Dear Editor,
I write in response to M Maxwell’s ‘Bisram cannot demand that his critics conduct their own polls’ (SN, Mar 12). Mr Maxwell misunderstands my position on critics conducting their own polls. Once a perennial critic is unwilling to accept the findings of an independent objectively conducted poll, then he or she ought to conduct his or her own poll to test the validity of the ‘rejected’ poll.
Mr Maxwell described the AFC’s Morris poll as “bogus” completely rejecting its findings and focusing instead on the NACTA poll seeking clarifications of its findings via queries. And although I responded to his queries, he rejected them and offered his own answers to the queries. This begs the question, why pose the queries if you have already made up your mind on the answers and are not prepared to accept another view.
I note also Mr Maxwell deliberately misstated my view on aspects of polling and engaged in an attack on the pollster, not objective critiques.
Contrary to what Mr Maxwell stated, I never objected to constructive critiques and even criticism of my polls. There is a difference between critiques (to make the poll better) and personal attacks. Mr Maxwell frequently engaged in the latter, and that being the case, then it is only fair to advise him and other detractors to conduct their own polls. Then one can compare and contrast findings of different polls that will then be measured against actual election results (whenever they are held). It will be one way of testing the validity and integrity of polls. When the nation depends on only the findings of one poll, questions, objections and rejections will inevitably be raised. However, if we have several pollsters conducting polls (as, say, in India or Canada or US), then the findings can be compared to determine their validity and integrity. For example, I recently conducted a series of polls in Trinidad and one was also done around the same time by another pollster Nigel Henry. My poll and Henry’s poll produced similar findings on the popular support of the PNM and UNC. Ditto the findings of the NACTA poll and other polls conducted in Grenada last year and the NACTA poll and other polls in Antigua earlier this year – all of which produced similar findings.
Mr Maxwell made reference to an article in the Guyana Chronicle on November 27, 2011, where he said I predicted a 98% turnout rate. If indeed such a number appeared in the Chronicle, it would have been a gross error as I never made such a pronouncement on the turnout. My poll release was submitted to all the newspapers and I do not recall seeing 98% in any other paper. The SN editor can verify if my poll release made mention of expected voter turnout [Ed note: The SN did not publish the findings of this particular poll in any form, including the letters column].
Indeed I did decipher a low turnout and brought it to the attention of friends who dismissed my findings, including some in the PPP. I clearly stated I did not focus on the non-voters and they were not included in the findings of the NACTA polls. I am yet to see any pollster include non-voters in their polling numbers. On the margin of error, the larger the sample, the smaller the error and vice-versa. A 6% margin of error would imply the sample size was small. Generally speaking, polls have margin of error of between 3% and 5%; 6% is not impossible if a poll uses a subgroup to determine the margin of error. The larger the samples, the less the variation from one to another.
Mr Maxwell incorrectly claims NACTA never published breakdown of findings based on ethnicity and region. The 2011 polls did include regional support for the parties. I do not recall if the press releases broke down support based on ethnicity. But I do recall critics urging that I not stress ethnic breakdown in the findings of polls so as not to stir up ethnic sentiments. The poll did not break down findings based on class although some general statements were made about support based on class. In general, class is not a predictor of voting behaviour in Guyana.
Mr Maxwell is right that I mentioned on numerous occasions that Guyanese overwhelmingly support a return to the independence constitution (and even British rule). Polling on that topic was published in the papers several ago; Maxwell can google for confirmation.
Since Mr Maxwell is lambasting the methodology of NACTA polls, then why isn’t he conducting polls? He does not need my list of interviewees or my methodology. All pollsters don’t use the same interviewees or methodology. People are chosen at random and it is purely coincidental (by probability, chance) if different pollsters interview the same persons. The findings will be the same under an acceptable methodology. Mr Freddie Kissoon has publicized his intention to conduct polls; Mr Maxwell can team up with him.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
