DISQUS

WanderingStar · 1 year ago

This is the part that's difficult to take. In a so-called democratic environment you sort of have to believe the information you're being handed is verifiable and legitimate. When you find out it isn't it sort of throws your whole sense of the system as a functional entity. Of course, that said, I'm not one to extol the virtues of going by polls to decide who you're voting for -- in my opinion you ought to vote with your heart and your head and decide on the candidate who's best for you. I don't know...this guy says it a lot clearer than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOk9B1hYr4g. Just my opinion.

Andrew S. · 1 year ago

I've taken 2 university-level statistics courses and I look at it this way: If there are huge differences between the election results and the polls, we need to first ask whether there was vote fraud. Period. Revamping the science of polling can take years and could be considered, but election fraud can only be proven if we act quickly. IF you want to be safe we can do both, but one is long term and one is short term. Notice how we were prepared to accept the results being off from the polls by the media?

Common__Sense · 1 year ago

Polling assumes many things, among them , that the polled are eligible voters and will vote. That is the much saner explanation.

And if you're wondering, I've take 3 university-level stats courses. So beat that.