Quote:
Originally Posted by vraiblonde  And yet they are the same ones who scream the loudest about "stolen" elections. |
While I was Googling about for accuracy in presidential polling, I cam across several articles about the exit polls in 2004 - with a few of them highlighting some very crucial errors that allowed them to be so very far off. Probably some of the most telling is that in certain regions, BUSH appeared to be winning an area he eventually lost.
But there were several articles griping about how accurate exit polling is, and how, if the exit polls differed so much with the election results, it pointed towards fraud, even though no evidence of fraud came up. They had your usual conspiracy theory approaches to science - anecdotal information coupled with a LACK of actual data (conspiracy theorists thrive on the ABSENCE of data in the face of "suspicious" activity).
What kills me though, is that the writers are so worked up over it, they're convinced that exit polls should be 100% trusted, but not an actual counting of the votes - because the voting process is so susceptible to corruption.
And polling ISN'T? If we used POLLS to elect Presidents, is there a person alive who thinks they'd be without a trace of fraud? Why does anyone think that a private organization would do it honestly, but the public process is rife with fraud?