Won push Debate in Brazil since the last Sunday (2) elections, involving inconsistencies between the numbers obtained by candidates at the ballot box and what research institutes have pointed out so far. Despite dominating the agenda of activists and political analysts as a novelty, it has only recently joined a long list of countries that have had a similar experience, notably Brazil, the Trump United States, and the Brexit United Kingdom.
Since at least 2016, a wealth of discussions and studies have emerged around the world trying to understand what has led experts to such uncertainty. Among the main hypotheses are usually:
1) lagged/out-of-date counts used as a reference to determine parameters describing the research universe and sample space;
2) the bias of the samples and their ability to represent relevant demographic cutoffs, including counterpoints between urban and rural areas, and variables that take into account identity aspects of the sample;
3) the way data collection is carried out, especially given the resistance of voters to express their vote before a pollster and the still significant difficulties of conducting surveys over the phone or the Internet;
4) the weight of the so-called “silent vote” or “embarrassed” and “helpful vote” or “last minute decision”;
5) level of abstention/predisposition towards mass participation of different voter profiles.
No answer is definitive and most likely the best explanation will be multifactorial. But beyond all this, there is a possibility that it is not simply a matter of reviewing the methodology applied by the surveys.
According to a key 2021 report by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), it is possible that the research error has to do with, among other things, the empowerment of anti-system leaderships that manipulate people to discredit research. , with this, affects your result. It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The report, the result of an in-depth study conducted by a task force dedicated to examining the performance of the 2020 pre-election polls (see here) in the United States, clearly states that the polls are “fake” and are aimed at suppressing votes. […] Trump’s statements could have turned poll participation into a political act that his strongest supporters chose not to respond to.”
Considering that mistakes occur in the sense of underestimating the weight of conservative votes in general, it is possible to say that the relevant groups did not participate in the ballot boxes deliberately. Additionally, the North America report raises the possibility that this voter may be insecure about the use of their data and thus resist contributing to the collection.
We know that the reality of each country is quite different and features often require a singular view. Even so, for the radical right, international parallels seem increasingly fundamental to thinking about.
Maybe right now Brazil doesn’t need another CPI to discuss its research institutes. Instead, you need more courses in statistics and especially sociology.
source: Noticias
