[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
you can make it. This is most easily done by trying to keep out the personal element in the selections. For
example - you want 100 names from 200 precincts: Take the bottom name, of your party, from the
second column of each-even numbered precinct list. Or make up any other rule which makes the
selection mechanical, with no choice on the part of the operator, and which
spreads the sample evenly through the district, according to population, not area.
Generated by ABC Amber LIT Converter, http://www.processtext.com/abclit.html
Never take the sample all from one precinct or one area. If you are polling by telephone you will find
that some of your choices do not have telephones. Do not substitute the next name having a telephone
listing; the voters without telephones must be polled at their homes - otherwise you will introduce an
economic factor which will falsify your answer.
Polling by telephone is best done in the evenings, in order to find both men and women at home. Do not
accept the response of a spouse in place of the voter named by the random choice; it will change your
results... there is a definite tendency for women to vote more conservatively, and in other ways
differently, than do men.
Do not let the polling question suggest the answer desired. For example, here is a suitable phraseology
for a telephone poll: "Good evening, is this Mrs. Mabel Smith? Mrs. Smith, this is the civic affairs
research bureau speaking. Have you formed an opinion about the congressional candidates who will
appear on your primary ballot a week from next Tuesday?"
It should be possible for one worker to prepare a list for a telephone poll in one evening and get fifty
responsive answers in not more than three evenings. A reply-postal card poll should take about the same
length of time to prepare and is about as accurate, but it takes longer to get the results and 250 should be
the minimum sent out. It may be cheaper than telephoning in districts involving long-distance tolls. (These
reply-type postal cards, at two cents apiece, are invaluable in penny-pinching political work.)
Don't attempt to make a straw-vote canvas door-to-door. Don't try it on the street. The names mud be
pre-selected by some non-personal method. Mathematical Basis f or the Rule-of-Eight: (Skip this, if
TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT!
Robert A. Heinlem
195
194
you like.) In any statistical sampling the larger the sample, the smaller the errors in the result, except for
systematic errors - errors which are inherent in the thing being sampled. In the opinion of this writer, the
systematic errors in any poll of political opinion conducted without expert actuarial help are so large that
it is not worth while to use a sample larger than 100. On the other hand the "probable errors" - errors
which depend on the laws of chance - are so large for samples less than 50 that trends will be masked by
the inescapable "probable errors." For efficient use of time and money the smallest sample which will spot
a trend is desired. For that reason, and because percentages may be obtained from a 50-sample simply
by doubling (percentage problems are troublesome to some), a sample of 50 has been recommended.
Bessel's formula for probable error has been used in computing the rule-of-eight, assuming independent
events of equal probability and assuming a "universe" of very large but limited numbers. The assumption
of equal probability may be attacked; the pragmatic justification lies in the fact that probable errors are
largest in a 50-50 division and the political situation is most critical in such a situation - a landslide either
way will show in a sample of 50 without resort to probable error. The rule-of-eight is neither the
"probable error"of the engineer, nor the three-standard-deviations-equals-standard-certainty of the
professional statistician; the first was rejected as too esoteric in meaning for the layman, the second was
Generated by ABC Amber LIT Converter, http://www.processtext.com/abclit.html
rejected because trend-spotting with it requires samples too large for the volunteer political campaign. A
selected error of 8% was chosen to produce a conservative probability of about four-to-one, which was
considered accurate enough for the purpose and much more reliable than most data we plan our lives by
- in choosing a wife, for example!
If greater accuracy can be afforded, use a sample of 100 and a rule-of-five. Or the mathematical reader
may perform his own analysis, following Peters or Bessel or others; I can't recommend direct analysis
using the binomial expansion without pre-computa-tion, even using Pascal's triangle - the figures are
incredibly astronomical!
Sampling by "Smell": In addition to poll-taking and making predictions, try this-in time you will acquire
skill in it: Prowl through your district Buy a Coke and chat with your druggist. Buy two gallons of
gas-chin with the man at the pumps. Ask strangers for matches, then gossip. Get a haircut. Make a
purchase in an uncrowded grocery. Ask passing strangers for information-then talk.
When you have done this you will combine it subconsciously with the doorbell punching you have done
(which, for the manager, should be scattered through the district) and you will end up with a curious
feeling way down inside. Drag it up and into the light, take a look at it, and see whether or not it tells you
that your man is going to win.
