Wasn't it the prospective polls that were wrong in '92 rather than the exit polls?
From this page: On the actual day of the election, exit polls carried out by the BBC and ITN both showed there would be a hung parliament, although both of them had the Conservatives slightly ahead. They were both not far from the actual Conservative 43%, and Labour 35%, and if they had predicted using a uniform swing assumption, they would have been very close to the real result. But they adjusted the figures as they were suspicious of the results being so far out of line with the mornings polls.
Mandelson's been known to talk about a 'get your champagne out' call from the late great Vincent Hannah on election night 1992, based on the latter's knowledge of the exit polling.
In any case, you're contradicting yourself. By saying that not even the exit polls provide a guide for what vote we might have expected, you're saying that there's no possible way of catching Diebold at it if they did the thing that you said would be "spectacularly stupid" for them to do.
Mandelson's been known to talk about a 'get your champagne out' call from the late great Vincent Hannah on election night 1992, based on the latter's knowledge of the exit polling.
Yes, presumably based on the polls tweaked to match the prospective ones, if that essay's correct.
The site's an essay bank, isn't it?
Yes, but it matches what I remember. This article (google cache) states that the error in the BBC '92 exit poll was 2%, which is well within the stated margin of error. The problem wasn't the raw result.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 06:53 am (UTC)From this page:
On the actual day of the election, exit polls carried out by the BBC and ITN both showed there would be a hung parliament, although both of them had the Conservatives slightly ahead. They were both not far from the actual Conservative 43%, and Labour 35%, and if they had predicted using a uniform swing assumption, they would have been very close to the real result. But they adjusted the figures as they were suspicious of the results being so far out of line with the mornings polls.
Funny site that's from, though.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 07:14 am (UTC)The site's an essay bank, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 07:21 am (UTC)In any case, you're contradicting yourself. By saying that not even the exit polls provide a guide for what vote we might have expected, you're saying that there's no possible way of catching Diebold at it if they did the thing that you said would be "spectacularly stupid" for them to do.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 07:22 am (UTC)Yes, presumably based on the polls tweaked to match the prospective ones, if that essay's correct.
The site's an essay bank, isn't it?
Yes, but it matches what I remember. This article (google cache) states that the error in the BBC '92 exit poll was 2%, which is well within the stated margin of error. The problem wasn't the raw result.