ah, i love the press

[somedaybitch]

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than three-quarters of Canadians said they didn't think the United States should try to promote the creation of democratic governments in other countries, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

they polled 1000 Canadians. how does that equate to "more than three-quarters of Canadians"? not "Canadians polled", mind you, because that could, you know, give you some actual perspective and context. fucknuts.

Comments

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

they polled 1000 Canadians. how does that equate to "more than three-quarters of Canadians"? not "Canadians polled", mind you, because that could, you know, give you some actual perspective and context. fucknuts.

Lies, damned lies and statistics, eh?

I wonder what the question they actually polled on was: there's strong feeling (as you know ;]) here about the US's decision to invade Iraq without UN/NATO sanction and President Bush's "you either with us or against us" first administration rhetoric--given those choices, Canadians, being contrary and somewhat passive-aggressive folks will almost always answer "have a nice trip, eh?". However, I'm surprised that the question as phrased by the AP--"they didn't think the United States should try to promote the creation of democratic governments in other countries"--would poll that high.

Canadian polls still show a solid minority (about 20 per cent) that think Canada should have sent troops to Iraq--not including the undecided and no opinion groups--so a result of 75 per cent who think that the US shouldn't "promote" (and that's a tricky word right there) democracy in other countries seems a bit inflated to me.

Where'd they poll? Wellesley and Church (Toronto's Gay Village)? Victoria (home to many super-annuated hippies)? The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (that's a real group, BTW)?

The other problem is the word "promote"? Was that the actual word used in the poll, is what I'd want to know. I believe that a majority of Canadians would be in favour of the US "promoting" democratic governments in other countries. For that matter, the Canadian government spends a great deal of time and money on projects that promote the development of functioning democracies in other countries.

Even if the majority of Canadians polled assumed that "promoting the creation of democratic governments" was a euphemism for invading totalitarian/religio-faschist regimes and deposing the governing officials, I'd still be surprised that find 75 per cent of Canadians polled would outright condemn that action (sometimes, you gotta round up the posse, eh?). It makes me wonder if they actually polled across the country--factor in Albertans, rural Ontarians etc. and the percentage opposed would go down.

If the question really was phrased "do you think the US should try and promote the creation of democratic governments in other countries," I'd imagine most responses were phrased something along the lines of "I'm all for promoting the creation of democratic governments--it's all that invading other countries that I don't like, eh?" which they decided to mark in the "no" column rather than the "undecided."

All of which is a long way of saying ITA.

Pardon the verbosity--too long in politics and now I'm obsessed with pollster bias.

[eve11]

Yeah, the statistics and sample size are the easy thing in polls. Actually, if you have 1000 randomly sampled individuals from the population (all canadians), then it's a good sample size giving a margin of error of about 3%. But the bias and question writing are a lot harder to do correctly. People always seem to report the sample size and results, and then not the question asked, sampling frame (Canadians with telephones? Canadians at home at 7:30pm on a Tuesday?), non-response, etc. I am wary of this.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

I couldn't find the poll mentioned on the Toronto Star or CBC websites, so either we'll hear about it tomorrow, or it was commissioned by a group of Americans out to demonstrate that Canadians are evil pacifist buggers out to thwart US foreign policy (how we'd do that would be an interesting question...). The question would be to what end? I figured that Americans already figured (when they thought about Canada at all) that we were a bunch of gay-loving, pot-smoking, pacifist commies, although whether or not that was a good or bad thing depended on your point of view. (I'm joking btw. Well, I'm mostly joking.) 8D

[spiderbaggins.livejournal.com]

...that we were a bunch of gay-loving, pot-smoking, pacifist commies, although whether or not that was a good or bad thing depended on your point of view. (I'm joking btw. Well, I'm mostly joking.)
You forgot Hockey Playing. ;) Eh?

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

You forgot Hockey Playing. ;) Eh?

My bad, the lockout has me all confused. How about "curling-watching," eh? 8]

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

and question....why does there seem to be a perception that "gay-loving" is a) bad, and b) anti-democratic somehow? it rather begs for the freedom does it not?

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

being contrary and somewhat passive-aggressive folks will almost always answer "have a nice trip, eh?".

ROTFLMAO

yes, and I love Canadians in general for this attitude, because heh, I think we need that ;)

I have long hated that tendency to extrapolate something and then call it 'the same as'. I think it may be the human failure to grasp large numbers that causes that acceptance of same. It's what got me all tied up about nielsens. Sadly though I doubt if most people know about or care how the sample were done, so the sample takers feel free to just tell us what to think. OI wtfEVER, people don't respond to news at all unless it is in some way controversial.

"10% of all light bulb changers actually think darkness should be the new standard"

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

I wonder what the question they actually polled on was: there's strong feeling (as you know ;]) here about the US's decision to invade Iraq without UN/NATO sanction and President Bush's "you either with us or against us" first administration rhetoric-

made all the more interesting because we a) had the sanction in the UN Resolution 1441 that every member voted agreement for, and b) didn't need actually need said sanction because Hussein violated the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War, that was also a signed UN Resolution.

If the question really was phrased "do you think the US should try and promote the creation of democratic governments in other countries," I'd imagine most responses were phrased something along the lines of "I'm all for promoting the creation of democratic governments--it's all that invading other countries that I don't like, eh?" which they decided to mark in the "no" column rather than the "undecided."


i find myself utterly amazed that anyone would answer no to that question. how can anyone be against promoting the creation of democratic governments in other countries? find me a democratic nation that has gone to war with another democratic nation. find me a democratic nation where women are executed for going to school. i'm at a loss here.

but yes, i agree totally with both eve and cranky that it's not the poll so much as the questioning of the poll and the process of how it was conducted that are always at issue. and then you, like AFD said, give that poll to the press who totally fails to try and explain how they work or in any other way educate the reader to the inherent nature of polling because they are only interested in promoting a poll that suits their particular bias.

coughshorseshitcoughs