Push poll

More Dodgy Polling from the Conservatives

Last election Colin Craig reckoned that his polling showed him a long way ahead of National’s Mark Mitchell. Colin got hammered with Mark winning a majority of 12,222.

Colin’s dodgy polling was essentially push polling, and gave him terrible results.

Questions included both unprompted and prompted aspects, and sought to differentiate the responses regarding party voting intentions from candidate voting intentions.  Relevant questions  included the following, in order of being asked:

1. For your party vote, have you decided who you will be voting for in the election?

2. Which party do you currently intend to vote for?

3. Have you heard of the Conservative Party?

4. Have you heard of Colin Craig?

Participants were read a brief preamble to provide context: ‚ÄėColin Craig is the leader of the Conservative Party of New Zealand. In the Auckland mayoral election, Colin came third with over 40,000 votes‚Äô. Then asked‚Ķ

5. If Colin were to stand in as a candidate in your electorate, what would be the likelihood that you would vote for Colin to be your member of parliament (on a scale of 1 = definitely; 2 = likely; 3 = neutral; 4 = unlikely and 5 = very unlikely)?

Those who identified they were neutral or unlikely to vote for Craig were asked:

6 . Who do you intend to vote for?

There were additional questions relating specifically to how awareness was generated, as well as detailed policy questions. I’ve been advised these questions are relevant to the Conservative Party’s campaign strategy, and so details can’t be released.

To say the least I was gobsmacked with this response. Not only did it confirm the conflict of interest but it exposed the highly suspect methodology used by Research First in obtaining what they¬†euphemistically¬†describe as a ‚Äúresult‚ÄĚ.

This is nothing short of a rigged poll. They lead respondents down a garden path and even prompted them as to what the required response should have been with poor questions. The poll surely is statistically invalid, in point of fact it is complete rubbish.

Now Colin Craig‚Äôs dodgy internal polls are telling him that Garth McVicar is winning in¬†Napier.¬† Read more »

Will Colin Craig’s polling company adhere to these?

Farrar blogs about the NZ political polling guidelines.

A group of New Zealand’s leading political pollsters, in consultation with other interested parties, have developed draft NZ Political Polling Guidelines.

The purpose is to ensure that¬†AMRO¬†and¬†MRSNZ¬†members conducting political polls, and media organisations publishing poll results, adhere to the highest ‚ÄúNZ appropriate‚ÄĚ standards. The guidelines are draft and comments, questions and recommendations back to the working group are welcome.

This code seeks to document best practice guidelines for the conducting and reporting of political polls in New Zealand. It is proposed that the guidelines, once approved and accepted, will be binding on companies that are members of the Association of Market Research Organisations (AMRO) and on researchers that are members of the Market Research Society of New Zealand (MRSNZ).

The code only covers ‚Äúpolitical polls‚ÄĚ, which for the purpose of the code are polls that related to public votes such as national elections, local body elections and parliamentary referenda. This is in recognition of the fact that reporting of polls may have an impact on how people vote.¬† Read more »

How to rig a Horizon Poll

Little wonder they get the results they do, when the well know leftwing agitators are co-ordinating their answers

Note too that Horizon is push polling the secret taping issue.

Horizon polls have about as much credibility as dodgy polls from Research First.