Wednesday, 8 October 2008

Epsom push-polling

We were phoned last evening by an automated push-poll.  The meat-and-potatoes questions were:

Which party will you be voting for?  Press:
    1 for Act
    2 for National
    3 for Other
    4 for Don't Know

Which candidate will you be voting for? Press:
    1 for Rodney Hide
    2 for Kate Sutton
    3 for Richard Worth
    4 for Other
    5 for Don't Know

So which party do you imagine was pushing this poll?  Not hard to figure out, eh.

Keep in mind the methodology when you see that party push the results upon us as if this were a proper poll ... just as they did last election.


  1. It is amusing to think ACT have so few members or organisation they cannot rustle up:

    1. Sufficient humans to telephone

    2. Sufficient humans to knock on doors

    3. Sufficient humans to be even remotely visible in the Epsom electorate.

    Rather reassuring to think the Libertarianz in Epsom could rustle up 30 'warm bodies' if required; whereas ACT rely on telemarketing machines! ha ha!

  2. Geez you fucking ex-lefties really are as pathethic as Labour scum or any other unionists.

    This is not a push poll. It's an automated poll, that's all.

    Why pay slimy smelly students or bludgers to poll when a computer can do it faster and better?

    Your objections to these polls are simply lefty luddism: and very graphically illustrate why NZ's productivity is half of Australia's

  3. I count at least one error per sentence, quite apart from a complete failure to grasp the major point.

    No wonder you post anonymously.

  4. What were the questions that made this a push poll?

    Having been in the ACT offices, I can assure you that they do have live humans (in cages, being fed fish heads and gruel) working 18 hours a day on less than minimum wage making phone calls.

  5. Err, that is NOT a push poll. It is a poll. There is a massive difference.

    A push poll would be "would it change your vote if you learnt the Labour candidate has been accused of pedofilia?"

  6. Other commenters are correct. It's not a push poll. A push poll prefaces its questions with information likely to influence the response. e.g. "It's been claimed that Richard Worth has sex with lifestock. In the Epsom electorate, which candidate will you be voting for?"

    Simply limiting the range of responses to those likely to win/score highest is not push polling.

  7. Not push polling? Who are you kidding?

    Only two party voting options?

    Kate Sutton ahead of Worthless?

    Press '1' for Rodney Hide [pause]

    Press '1' for ACT [pause]

    Yes, there's more than one way to push poll, people. And you don't need to mention paedophiles to do it.

    MikeE: Pleased to hear the volunteers are treated as they deserve. ;^)

  8. I better jump in to make a comment before LGM storms in here to abuse posters.

    PC a poll is a poll, that's it. Don't play word semantics here.

  9. I'm surprised at this, as I thought ACT had live humans polling Epsom. It's possible it's not ACT doing the polling. I'll see what I can find out.

  10. Oh Blair, gosh, that is rather amusing! ha ha!

    As I said earlier, the Libertarianz have [substantially] greater numbers of 'live bodies' in Epsom and most other electorates than ACT.

    I challenge Rodney to post here and tell us the precise numbers of people helping on his campaign (who are not also on his payroll)...remembering the Libz numbers in Epsom helping on our campaign is about 30!

  11. The order is irrelevant PC. This is a poll, pure and simple.

    From Wikipedia-

    A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent.

  12. Elijah,

    Umm, Epsom had over 200 helping in Epsom in 2005. Somehow I don't think the Libz can ever hope to compete with ACT numbers in the seat.

  13. Yes, 2005...but how many now? eh? ha ha!

  14. Ha, you're a funny man Elijah. Shall we take a bet on who will get the most party votes and candidate votes in Epsom this time around? You know where my money is - willing to put yours where your mouth is? ;)

  15. That's funny because I live in Epsom and I've been called twice by humans from ACT in the last week. No automated calls from any party yet.

    I have *never* been called by anyone from the Libz. I haven't even managed to spot one of their hoardings this campaign. Their army of supporters must be on a break while that one guy from ACT has festooned the electorate or something...

  16. I keep waiting for Elijah to spend all that money he claims he has on getting some Libertarianz MPs, but clearly his mouth is bigger than his wallet.

  17. In Epsom this year i've had the following:

    EIGHT pieces of mail from Rodney Hide/ACT (one was parliamentary funded - advertising that he had moved offices)

    ONE piece of mail from Labour (parliamentary funded, telling me about changes in the Budget)

    ONE piece of mail from the Greens, asking for a party vote

    If National and the Libz are campaigning in Epsom, they aren't trying very hard. Where are the thirty Libz campaigners? In a bar somewhere?

    - Tim B

  18. "If National and the Libz are campaigning in Epsom, they aren't trying very hard. Where are the thirty Libz campaigners? In a bar somewhere?"

    Truer than you know.....Red wine radicals...! Ha!

    Except for Sus....whos ACT cred is rising all the time.....;-0

  19. Wow, you ACT guys are a bit sensitive, aren't you?

    The fact is this: The poll is carefully phrased to affect the result.

    PC was simply pointing this out and to remind yourselves of this fact when the results are announced.

  20. So Julian, are you disagreeing with PC's assessment that it's a "push poll"?

    And p.s - i'm no Act supporter. If I vote, it will likely be for the Libz. But that ain't no push poll guys.

  21. I don't even know that it's an ACT poll. But the Prophet Himself keeps saying that there is an army of Libertarianz out there. I do wish they would try and win a seat for once.

  22. Elijah already has a bet going with me on total ACT votes (made in his traditional high-camp swaggering fashion before he had thrown his lot in with the Libertarianz) to the tune of $1000.

    Looking forward to collecting, and hoping this will be a lesson in toning down the tiresome, effete braggadocio. Dreams are free...


  23. Dear Anonymous,

    I normally make it a rule not to reply to anonymous posters (AKA faceless snipers from the dark), but here goes...

    Yes, I totally agree with PC that it's a push-poll.

    "A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll."


    "Forms of push polls

    The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of abortion in order to get voters thinking about that issue."

    Tick. In this case, it's to remind people that ACT still exists.

    "One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls make do with small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort.

    True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible."


    So, yes, according to this definition of a push-poll, it most certainly is one.

    You don't necessarily have to present blatantly negative misinformation about an opponent for it to be a push-poll.

  24. 'Act, National or other'? Push on, Act!


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.