Obviously the survey is skewed in a number of ways (no way of ascertaining if people are truthful about their location, multiple votes, varying sample sizes, pool limited to english-speaking internet users etc). But I still find the results very interesting, especially in those countries where a large number of votes have been recorded.
(And interesting for the smaller countries - a whole 32 people from Pitcairn Island voted. I didn't know that many people on Pitcairn had internet access...)
Given that Europe tends to be less big C Conservative than the USA (or at least that is my impression), the Belgium and other European country results make sense in my mind though.
Hmmm... What's the bet the real election won't be on a 88-12% split? Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Anyone who knows what is up with Niger? Is there any particular reason for why George Bush would be so popular there?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Keep in mind that the website may not actually give an accurate read-- since it does not verify your country through any means other than the honor system.
quote: What happened to the votes from Niger? It appears somebody set up a distributed human or robot voting group to cast votes purporting to be from Niger.
More than 5000 votes had been cast by the time we noticed this.
Those votes have been disqualified and the IP addresses of the voters banned for the moment.
A close look at the data and the server logs showed that this concerted effort, be it human or robot in nature, did not originate in Niger.
We are considering a new authentication method that would require you to enter an e-mail address and answer an automated e-mail to "activate" your vote.
If you have a strong opinion on that subject, please let us know so we can make the best decision.
We are also considering other anti-vote-spamming measures, but in answer to the obvious question: we do not want to limit votes to one per IP address, as that would lock out internet cafes and with them a large portion of the online world.
The disqualified votes are still in the database, so if you think we are doing the wrong thing by considering these ballots "spoiled" please tell us why and we will consider your argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Check out the numbers in the United States - clearly this poll is overstating Kerrey support there.
Now realize how utterly meaningless this little exercise is.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Actually, it's normal on internet polls in America for there to be a liberal bias.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree, unless we're talking O'Reilley's internet polls.
But this pretty much means this poll is worse than useless. We have no way of deriving any truth about the world from these numbers.
Dagonee
[ October 20, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: pool limited to english-speaking internet users
That one alone pretty guarantees that the results are useless.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
True. Dubya can't speak English either. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Edit returning the original that Farmgirl is scolding me for: True. None of Dubya's US supporters can comprehend English.
[ October 20, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
that wasn't nice, aspectre
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Well, most of Kerry's supports speak Arabic. Kafir is their favorite word, along with "kill"
(I'm soooo bad.)
[ October 20, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, Farmgirl, I realised that and edited twice before I saw your scolding. But ya got to my post too fast, before my second edit. Punched out my initial response way too fast to grab the space immediately following mr_porteiro_head's irresistable straight line.
[ October 20, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Chad, Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Note the "obviously this poll is skewed" disclaimer as above
I still find the site interesting. Not necessarily strictly accurate, but interesting.
***
Note: We just had our elections. The polls had it as a 50-50. The actual result was a huge gain for the incumbant government.
I know that the US election is also being polled as close. I found it very interesting that the results were so pro-Kerry and anti-Bush, however I would not be willing to state that that result was not indicative of how the rest of world would vote (if given the chance )
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
But what about the 1Billion Chinese and 1Billion Muslim vote? There's definately a weight there as well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, the betting parlors are favoring Bush 58to42 over Kerry. That means a $42payoff on a $58bet on a Bush win by any margin, and a $58payoff on a $42bet on a Kerry win by any margin; and not the expectable vote percentages.
[ October 20, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Betting on the president....Only in America!
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Chad,
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah. Mostly offshore betting, with Irish and UK sportsbooks especially heavy into the action. Plenty of nonUS bettors playing. Bets can also be placed on an individual state's Presidential votes, results of Senate elections, etc.
Could be wrong but excepting an academia-based futures market, I think betting on the outcome of an election is illegal in the US. ie Legal US gambling establishments can't accept bets on elections.
[ October 20, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
did anyone notice that you can vote more than once per computer?
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)