A commentor wonders;
Check out the poll at canoe.ca re: the US losing its moral high ground in Iraq. I have revisited to and seen the number of votes increase from around 4000 to 5000 and now over 6000 and the percentages have not changed (24%, 12%, 17%, 47%). The source code appears to me to be fixed, but my html knowledge is lacking for me say for sure.
Here's the link to the poll. I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but it's worth a test. For once, I'm going to ask that readers vote "no", only because the answer represents the lowest percentage and is most likely to be affected by an influx of votes.
(Also, a quick look-see at the page source by someone with better knowledge of coding would be useful.)
UPDATE - test over. It took quite some time, but we've managed to move the "no" vote from 12% to 13%, so unless it was manually changed, it looks as though the poll is functioning properly.
It is worth noting , that the poll questions have essentially provided two possible responses for those who would vote "no" to the specifics of the question - "does the guilty plea by a Marine diminish the US moral 'high ground' in Iraq'.
6331 total votes.
On looking at the source of the poll, those numbers seem to be fixed...
After
There are four paragraphs that are exact with one exception, the number that correlates to the percentage..
Here are the lines....
24% 12% 17% 47%I think that if it was publishing data from votes, those lines would be linked to the actual votes, rather than the fixed amount. They seemed to be linked to a percentage .gif that is fixed...
">
I could be wrong about this one... I'm no expert, but that with the fact that the percentages have not changed in 2000 votes... well, Kate, we've seen it before...
I took a screen capture at 6313 votes, and so far nothing has changed in the percentages.
6,358 - same %'s
6370 and still the same. Hmmmm something seems fishy to me. I'm no statistician (although I did take it in Univ) but the odds of those numbers staying the same throughout the entire range of voting would seem to indicate that Canoe is part of a VAST LEFT WING conspiracy to fool morons into thinking the way they are told to think.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't think it's possible to know whether it's rigged or not without getting the source for the file http://scripts.canoe.ca/sondage/repondre_sondage.cgi. This can't be done by simply visiting the link, they would have to willingly turn over the file (and of course we'd have to trust they didn't modify it first). From what's publicly visible, it doesn't seem rigged. I just checked the results, and with 6407 votes the percentages are 24%, 13%, 17%, 47%. If it is rigged, it's not rigged 100% of the time.
Although I'd like to know why the percentages add up to 101%...
Yes - 24% - 1538 votes
No - 13% - 833 votes
In war, atrocities are commonplace - 17% - 1089 votes
The U.S. never had the moral high ground - 47% - 3011 votes
Total - 101% - 6471 votes
Far cry from the 6407 they're claiming to have...
I just voted and also did the math. Total votes 6408- Watch the time of posters voting and giving the results. Should get an idea of votes/hr. As I am not a football fan, I will watch this during the game. Go BC, only because they are from the west.
What does it matter? These types of polls are scientifically useless, and should be considered at best a dubious type of entertainment, much like horoscopes. Kate, you've proved time and time again that they can be manipulated beyond recognition.
SDA gets results, the 47% changed to 46% as I watched, so it now adds up to 100. But, 47% of 6408=3011.76 votes.
Votes now 6430 and 46%=2957.80 That is 53.96 votes missing. Wonder if Democrats from Florida are running this poll.
"What does it matter?"
It matters because these media organizations also report on news. If they are to be trusted, their online polls have to be legitimately offered. It does not matter if they are "scientific" - nobody is making that claim. But they are claiming the poll to be functional and reflective of reader participation.
Whether I or anyone else directs someone to an online poll is not "manipulation", anymore than it does when radio talk hosts mentions their station's online polls.
I don't have control over the voting choices of my readers. But the people offering the poll do.
And we've caught the Saskatchewan government with a rigged online poll. So, yes, it matters.
People, please...
Notice that the poll percentages are 13% or 47%. Not 13.00341% or 47.99883%. For the sake of aesthetics the percentages are rounded. That is why there are discrepancies trying to calculate the number of votes from the percentages shown, and why the values might add up to 101, 100, or 99%.
But it is interesting to see a member of the "New Media" advocating cheating because they don't like the results.
A little problem with reading comprehension there, eh "Blah"?
The "manipulation" in this case involves combining mention of a terrible crime with a larger issue into one brief question. Those polled tend to be psychologically influenced in the short term and will think in terms of the context of the mention of the crime when answering the broader question.
Anyone who can't see that is probably a leftist anyway.
It's a classic example of leftist/MSM extrapolation from the isolated to the entire.
