I do not think that polls are pillars of democracy, much less. Valentín Paniagua himself told us that a couple of pollsters offered his services (to his credit, of course) in exchange for money.
A survey done well is a tool that yields real results, and I also believe that there are serious surveys. But I think the suspicion is meritorious in terms of some pollsters surveyed ghosts for money to sell their surveys to the highest bidder.
quality but what countries can do forcing survey respondents give very personal information? Let's see if some interviewers ask respondents personal data many of these are going to refuse to give them, then the reviewers are not going to be surveyed and will have to survey only those who are willing to give their highly personal data (including full names, passport number, telephone, address, etc, no eye that the JNE has asked to give the views of citizens or their intention to vote or electoral preference corresponding to each name, so the State nor the NJE not know who would vote for which candidate as some suggest or wrongly what the polls say and not contributing to clarify the confusion), which will make it a kind of citizens who are part of the universe sample, which will make such a sampling frame are not representative and therefore their results are not true. So that the polls are right in their claim in this part.
But beware, I also understand that currently the pollsters call their phones and personal data of respondents to then make a control, I have even heard SUPPORT and other pollsters say that after they check the polls that pollsters have been surveyed through phone calls to some of the respondents.
why I believe that both the JNE election as the polls should sit down and find ways so as to lift the suspicion that hangs over the extent of JN and on the polling. "The legitimate interests of both parties will allow this? I doubt it.
In any case, not poll results do not believe that endanger democracy, but the mere fact that the JNE amend its rules in the middle of an ongoing process that citizens do have a right to doubt of their intentions. This does not seem democratic and some have argued that changing the rules in the middle of electoral process is typical of authoritarian regimes like Hugo Chavez and not a respectable democracy. Especially when the October municipal earlier also modified its rules and put together a pandemonium in the polls (since required that all records have the signatures of all members of tables and then paid to have thousands of objections it would take more than two months to the end results that damaged the electoral process, but happily accepted the results Lourdes Flores). The background should count for something.
As we see there are arguments on both sides. It is here that public awareness must demonstrate and express their opinions. Some as Congressman Carlos Bruce ensure that no surveys are threatening democracy as these surveys ensure that the results are not changed in table. As decide to weaken public opinion have some reason maybe but not in substance. Then there are the polls which will guarantee the people's will but the minutes of voting (properly counted) that must be carefully monitored by the ombudsmen of all parties. And do not forget that electronic voting has to be implemented gradually so as not to be election after election that the "vote of the ombudsmen" that is not good for democracy. After all the surveys are not intended to contribute to democracy, but to "contribute" with efficient operation of enterprises and organizations involved in legitimate business or services. So we must not be more Catholic than the pope.
Who loses with this rule JNE? Toledo and could Humala. Toledo because a Scandal (And boy scandals come against him, are well known to Alan Garcia) can be now if perceived as a sign of weakness and decline in voter preference which was not before the polls because I put up with "always on top." And Humala also loses because he was on the rise and was likely to be forced to continue rallying the surveys provide survey results as close to reality as the Elections are approaching, so if you play with the margin of error against the nationalist leader and will not be able to do so. Humala seems to celebrate this and has called for the audit of the surveys.
Wins APRA Castañeda also wins, especially the latter since the polls began to hurt because of their voting intentions is the weakest of all sustained in part that was the favorite, but once it ceases to be a lot of their constituents are looking elsewhere as Toledo and PPK. Now without polls will be difficult for the public to observe the collapse of Castro and Castro government assistance could be sold as a favorite (Ignoring the fact that his fall is sung the national anthem). Hard to tell whether you win or lose Keiko. On one side loses, because the fall of Castro will not be noticeable to the public, but on the other side would win because the rise of Ollanta can not be perceived by people.
In any case, polls are a relatively recent reference in the history of elections. They do not have 30 years of real influence in the electoral process. It is true that many fair elections were held before and many consolidated democracies long, long before the appearance of force surveys as important electoral factor. Not since the end of the world. Greetings
0 comments:
Post a Comment