5 ms·

Yes. All surveys are biased towards people who are willing to take the survey. In the most extreme case, if your survey only has one question, "are you willing

Yes. All surveys are biased towards people who are willing to take the survey. In the most extreme case, if your survey only has one question, "are you willing to take this survey?" you would get 100% "yes".

science4sail 3y ago
Would it be possible to remove that survey bias using coercion? For example, we could hire a gang to break into a supermarket and hold everyone there as hostages until they fill out a consumer preferences and brand visibility survey.
- dalmo3 3y ago
  Yes, that's how they do the GDP survey.
- lazide 3y ago
  Does someone preferring being shot result in a response?
- midoridensha 3y ago
  The problem with this idea is that you're likely to get bad data: people forced into doing a survey aren't likely to want to answer honestly. Also remember, many surveys require you to think: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how often do you do X?" Answering this question honestly and accurately requires some thought. If you're forced to answer a barrage of questions like this before you're allowed to leave, the easiest and fastest thing to do is just mark the same number for all of them, or just a bunch of random numbers. This is exactly why I think mandatory voting is stupid. Supporters claim it's better for democracy and forces people to choose leaders that represent them, but it doesn't: you can't force someone to care. You can't force someone to make an informed choice, instead of just randomly checking a box on a ballot.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    We have statistical data from every Australian election (which has compulsory voting) on how many people donkey vote/protest vote, and it's not that many. If you're talking about people attempting to protest in subtly undetectable ways (i.e. not the easiest methods like leave blank, 12345, scribble, penis) by simply casting their vote in a random order that isn't a donkey vote, well if any substantial number of people were doing that then we should see a significant effect where irrelevant minor parties receive approximately equal numbers of votes to each other. In reality compulsory voting in Australia produces clear two-party dynamics, with third-party challengers and a reasonably dynamic system. There have been individual years where large numbers of smaller parties and independents were elected (relative to historical norms, not in absolute numbers), but these occurred at times of disillusionment with the major parties that would explain these effects, and this isn't a standard effect in Australian politics despite the voting system always being compulsory. Basically, real participation in voting is most likely in excess of 90% of the people who are formally registered as having voted, so your hypothesis that compulsory voting leads to an issue with voters not caring and just voting whatever isn't correct.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      >In reality compulsory voting in Australia produces clear two-party dynamics, with third-party challengers and a reasonably dynamic system. What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? >Basically, real participation in voting is most likely in excess of 90% of the people who are formally registered as having voted 90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory?
      - lucubratory 3y ago
        >What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? You're moving the goalposts, and frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. >90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory? Evidence? Go and look at voting participation rates and ballot spoiling data in compulsory vs non-compulsory voting countries.
kfichter 3y ago
Not if I force someone to unwillingly take your survey!
- beaker52 3y ago
  but then what if I force them to unwillingly punch you in the face and shout "NO!"? I'm sure we can factor all this into the p-value somehow.
lmkg 3y ago
More likely around 96%. Don't neglect the Lizardman Constant.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  I just looked that up. Surely there's a non-zero percentage of people who do sincerely think David Icke's lizard people secretly control things. I'm not claiming the insincerity constant is actually 0 but claiming it's 4% based on the assumption that those who must answer are being insincere, I think is incorrect. Also have you taken those phone surveys? They go into "I really don't care" territory fast. "Now tell me, if you were going to buy toilet paper and there was a Walgreens, Rite-Aid, CVS, and Krogers, on a scale of 1 to 5, how often would you go into the Walgreens?"
rootw0rm 3y ago
give it to enough people and there will likely be that one person who just wants to see the world burn...their answer will be something like "hotdog juice"
jncfhnb 3y ago
The claim in question is that they are genetically predisposed to, that that they’re simply predisposed to.
dumbfounder 3y ago
But what if they say no?
- reportgunner 3y ago
  Looks good to me as long as the only answer in the survey is the "no"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

science4sail 3y ago

Would it be possible to remove that survey bias using coercion? For example, we could hire a gang to break into a supermarket and hold everyone there as hostages until they fill out a consumer preferences and brand visibility survey.

dalmo3 3y ago
Yes, that's how they do the GDP survey.
lazide 3y ago
Does someone preferring being shot result in a response?
midoridensha 3y ago
The problem with this idea is that you're likely to get bad data: people forced into doing a survey aren't likely to want to answer honestly. Also remember, many surveys require you to think: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how often do you do X?" Answering this question honestly and accurately requires some thought. If you're forced to answer a barrage of questions like this before you're allowed to leave, the easiest and fastest thing to do is just mark the same number for all of them, or just a bunch of random numbers. This is exactly why I think mandatory voting is stupid. Supporters claim it's better for democracy and forces people to choose leaders that represent them, but it doesn't: you can't force someone to care. You can't force someone to make an informed choice, instead of just randomly checking a box on a ballot.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  We have statistical data from every Australian election (which has compulsory voting) on how many people donkey vote/protest vote, and it's not that many. If you're talking about people attempting to protest in subtly undetectable ways (i.e. not the easiest methods like leave blank, 12345, scribble, penis) by simply casting their vote in a random order that isn't a donkey vote, well if any substantial number of people were doing that then we should see a significant effect where irrelevant minor parties receive approximately equal numbers of votes to each other. In reality compulsory voting in Australia produces clear two-party dynamics, with third-party challengers and a reasonably dynamic system. There have been individual years where large numbers of smaller parties and independents were elected (relative to historical norms, not in absolute numbers), but these occurred at times of disillusionment with the major parties that would explain these effects, and this isn't a standard effect in Australian politics despite the voting system always being compulsory. Basically, real participation in voting is most likely in excess of 90% of the people who are formally registered as having voted, so your hypothesis that compulsory voting leads to an issue with voters not caring and just voting whatever isn't correct.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    >In reality compulsory voting in Australia produces clear two-party dynamics, with third-party challengers and a reasonably dynamic system. What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? >Basically, real participation in voting is most likely in excess of 90% of the people who are formally registered as having voted 90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory?
    - lucubratory 3y ago
      >What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? You're moving the goalposts, and frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. >90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory? Evidence? Go and look at voting participation rates and ballot spoiling data in compulsory vs non-compulsory voting countries.

kfichter 3y ago

Not if I force someone to unwillingly take your survey!

beaker52 3y ago
but then what if I force them to unwillingly punch you in the face and shout "NO!"? I'm sure we can factor all this into the p-value somehow.

lmkg 3y ago

More likely around 96%. Don't neglect the Lizardman Constant.

kristopolous 3y ago
I just looked that up. Surely there's a non-zero percentage of people who do sincerely think David Icke's lizard people secretly control things. I'm not claiming the insincerity constant is actually 0 but claiming it's 4% based on the assumption that those who must answer are being insincere, I think is incorrect. Also have you taken those phone surveys? They go into "I really don't care" territory fast. "Now tell me, if you were going to buy toilet paper and there was a Walgreens, Rite-Aid, CVS, and Krogers, on a scale of 1 to 5, how often would you go into the Walgreens?"

rootw0rm 3y ago

give it to enough people and there will likely be that one person who just wants to see the world burn...their answer will be something like "hotdog juice"

jncfhnb 3y ago

The claim in question is that they are genetically predisposed to, that that they’re simply predisposed to.

dumbfounder 3y ago

But what if they say no?

reportgunner 3y ago
Looks good to me as long as the only answer in the survey is the "no"

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]