tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post3720755610373085480..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Dear SUZANNE: A few simple questions.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-17882610421532997092008-07-27T22:41:00.000-04:002008-07-27T22:41:00.000-04:00OKay CC, your petulance has paid off. I understan...OKay CC, your petulance has paid off. I understand it. Finally. <BR/><BR/>157,000, weighted for density and all that, got the robocall.<BR/><BR/>144,000 hung up in disgust when they figured out what the call was about. <BR/><BR/>Functionally, the 144,000 voted against the push.<BR/><BR/>If 55% of the 13,000 who did not hang up in disgust voted against giving the doctor the Order of Canada, that 's 7,150 voting against giving him the Order of Canada, and 5850 + 144,000 either supporting giving him the award or not objecting to giving him the award. Which gives us a total of 149,840 to 7,150, or 4.5% against giving the doctor the Order of Canada and 95.5% who either support or do not object to giving the doctor the Order of Canada.<BR/><BR/>If — I can't remember which one it was with the poll and you have scolded me in the past for getting the all-caps one confused with one of the others with nearly the same name — she was capable of understanding what they did, you could accuse her of making an intentionally false statement. But, that does not appear to be in the cards with this one. So she's not a lier; she's just stupid, and I was too for getting down on you for making such a big deal about a poll no one cares about.The Seerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09115651806512267553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-82409778118132091992008-07-27T22:16:00.000-04:002008-07-27T22:16:00.000-04:00Ah well, there's lots of worse things about the po...<I>Ah well, there's lots of worse things about the poll and ol' what's her name than a strange bit of phrasing.</I><BR/><BR/>You betcha.Dr.Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416571487451925246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-65246793356330745612008-07-27T22:13:00.000-04:002008-07-27T22:13:00.000-04:00Oh, I realize that, but that's not what "geographi...Oh, I realize that, but that's not what "geographic density" means, or at least it's an awkward/unusual way to phrase it. They want to make sure population distribution is represented, not geographic density. I see from a few google searches the phrasing isn't unheard of, but it's far, far less used that "population distribution" when attempting the same procedure. <BR/><BR/>Ah well, there's lots of worse things about the poll and ol' what's her name than a strange bit of phrasing.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751451454904827924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-15410873982515580902008-07-27T21:36:00.000-04:002008-07-27T21:36:00.000-04:00Maybe not entirely. A real poll will stratify the ...Maybe not entirely. A real poll will stratify the sample, and if you want national results, you'll want to ensure that the sub-samples are weighted so that, for example, the Western provinces don't end up over- or under-represented in the sample. Same for city and country, gender, age, education and other variables.Dr.Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416571487451925246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-13340540528885472632008-07-27T20:12:00.000-04:002008-07-27T20:12:00.000-04:00Is it piling on to point out that "weighted for ge...Is it piling on to point out that "weighted for geographic density" is pretty much nonsense in this context, unless you want to equally represent all areas (as in, the actual landmass) in the country, rather than people. Geographic density is something you worry about when trying to place essential services or make sure a business franchise isn't over-represented in an area. But for people, it's just jargon talk by an uninformed amateur. <BR/><BR/>You weight people based on population, not geography.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751451454904827924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-26852613381233457872008-07-27T18:09:00.000-04:002008-07-27T18:09:00.000-04:00I dunno. I'm a little sick of hearing about this "...I dunno. I'm a little sick of hearing about this "massive" poll, and seeing the number 157,000 splashed around -- it's completely irrelevant to the poll's "results", and interesting only in showing how hilariously useless the poll was.<BR/><BR/>So, I'll grant you that she didn't specifically say 55% of 157,000 people said "no". But I maintain that the way this poll is described, especially by SUZANNE, is willfully deceptive.<BR/><BR/>Or she's so completely stupid that normal ways of measuring stupidity can't even be applied.M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-46083629430367797862008-07-27T17:14:00.000-04:002008-07-27T17:14:00.000-04:00Careful, M@ -- I think it's reasonably clear that ...Careful, M@ -- I think it's reasonably clear that SUZANNE is referring to the actual "respndents" [<I>sic</I>], not to everyone who was phoned.<BR/><BR/>So I'm going to cut her some slack on that one.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-12234607498740573092008-07-27T17:08:00.000-04:002008-07-27T17:08:00.000-04:00Over 55% responded "no".This is completely untrue....<I>Over 55% responded "no".</I><BR/><BR/>This is completely untrue. If their claims are to be believed (and I'm not granting that), 90% didn't respond at all; about 5% each responded "yes" and "no".<BR/><BR/>Lies, lies, lies.M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-39917160849937018012008-07-27T16:59:00.000-04:002008-07-27T16:59:00.000-04:00Fuck, I give up.And she claims she worked for a po...Fuck, I give up.<BR/><BR/>And she claims she worked for a polling firm once? What, as the janitor?Dr.Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416571487451925246noreply@blogger.com