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

Scotland has voted in which to stay the UK, with 55.3 % of voters deciding against dissolving the union that is 300-year of and going it alone. Many were surprised that the margin between winning and votes that are losing as wide as ten percent; a number of polls had predicted that the result was too close to phone and that the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ promotions had been split straight down the middle.

The truth is, polls were all over the accepted destination: contradictory and fluctuating wildly. They ranged from a lead that is six-point the ‘yes’ vote to a seven point lead for the ‘no’ vote within the weeks leading up to the referendum. And although these people were precisely predicting a ‘no’ vote on the eve of the special day, they considerably underestimated the margin of the ‘No’ triumph.

Margins of Error

Maybe Not the bookies, though. They’d it all figured away ages ago. Whilst the pollsters’ predictions were see-sawing, online recreations wagering outfit Betfair had already decided to pay out bettors who had their cash on a’no’ vote several days prior to the referendum even occurred. Even though there was a whiff of a PR stunt about that announcement, it was made from a position of supreme confidence, because the betting areas were rating the likelihood of a ‘no’ vote at around 80 percent at least a week before the vote occurred. It was 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 in comparison with the betting markets, and exactly why is the media in such thrall for their wildly results that are unreliable? The polling companies openly admit that their studies are inaccurate, frequently advising that we should permit a margin of error, commonly around five percent. This means in a closely fought race, such since the Scottish referendum, their information is utterly worthless. In a race where one party, in line with the polls, is leading by, say, 52 per cent, the existence of a 5 percent margin of error renders that study useless.

The Wrong Questions

You will find many factors that make polls unreliable, too many, in fact, to list here. Sometimes the sample size of respondents is simply too low, or it is unrepresentative of the populace. Sometimes they ask leading questions, or those that conduct them are dishonest or sloppy about recording information. Nevertheless the ultimate, prevailing explanation why polls fail is which they usually ask the question that is wrong. Instead of asking people who they’ll vote for, they must be asking the relevant question that the bookies always ask: ‘Who you think will win?’

Research conducted by Professor Justin Wolfers shows that this concern yields better forecasts, because, to quote Wolfers, it ‘leads them to also think about the opinions of these because it may yield more honest answers. around them, and maybe also’

Dishonest Answers

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 view that is popular. For the Scots, a ‘yes’ vote might express the appealing idea of severing ties with a remote and unpopular federal government in Westminster, but in addition means uncertainty and possible economic chaos.

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

A significant number of Scots apparently lied in short, when asked whether they would vote for an independent Scotland. Gamblers, having said that, were brutally honest.