Did bookies know the results associated with the referendum that is scottish advance, while polls were way off the mark? It sure looks that way.

Scotland has voted in which to stay the UK, with 55.3 % of voters determining against dissolving the 300-year union of nations and going it alone. Many were surprised that the margin between winning and losing votes was as wide as 10 %; lots of polls had predicted that the result was too close to call and that the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ promotions were split straight down the middle.

The simple truth is, polls were all around the place: contradictory and fluctuating wildly. They ranged from a lead that is six-point the ‘yes’ vote up to a seven point lead for the ‘no’ vote in the weeks leading up to the referendum. And they considerably underestimated the margin of the ‘No’ victory although they were correctly predicting a ‘no’ vote on the eve of the big day.

Margins of mistake

Perhaps Not the bookies, though. It was had by them all figured out ages ago. While the pollsters’ predictions were see-sawing, online activities outfit that is betting had already decided to spend bettors who had their funds on a’no’ vote several times before the referendum even occurred. And while there was a whiff of a PR stunt about that announcement, it was made from the position of supreme confidence, because the markets that are betting rating the likelihood of a ‘no’ vote at around 80 percent at least a week before the vote took place. It had been a forecast that, unlike that of the heavily swinging results of the pollsters, remained stable in the lead up to the referendum.

But why, then, are polls so unreliable when compared with the gambling markets, and exactly why is the media in such thrall for their wildly results that are unreliable? The polling companies freely acknowledge that their studies are inaccurate, often advising that we must enable a margin of mistake, commonly around five percent. This means in a closely fought race, such since the Scottish referendum, their information is utterly useless. The existence of a 5 percent margin of error renders that survey useless in a race where one party, according to the polls, is leading by, say, 52 percent.

The questions that are wrong

There are many factors that produce polls unreliable, too many, in fact, to record here. Sometimes the test size of respondents is simply too low, or it is unrepresentative of the population. Sometimes they ask leading questions, or those that conduct them are dishonest or sloppy about recording information. But the ultimate, prevailing explanation why polls fail is that they usually ask the wrong question. Instead of asking people who they’ll vote for, they must certanly be asking the question that the bookies always ask: ‘Who do you think will win?’

Research conducted by Professor Justin Wolfers implies that this question yields better forecasts, because, to quote Wolfers, it ‘leads them to also think about the opinions of these around them, and perhaps also because it may produce more truthful answers.’

Dishonest Responses

Those interviewed by pollsters are far more likely to express their support for change, while suppressing their concerns about the possible negative consequences in a case such as the Scottish referendum, where there is a large and popular movement for change. When asked about an issue on the spot, it’s easier to express the perceived popular view. For the Scots, a ‘yes’ vote might express the appealing proposition of severing ties with a remote and unpopular government in Westminster, but in addition means uncertainty and slots of vegas casino lobby feasible economic chaos.

As Wolfers claims, ‘There is just a historical propensity for polling to overstate the likelihood of success of referendums, perhaps because we’re more prepared to inform pollsters we will vote for change than to do so. Such biases are less inclined to distort polls that ask those who they think will win. Indeed, in providing their objectives, some respondents may even mirror on whether or otherwise not they believe polling that is recent.

Simply speaking, when asked whether they would vote for an separate Scotland, a significant number of Scots apparently lied. Gamblers, on the other hand, were brutally honest.