Cool ignorance of statistics, brah.
Larger populations don’t necessarily require larger samples.
They can determine the margin of error from the survey design.
The margin of sampling error among registered voters is about plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. In theory, this means that the results should reflect the views of the overall population most of the time, though many other challenges create additional sources of error.
Your second sentence and the first from my initial comment are saying the same thing.
Perhaps I should have written ‘doesn’t feel like enough’ instead of ‘isn’t enough’ to convey that it’s just a thought in my head and not an empirically researched fact. Yourself and a few others evidently skipped over the bit where I wrote ‘an overwhelming sample size is not required to extrapolate results’.
All I was intending to convey is that 1,625 is pretty small compared to 150,000,000 voters and I would’ve liked to see a sample size of even one decimal place further to the left. Apologies if I did not adequately frame my thought as strictly opinionated.
Your comment was understood & is still ignorant of statistics exactly as stated.
Calling it opinion means about as much as calling “true is false” an opinion.
Yes, you have identified the definition of ignorance - I am not a statistician nor did I look up and reference any studies on the subject of sample size (just as no one in this thread has) before I made a comment on the internet.
Consider my opinion reinvented. In fact, I now agree with @[email protected]. If five hundred is good enough for the electoral college, it’s good enough for statistics.
Cool ignorance of statistics, brah. Larger populations don’t necessarily require larger samples. They can determine the margin of error from the survey design.
Cool ignorance of my comment, brah.
Your second sentence and the first from my initial comment are saying the same thing.
Perhaps I should have written ‘doesn’t feel like enough’ instead of ‘isn’t enough’ to convey that it’s just a thought in my head and not an empirically researched fact. Yourself and a few others evidently skipped over the bit where I wrote ‘an overwhelming sample size is not required to extrapolate results’.
All I was intending to convey is that 1,625 is pretty small compared to 150,000,000 voters and I would’ve liked to see a sample size of even one decimal place further to the left. Apologies if I did not adequately frame my thought as strictly opinionated.
Your comment was understood & is still ignorant of statistics exactly as stated. Calling it opinion means about as much as calling “true is false” an opinion.
Yes, you have identified the definition of ignorance - I am not a statistician nor did I look up and reference any studies on the subject of sample size (just as no one in this thread has) before I made a comment on the internet.
Consider my opinion reinvented. In fact, I now agree with @[email protected]. If five hundred is good enough for the electoral college, it’s good enough for statistics.