And I'd recommend watching how the CTV/Globe and Mail "report" on the fed. gov't, the Conservatives and PM Harper these days. I lately detect increasing editorial spin overshadowing the facts, not that there are many facts reported compared to speculation and opinion of the MSM and the occassional so-called "expert" brought on to tell folks what to think about any "facts".
Just watch for the "facts" and the "spin" and notice the difference: little factual stuff and a lot of opinion/MSM criticism of Harper and his gov't. You can see the MSM bias that way.
Online polls are notoriously rigged as the younger more tech savvy erase or block cookies from the site, then, vote over and over again. I've seen polls change dramatically too often when the desired outcome on a liberal site isn't happening.
Also keep in mind that at liberal MSM sites their polls aren't a cross-section of opinion just by virtue of the fact that their liberal audience is their staple audience.
So who can ever trust anything we hear from the immoral left-wing news media?
Has anyone considered a poll to determine whether the rate of rape/murder for soldiers at war is any higher than the rate in any major city full of civilians?
Canadian Sentinel's right on the mark here:
"I lately detect increasing editorial spin overshadowing the facts, not that there are many facts reported compared to speculation and opinion of the MSM and the occassional so-called 'expert' brought on to tell folks what to think about any 'facts'.
"Just watch for the 'facts' and the 'spin' and notice the difference: little factual stuff and a lot of opinion/MSM criticism of Harper and his gov't. You can see the MSM bias that way.
Here's some recent correspondence from me to the CBC about just this problem: 1-3, from me; 4, CBC's interim response. In 25 years of complaints, I've been "wrong", in the CBC's opinion, exactly 100% of the time. (What are the odds?) I register my opinion for the record: fairness or integrity from the CBC? I never count on that.
My recent opinions, sent to the CBC Ombusman:
1) Me again about the blatantly one-sided reporting on the 6:00 a.m. news on Monday (November 13) and today, re Kyoto and greenhouse gas emissions. It's very clear that this is a CBC set-up to make the Americans and the Conservatives look remiss.
(What else is new? When describing Al-Jazeera today as anti-American, with a definite slant to its news, your reporter might have said, as a
good illustration, "Just like the CBC news you're listening to right now.")
Your Kyoto and greenhouse gas emissions "reports" are totally one sided and full of omissions: not credible either. E.g., There are very good
reasons why Australia and the US have not signed the one-sided Kyoto accord, which has different standards for different countries. Explain
that. Most signatories have NOT met their targets, including Canada. Explain that. Although the US is not a signatory, it has a much better record than Canada re its emissions. Explain that. Although it was the LIBERALS who signed the accord and then proceeded to NOT honour the obligations they agreed to, the CBC regularly casts aspersions on the Conservatives, who are dealing with the reality of the mess left to them by the Liberals. Explain that. Koffi Annan, of the Oil for Food scandal, among other nefarious undertakings, is hardly a credible witness to point fingers at the US and Canada. Explain that.
Your blatantly one-sided "reporting" is a disgrace. If you were in my class and handed in such a project you'd get a D. Misleading the public by failing to tell the whole story--surely someone in your news department has an inkling of the points I've raised above--and delivering the propaganda version of this story the CBC prefers, in order to make the US and Conservatives look bad, is a serious failing. I know someone at the CBC will assure me that what CBC has done here is
well within the "professional" guidelines the CBC's set for itself. How self-serving. How unprofessional. How unhelpful to the Canadian public.
I await Ms Anido's [CBC functionary] response with anticipation.
2) Your 6:00 P.M. news "report" about Rona Ambrose discussing greenhouse gas omissions [sic: see below!] at the UN was as propagandistic as what I heard 12 hours earlier.
The focus of the 6:00 p.m. news (sic) item was, quite clearly, not to give any hard data on the reality of greenhouse gas emissions and Canada's
(abysmal, thanks to the Liberals) record, but to level criticism at the Conservatives: listening to the anti-Conservative ramblings of John Godfrey
and the Greenpeace fellow provided the listener with no information whatsoever about Canada's greenhouse gas emission record so far, which is,
of course, largely the record of Liberal incompetency. But, after listening to the CBC's Conservative hatchet job, who would know anything about either of the former?
CBC's hypocrisy takes my breath away. CBC cares not a fig about greenhouse gas emissions or CBC would have been after the Liberals for the previous 13 years when their record was incompetent, at best. This story is now
important to the CBC, merely as a vehicle to diss the Conservatives, which can only be accomplished by ignoring facts altogether.
