Educational Media Reviews Online

This work examines the reasons why all of the major polls got the results of the 1992 British Parliamentary elections so wrong - predicting a significant Labour win when in fact the Conservatives were victorious with results well outside of the margins of error of the various polls. Using explanations provided by both academicians and representatives from the Market Research Society, the program explains the differences between probability (or random) sampling and the more widely-used, faster, cheaper, and (potentially) less accurate quota sampling methods. It seems that when faced with the realities of a fast-paced and changing political environment, pollsters cannot afford the luxury of spending the two to three weeks required to construct, administer, and interpret research based on probability sampling and must rely on quota sampling. The remainder of the program is devoted to explication of three interrelated explanations for the failure of the polls: basic sampling errors that resulted in a bias toward the inclusion of those more likely to vote Labour (e.g., renters and blue collar workers), "late swing" of voters to the Conservative party in the face of the magnitude of the predicted Labour victory, and the "spiral of silence" theory that those who support parties that are unpopular or unlikely to win (as was the case with the pre-election Tories) have a tendency to not admit their true allegiance to pollsters. The program concludes with some suggested coping mechanisms, for example, administering questions in the form of secret ballots (rather than the usual verbal question and answer method) in order to combat the "spiral of silence."

This technical quality of the program is excellent and it would be useful in upper-level high school and beyond in conjunction with any investigation of sampling and/or polling. It is thoughtful and clear, although some audiences may need a bit of explanation about some of the references to British politics and government. Recommended.