from selected groups of people representative of the population. In the 1936 election, Gallup sent hundreds of interviewers all over the country to obtain answers from different types of people. For example, they would interview so many men, so many women, groups based upon race, and based upon income level or social class, until their specific quotas were reached. With the results of these interviews, Gallup sparked a change in the way future political polls would be conducted.

Polling pioneers like Gallup, Archibald Crossley and Elmo Roper, utilized a statistical law that states that a random selection of the population will not require a large number of people selected in order to obtain an accurate assessment of the opinions of the entire populace. With a more scientific approach to opinion polling and a significantly smaller sample, Gallup and his peers successfully introduced the American people to a scientific method of polling public opinion. The industry grew significantly in importance from this turning point and eventually developed into an entrenched institution in the United States.

Sources:

American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt, 2008, Thomson Wadsworth

Read more: http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/1936_presidential_election_polls#ixzz0EPyrWmXJ&B
 
Last edited:
You're obviously to stupid to understand the explanation.

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

So US, you can't understand how a poll of 2000 could accurately predict an electorate of a hundred or more million, so the poll is invalid? Is that your argument? Because you are ignorant of the process, it isn't happening? Do you realize how foolish you are making yourself look?
 
I think the most dramatic way to compare this would be to compare the straw poll of 1936, which took a poll of about four million people (at a time when the US population was around seventy million) in 1936 and predicted a Landon win, and the Gallup scientific polls, which took about a thousand and correctly predicted the race. As you all know, it was one of the biggest landslides in history. The poll that predicted the Landon win was WAYYYYY off. You can't invalidate a poll because of the number of people. To say that the number of people is the primary factor just marks you as the ignorant oaf you are.

http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/1936_presidential_election_polls

The modern academic community would still not have liked the poll because it had a sample size of fewer than 2000 (the magic number), but the point still stands that it was scientific and used a research method that would be approved by an Institutional Review Board.
 
So US, you can't understand how a poll of 2000 could accurately predict an electorate of a hundred or more million, so the poll is invalid? Is that your argument? Because you are ignorant of the process, it isn't happening? Do you realize how foolish you are making yourself look?

And here you go, proving my point.

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:

Thanks

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:
 
And here you go, proving my point.

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:

Thanks

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:

honestly you are embarrassing yourself. You're a retard.. just stop.
 
And here you go, proving my point.

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:

Thanks

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:

Are you trying to parody another poster on this site? Because I have no clue who posts like this...
 
And here you go, proving my point.

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:

Thanks

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:lmao:

What point would that be? Your argument is fallacious. The fact that you don't understand the process doesn't mean it's inaccurate. It just means you don't understand the process. Your ignorance only proves that you are ignorant, it doesn't prove you are correct. You have offered me no real evidence to prove that scientific polling is inaccurate.
 
Are you trying to parody another poster on this site? Because I have no clue who posts like this...

:lmao:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


Sorry; I was laughing at you, not with you.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
You asked:

"The US has an estimated population of 306,341,718 and you're trying to say that a poll that used 2034 is accurate. "

I said yes, I am trying to say that. I have offered evidence to prove my point, that scientific polling is reasonably accurate. You have offered no contradictory evidence besides your own ignorance of how it is possible, and a lot of obnoxious "HAHAHAHA" and :lmao" smilies. You lose.
 
Back
Top