It's difficult for Canadians to make up their minds about political culpability if they don't have the facts. In your response to me, please
provide the specific facts about Canada's Kyoto obligations and Canada's compliance record that were presented in CBC's coverage of this story.
(Please use your transcript of these items, which you have and I don't, in order to respond to this request of mine very specifically.)
Then, if there were no specific facts about greenhouse gases presented, just what, in CBC's opinion, is the point of the story?
(What will happen now is that CBC's spin doctors will spend lots of time making pretzels both of the CBC's clear intent--though veiled [it's called
inference]--and my remarks. As a teacher of English, I find it painful to see intelligent people deliberately eschew the clear sense of language. George Orwell wrote, "Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful . . . and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." I think this would be a good motto for the CBC.)
I await the CBC's evisceration of my clear language. What sausage will be produced next?
3) In paragraph one, please amend the word "omissions"--though it's a very
accurate word for the Liberal record. Please substitute the word "emissions"
in its stead.
4) CBC Responds (for now): "I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, which I have shared with Jane Anido, Director of CBC Radio News Programming, along with the request that your concerns be addressed.
Yours truly,
Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman"
The results from the poll are depressing whether or not they are cooked (if cooked, the fact that the "chefs" are holding down paying jobs in the "news" media is unhappy). To state the obvious, obvious to most readers of SDA I hope: crimes (thefts, rape, murder) occur; the question is, do the governing authorities *encourage* crime (as in Darfur), do they *ignore* crime (as so often happens in Canada), are they impotent to prevent crime (as often in Iraq), or do they seek out evidence for criminal activity and bring the malefactors to justice (as with the US military)? The first and second are themselves criminal, the third are to be pitied. Only the fourth (those that actively prosecute crime) are governments or governing bodies which are acting morally.
So much for the Ontario government and the OPP in regard to Caledonia ....
IMO the poll is skewed by the choices provided.
Don't forget to vote in CNews other poll in section under WORDS.
Clear cut question: Which party would you vote for today?
Little more than couple of hundred have weighed in -- at present 56 percent would vote Conservative.
Well Kate, maybe you should host a poll here. I'm sure it will be a very fair and accurate sampling of the political bias of your average Canadian.
Also of note re:media bias.I have noted that the G&M on-line edition,tends to keep it's comments section open much longer,when the idiotic,vitriolic remarks are pointed to PMSH,BUT..when the majority tend to favor something he has done/said,lo and behold..comments CLOSED! Hmmm,what up with that? I cannot believe the garbage on todays article re PMSH/China comments.The venom knows no bounds,when they can't make a constructive criticism,they revert to mocking his appearance in the Vietnamese robe.Unbelievable!
Taliban jack must be disappointed, only getting 8% of the vote. Conservatives still at 56%, and libs at 30%. What was that poll a bit ago re how well the liberals were doing without a leader, and how with Rae they would win it all. I even heard the cbc say libs and conservatives were in a dead heat. Who will win in Dec, who will be the big loser.
Polls at this stage are for entertainment only, much like your daily horoscope and about as reliable.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson111706.html
Nice article about Iraq by VDH.
Crisply lays out the narcissism that insulates most North Americans from the realities of the battle currently going on.
Leaving Iraq now would be a grave error, but as VDH suggests maybe a second look at the Rules of Engagement would make the battle to take on some estimated 12,000 insurgents/ideologues sensible.
The other problem that VDH doesn't touch on, is the porosity of the borders in Iraq; enabling the insurgency to be resupplied. Sealing off the supply lines will simply starve the insurgency of their war materials; that would necessitate a greater troop presence for the short term (1-2 years).
Further, given further instability being sounded out in Iran, over the completion of the nuclear fuel cycle maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea for geopolitical stability in the region. Moreover, this kind of political statement would be a shot across the 'cut and run' crowd that the US doesn't have geopolitical staying power. It would powerfully undercut the notions established in Somalia, etc. that leaving the place to be run amok is not standard US policy. IE the deeds match the words.
another usual leftist twist headline from CBCpravda:
Saddam trial, death sentence 'unfair,' rights group says
Poll or no poll, the outlook is getting worse in Iraq. Henry Kissinger said in a BBC interview that military victory is no longer possible.
"If they are to be trusted, their online polls have to be legitimately offered."
That is simply not possible. These types of polls are meaningless, regardless of how much reporting of them occurs.
Your energy would be better spent debunking them in their entirety rather than tilting at windmills in some futile attempt to make them "legitimate" or "trusted".