The human mind, when trained, is capable of more rapid, more flexible, and more reliable evaluations of
problems containing unlimited unknowns than any of the mechanisms as yet invented. In time you will [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl szamanka888.keep.pl
you can make it. This is most easily done by trying to keep out the personal element in the selections. For
example - you want 100 names from 200 precincts: Take the bottom name, of your party, from the
second column of each-even numbered precinct list. Or make up any other rule which makes the
selection mechanical, with no choice on the part of the operator, and which
spreads the sample evenly through the district, according to population, not area.
Generated by ABC Amber LIT Converter, http://www.processtext.com/abclit.html
Never take the sample all from one precinct or one area. If you are polling by telephone you will find
that some of your choices do not have telephones. Do not substitute the next name having a telephone
listing; the voters without telephones must be polled at their homes - otherwise you will introduce an
economic factor which will falsify your answer.
Polling by telephone is best done in the evenings, in order to find both men and women at home. Do not
accept the response of a spouse in place of the voter named by the random choice; it will change your
results... there is a definite tendency for women to vote more conservatively, and in other ways
differently, than do men.
Do not let the polling question suggest the answer desired. For example, here is a suitable phraseology
for a telephone poll: "Good evening, is this Mrs. Mabel Smith? Mrs. Smith, this is the civic affairs
research bureau speaking. Have you formed an opinion about the congressional candidates who will
appear on your primary ballot a week from next Tuesday?"
It should be possible for one worker to prepare a list for a telephone poll in one evening and get fifty
responsive answers in not more than three evenings. A reply-postal card poll should take about the same
length of time to prepare and is about as accurate, but it takes longer to get the results and 250 should be
the minimum sent out. It may be cheaper than telephoning in districts involving long-distance tolls. (These
reply-type postal cards, at two cents apiece, are invaluable in penny-pinching political work.)
Don't attempt to make a straw-vote canvas door-to-door. Don't try it on the street. The names mud be
pre-selected by some non-personal method. Mathematical Basis f or the Rule-of-Eight: (Skip this, if
TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT!
Robert A. Heinlem
195
194
you like.) In any statistical sampling the larger the sample, the smaller the errors in the result, except for
systematic errors - errors which are inherent in the thing being sampled. In the opinion of this writer, the
systematic errors in any poll of political opinion conducted without expert actuarial help are so large that
it is not worth while to use a sample larger than 100. On the other hand the "probable errors" - errors
which depend on the laws of chance - are so large for samples less than 50 that trends will be masked by
the inescapable "probable errors." For efficient use of time and money the smallest sample which will spot
a trend is desired. For that reason, and because percentages may be obtained from a 50-sample simply
by doubling (percentage problems are troublesome to some), a sample of 50 has been recommended.
Bessel's formula for probable error has been used in computing the rule-of-eight, assuming independent
events of equal probability and assuming a "universe" of very large but limited numbers. The assumption
of equal probability may be attacked; the pragmatic justification lies in the fact that probable errors are
largest in a 50-50 division and the political situation is most critical in such a situation - a landslide either
way will show in a sample of 50 without resort to probable error. The rule-of-eight is neither the
"probable error"of the engineer, nor the three-standard-deviations-equals-standard-certainty of the
professional statistician; the first was rejected as too esoteric in meaning for the layman, the second was
Generated by ABC Amber LIT Converter, http://www.processtext.com/abclit.html
rejected because trend-spotting with it requires samples too large for the volunteer political campaign. A
selected error of 8% was chosen to produce a conservative probability of about four-to-one, which was
considered accurate enough for the purpose and much more reliable than most data we plan our lives by
- in choosing a wife, for example!
If greater accuracy can be afforded, use a sample of 100 and a rule-of-five. Or the mathematical reader
may perform his own analysis, following Peters or Bessel or others; I can't recommend direct analysis
using the binomial expansion without pre-computa-tion, even using Pascal's triangle - the figures are
incredibly astronomical!
Sampling by "Smell": In addition to poll-taking and making predictions, try this-in time you will acquire
skill in it: Prowl through your district Buy a Coke and chat with your druggist. Buy two gallons of
gas-chin with the man at the pumps. Ask strangers for matches, then gossip. Get a haircut. Make a
purchase in an uncrowded grocery. Ask passing strangers for information-then talk.
When you have done this you will combine it subconsciously with the doorbell punching you have done
(which, for the manager, should be scattered through the district) and you will end up with a curious
feeling way down inside. Drag it up and into the light, take a look at it, and see whether or not it tells you
that your man is going to win.
The human mind, when trained, is capable of more rapid, more flexible, and more reliable evaluations of
problems containing unlimited unknowns than any of the mechanisms as yet invented. In time you will [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]