[MicroBob]

Thanks for the reply...good stuff.


[ QUOTE ]
Systematic errors are far more serious. The survey was probably conducted by calling people. People who don't have working phones would not be included. People who refused to take part in the survey would not be included. Even if the sample were representative, the election is not decided by the popular vote.


[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that the systematic errors can cause significant distortion. And I KNOW that the math is the math and confidence within +-4% is just that.
Still....even if it were possible to have ZERO systematic errors....if I could get a reasonable representative sample of different segments/demographics of the country for my 1,200 person poll....and you could get a different 1,200 people that is equally representative....then don't you think it reasonable that I could get a sample that has Kerry up by 5 points (+/-3) and you could get a sample that has Bush up by 5 points (+/-3).

Without trying to sound like someone who thinks online-poker is rigged....and as one who truly does believe in the math...I have to say that this is a situation that just doesn't FEEL right to me. That is, even though you are showing me the math and I vaguely remember the same stuff from a college course (I think it was a political-sci course but it might have been mathematics) I still just find it hard to believe that polling 1200 people can actually successfully represent 150-million votes with that degree of confidence.
And I think that some of the differences in the different polls aren't JUST systematic but are just natural differences that you are going to get when you poll just 1200 out of 150-million likely voters.


I'll more closely at the math that you went through....this is really just interesting stuff to me and nothing more.
Thanks again.