The latest Legco elections in Hong Kong have triggered a gaping hole with the method and usage of exit polls.
First, Dr. Robert Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong, made the fatal mistake of announcing that the exit poll information will be distributed to media sponsors periodically before the election is over. This got an immediate negative reaction from the public and many politicians. Chung reversed the decision to release data early, but it was too late. The people had lost faith in the fairness of exit polls and many chose to boycott them by either remaining silent, or purposely providing wrong information.
Second, there's the issue of "fake" exit pollsters. These are exit polls run by private entities who use the data to win the election, rather than for study. The public generally does not like this type of polling, so the pollsters impersonate Hong Kong University staff to entice voters to reveal their choice.
What is the solution to this? I have heard suggestions to release the official vote count every hour, as to ensure absolute fairness. When all the data is out in the open, there will be no chance for private polls to use their data to "cheat". However, that is a pretty drastic move.
Instead, I suggest making the Hong Kong University pollsters "official". Have police stand guard near the HKU exit poll personnel to keep the peace, and to inform the public which poll is "genuine". There will no longer be exit polls claiming to be from HKU.
First, Dr. Robert Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong, made the fatal mistake of announcing that the exit poll information will be distributed to media sponsors periodically before the election is over. This got an immediate negative reaction from the public and many politicians. Chung reversed the decision to release data early, but it was too late. The people had lost faith in the fairness of exit polls and many chose to boycott them by either remaining silent, or purposely providing wrong information.
Second, there's the issue of "fake" exit pollsters. These are exit polls run by private entities who use the data to win the election, rather than for study. The public generally does not like this type of polling, so the pollsters impersonate Hong Kong University staff to entice voters to reveal their choice.
What is the solution to this? I have heard suggestions to release the official vote count every hour, as to ensure absolute fairness. When all the data is out in the open, there will be no chance for private polls to use their data to "cheat". However, that is a pretty drastic move.
Instead, I suggest making the Hong Kong University pollsters "official". Have police stand guard near the HKU exit poll personnel to keep the peace, and to inform the public which poll is "genuine". There will no longer be exit polls claiming to be from HKU.
12 comments:
I agree with your idea of making the HKU data as Offical~
Well, I am happy with this year result. With or without the exit polls~
Finally, We found something to agree upon.
Indeed. However, though we have disagreed in the past, I still don't know what exactly is your stance.
Well, that is Because you would not accept my Stance~ at all.. therefore, you just ignore it~
Ha ha, that's not true. You always "stop talking" before even find out what your stance is.
There is no such thing as not accepting your stance. I may disagree with it, but it is impossible to not accept it. But I think Kendra will concur that you have never actually revealed what your stance actually is.
ah~ I always first give out my stance first.... i SAID MY REASONS,... BUT YOU disagree mah~ and I disagree with yours ~ therefore there is no point on arguing.
More like sharing different view~ I just look at things differently~ at least on the Subject on China .. ( which we have the most different veiw on things.. )
What I always get is you starting to explain your stance, then half way through you stop before I even begin to understand what you're trying to say.
I don't agree with that. Discussion is part of what makes the world go round. Again, I barely understand what you're getting at because you never explain it fully. You can't expect me to agree with something I can't even begin to understand. That's also why I am always "open to discussion" even if I don't agree. I'll always give people the chance to try an convince me. I will always listen.
I realize you "look at things differently", but I can't see what you're seeing unless you show me. It's different than trying to argue whether vanilla or chocolate ice cream tastes better. Some topics require more than a "because I like it", or "because that's how I see it" type answer.
NO! My friend~
Well, here is the thing. I feel like you never really understand my point Not because I don't give out reasons, it is because you simply just don't like my point of veiw. It is NOt that I did not try ~ It is Just You are not willing to see the point I was trying to Make. I mean, How many times you put out the sentance "That is How this stupid China is ~" or " That is How they WORK man~" But I also point out the reason WHY "CHINESE people Reacted that way." and the being a point of Human behavior.. there isn't much you can do about the up bringing or stuff alike.
For example~ I don't believe in 人民自主 fully~ simply because I think people, as a group, are stupid~ ( Oh man, this is going to look Bad.)
Remember I said something along the line~I Don't like 李柱銘 because I think he is NOT Willing to work "with" China gov. Most of the time. It is more like Either it is the 李柱銘's way , or there is no other way~
李柱銘籲美藉奧運向華施壓 about HUman Rights in China. I mean... it is Caluclated don't you think ? And Post it on Wall street?
Justin, you might said it is because that everyone will veiw the it simply because it was the right time~
But I just think it's Not really helpful, and More like a Personal PR Job.
Did China improve it's human rights? I don't know. But I guess ppl Do remember he Post his thesis on WSJ and A hell lot of ppl call him 漢奸( Which I don't think he is at all).
Hum...
and Most of the time we have our discussion. it was usually over dinner or something... And I am Working on my burger ~and I don't think we can agree on something within that Short period of time.
I DON'T want to talk about and Stop the converstaion most of the time was mainly because that I know I can't and I don't want to convict you what I veiw of things. I Just want you to look at it on the other side~ or look at things in the other way~
Cos that is Fine with me~
That's why I always ended in things like "Can we just agree in disagree?"
Now that I Know you feel so Bad about this~ Then, next time, we'll "finish" our Discussion ~
OK!?
The spitting, pissing, squatting, talking loud, and poor manners stem from cultural upbringing. You can't blame dumping toxic waste into rivers, slavery, corruption, or false imprisonment on culture. I try very hard to understand the "reasoning" behind some of China's actions. Some make sense, many do not.
Furthermore, even if certain behavior stems from upbringing, is that a reason to condone it? If a child is brought up by serial killers, is it then ok for him/her to become a serial killer? Certainly, we don't blame the child for what he/she has become, but we cannot allow it to happen.
A couple things about Martin Lee and the Democratic Party. They don't compromise, which I believe is a good thing. Politics shouldn't be about making compromises. We see that a lot in US politics, and I don't think it is healthy. No one really knows how open or closed the Central Government has been with Lee and the DP. But when you won't even grant these people a 回鄉證, I don't know how there can be much open discussion with China. Is Martin Lee a traitor? No. I have a big problem with those who call him that. It's childish, and it's not fair. Yet many people chose to call Lee a traitor do themselves a PR job. Why WSJ for the article? Which newspaper in Hong Kong would accept that piece?
Well, there is so much to discuss, but this is not the right place I guess. See you at the pub.
"You can't blame dumping toxic waste into rivers, slavery, corruption, or false imprisonment on culture."
Fales imprisonment~ I think I know which one you are talking about. But I do believe there are things that only the chinese Gov. and the prisioner knows.
Yes, I'll see you at the pub...and you are buying the beer this time.( Even though you pay for lunch last time ~) HAha
Well, to clear things up, I'm talking about 胡佳, 楊春林, 陳光誠, and many more.
I think with these cases its pretty obviously false imprisonment.
With more ambiguous cases, give them a fair, open, and honest trial. That's not asking for much.
"But I do believe there are things that only the chinese Gov. and the prisioner knows."
The more I think about this comment, the more it annoys me.
Because the "trial" took place behind closed doors, and because the details of the crimes are ambiguous, it makes the imprisonment OK?
Now THAT is a statement I cannot accept.
alright~ I though we were going to go thru this in a bar, But I guess not~
It "trial" went behind closed doors simply because the charge was "selling sercets to another country."
Or some are Treason ~ Of course it goes behind closed doors.
BUT it is ONLY ON THAT CASE.
Others~ I am not going for those.
Post a Comment