Tweet
WAR OF RATINGS
Karen Nahapetyan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Oct 18 2007
The results of the pre-election poll conducted by Armenian
Sociological, Association was not thrilling.
As it was expected the Republican Party has the greatest number of
supporters (20,4% of the polled), "Bargavach Hayastan" party is in
the second place, with 15,8%. Another three parties have recorded
approximately the same results - "Orinats Yerkir" (7,5%), "Heritage"
(7,1%), ARFD (7,0%).
The responses to the question, " Who would you vote for, had the
elections been hold this Sunday?" gave the following picture. Serge
Sargsyan - 31,8%, Raffi Hovhannisyan - 12,3%, Gagik Tsarukyan - 12,0%,
Arthur Baghdasaryan - 11,2%, and Artashes Geghamyan - 10,5%.
The other possible candidates for presidency fall significantly behind
the before mentioned five. Hence, Vazgen Manukyan obtained 3,9%,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan - 3,8%, Vardan Oskanyan - 3,5%, etc.
It won't be surprising if tomorrow the affected political figures
accuse the sociologists of partiality.
Very few people believe in the impartiality of those who "take a
sample" from social moods. Like the journalists, the sociologists as
well are considered corrupted. It is a widespread opinion that there
is no independent sociological center in our reality. The classical
question, " In whose favor do you work?" given to the sociological
services is very actual.
As for the sociologists, they usually express two principled
opinions. First - "We are beyond politics?" and the second - " The
publication of exaggerated or lowered ratings don't have any impact
on the election returns."
Anyway, the nearer the elections draw, the demand towards the
sociological predictions grows. Not only the possible candidates and
the parties backing them, but also the citizens feel the hypnotizing
influence of the ratings. The letter ones genetically tend to think
and act the way the majority does. More often they trust the results
of the polls more than themselves.
The "war of ratings" is in process. A "war", because sometimes there is
such a difference between the results of the ratings that it is rather
difficult to account for this circumstance by " statistical error".
Though the problem is not only in the rating itself, but the way
they are interpreted. Very often the ratings are identified with
pre-election predictions. Whereas rating and prediction are quite
different things. The election intentions of the voters and their real
behavior not always coincide. As they say in such cases, "To promise
doesn't mean to marry?"
Therefore, when the analysts try to draw conclusions, based on
sociological data, they must take into consideration some myths
linked with them. Firstly - the myth saying that the rating reflects
the reality. The second myth - saying that we make judgments about
the moods of the electorate from the responses given by 2-3% of the
voters. But on the other hand, to say that the surveys are not true
is also not right.
In short, nothing unexpected or mysterious is going on with the
ratings. But the hue and cry and the misunderstandings around them
are too much. The interest towards all types of sociological surveys
is still great in our reality. More than the desire and ability to
understand how they get and what do those data reflect.
But, the widespread concentration on the ratings, in the pre-election
period, appears not only and not very much because of the leader's
swaggering and their jealous interest towards one another's
success. The problem is that rating-addiction sometimes turns into
a real politics.
In our view it would have been better for the sociologists to agree
upon the game-rules, on the eve of the presidential elections.
To set up principles of a corporate behavior, to combine the survey
results, to maintain the common methodology of the surveys. Because
the "war of ratings" is going to heat up.
Karen Nahapetyan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Oct 18 2007
The results of the pre-election poll conducted by Armenian
Sociological, Association was not thrilling.
As it was expected the Republican Party has the greatest number of
supporters (20,4% of the polled), "Bargavach Hayastan" party is in
the second place, with 15,8%. Another three parties have recorded
approximately the same results - "Orinats Yerkir" (7,5%), "Heritage"
(7,1%), ARFD (7,0%).
The responses to the question, " Who would you vote for, had the
elections been hold this Sunday?" gave the following picture. Serge
Sargsyan - 31,8%, Raffi Hovhannisyan - 12,3%, Gagik Tsarukyan - 12,0%,
Arthur Baghdasaryan - 11,2%, and Artashes Geghamyan - 10,5%.
The other possible candidates for presidency fall significantly behind
the before mentioned five. Hence, Vazgen Manukyan obtained 3,9%,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan - 3,8%, Vardan Oskanyan - 3,5%, etc.
It won't be surprising if tomorrow the affected political figures
accuse the sociologists of partiality.
Very few people believe in the impartiality of those who "take a
sample" from social moods. Like the journalists, the sociologists as
well are considered corrupted. It is a widespread opinion that there
is no independent sociological center in our reality. The classical
question, " In whose favor do you work?" given to the sociological
services is very actual.
As for the sociologists, they usually express two principled
opinions. First - "We are beyond politics?" and the second - " The
publication of exaggerated or lowered ratings don't have any impact
on the election returns."
Anyway, the nearer the elections draw, the demand towards the
sociological predictions grows. Not only the possible candidates and
the parties backing them, but also the citizens feel the hypnotizing
influence of the ratings. The letter ones genetically tend to think
and act the way the majority does. More often they trust the results
of the polls more than themselves.
The "war of ratings" is in process. A "war", because sometimes there is
such a difference between the results of the ratings that it is rather
difficult to account for this circumstance by " statistical error".
Though the problem is not only in the rating itself, but the way
they are interpreted. Very often the ratings are identified with
pre-election predictions. Whereas rating and prediction are quite
different things. The election intentions of the voters and their real
behavior not always coincide. As they say in such cases, "To promise
doesn't mean to marry?"
Therefore, when the analysts try to draw conclusions, based on
sociological data, they must take into consideration some myths
linked with them. Firstly - the myth saying that the rating reflects
the reality. The second myth - saying that we make judgments about
the moods of the electorate from the responses given by 2-3% of the
voters. But on the other hand, to say that the surveys are not true
is also not right.
In short, nothing unexpected or mysterious is going on with the
ratings. But the hue and cry and the misunderstandings around them
are too much. The interest towards all types of sociological surveys
is still great in our reality. More than the desire and ability to
understand how they get and what do those data reflect.
But, the widespread concentration on the ratings, in the pre-election
period, appears not only and not very much because of the leader's
swaggering and their jealous interest towards one another's
success. The problem is that rating-addiction sometimes turns into
a real politics.
In our view it would have been better for the sociologists to agree
upon the game-rules, on the eve of the presidential elections.
To set up principles of a corporate behavior, to combine the survey
results, to maintain the common methodology of the surveys. Because
the "war of ratings" is going to heat up.