Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MC Bad Genius

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
4,712
Likes
4,961
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
You'll find that Mr De Stefano has taken a fair bit of licence with his tweet.
The 67 percent is the likelihood that people will actually return their vote....
Nah he's right. Those columns are the responses of Yes, No and Unsure for a) those that said they definitely will vote, and b) those that said they definitely won't vote.
 

roscreasl98

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Posts
7,509
Likes
3,477
Location
Over The Hill
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
All Local Footy
Nah he's right. Those columns are the responses of Yes, No and Unsure for a) those that said they definitely will vote, and b) those that said they definitely won't vote.
Not what 774 said on the News.
Think he's fudging the information...

His source is a "News Poll" stat.
Only 1675 people were polled, and his is a re tweet from Stephen Spencer.

Mr Spencer is a Labor Staffer, still believe???
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
17,270
Likes
21,157
AFL Club
West Coast
Not what 774 said on the News.
Think he's fudging the information...

His source is a "News Poll" stat.
Only 1675 people were polled, and his is a re tweet from Stephen Spencer.

Mr Spencer is a Labor Staffer, still believe???
'Only' 1675 people?

That is a perfectly valid sample size for the adult population of Australia and will give you a result with a high degree of confidence.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ruck Machine

Premiership Player
Joined
May 14, 2007
Posts
3,038
Likes
1,268
Location
Reality
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Utah Jazz
'Only' 1675 people?

That is a perfectly valid sample size for the adult population of Australia and will give you a result with a high degree of confidence.
Assuming 95% confidence with a +/- 2% error margin you'd need a sample size of 2400 (assuming 15.7M voters).

For 99% confidence you'd need approximately 4160.

Sample size is a little light.
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
17,270
Likes
21,157
AFL Club
West Coast
Assuming 95% confidence with a +/- 2% error margin you'd need a sample size of 2400 (assuming 15.7M voters).

For 99% confidence you'd need approximately 4160.

Sample size is a little light.
Most polls operate on a +/- 3% margin of error, which would make this sample size pretty much about right.
 

roscreasl98

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Posts
7,509
Likes
3,477
Location
Over The Hill
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
All Local Footy
'Only' 1675 people?

That is a perfectly valid sample size for the adult population of Australia and will give you a result with a high degree of confidence.
No way.
Out of about 10,000,000 voters?
What demographic?

Anyway it only gives a stat on what percentage of people this "poll" believes will vote, not how they will vote.
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
17,270
Likes
21,157
AFL Club
West Coast
No way.
Out of about 10,000,000 voters?
What demographic?

Anyway it only gives a stat on what percentage of people this "poll" believes will vote, not how they will vote.
I'm sure this has been explained to you earlier in the thread, but yes, a random selection of about 2000 people would give you a statistically valid sampling of opinions for a population of 15 million or so, with a margin of error of about 3%. It's not my opinion, it math. There are factors that could impact it slightly, such as landline polls would favour older voters, but it still wouldn't discredit the poll completely.
 

roscreasl98

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Posts
7,509
Likes
3,477
Location
Over The Hill
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
All Local Footy
I'm sure this has been explained to you earlier in the thread, but yes, a random selection of about 2000 people would give you a statistically valid sampling of opinions for a population of 15 million or so, with a margin of error of about 3%. It's not my opinion, it math. There are factors that could impact it slightly, such as landline polls would favour older voters, but it still wouldn't discredit the poll completely.
It hasn't been explained to me.
Where do you get your facts from?

The actual poll stated that only 67 percent of people are expected to return the vote, that's all I'm on about.
 

Ricardo

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
4,121
Likes
201
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Everton
Tracked down some further info - not place I saw it orginally but he has link to article


Some say 1,000 people used in a poll as being not enough, this study used only 20;

Moreover, many subtle distinctions and pathways of influence simply cannot be addressed with only 20 cases
The comparison sample comprised 20 unweighted cases of adolescents with same-sex parents, consisting of 17 lesbian partners and 3 gay male partners.
But in saying it was only 20, the study shows more research needs to be conducted to get a better picture of how children are affected in same sex family's. Simply put; more data needs to be gathered.

Conclusion of the study:
The emergence of higher depression risk in early adulthood, coupled with a more frequent history of abuse victimization, parental distance, and obesity, suggests that the inattention of research and policy to the problems of children with same-sex parents is unwarranted. As initial results, the present findings should be interpreted with caution and balance, based on the limited evidence presented, and (it is hoped) neither exaggerated nor dismissed out of hand on preconceived ideological grounds. However, well-intentioned concern for revealing negative information about a stigmatized minority does not justify leaving children without support in an environment that may be problematic or dangerous for their dignity and security.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/drt/2016/2410392/

Key points in bold, do not dismiss the data out of hand, but also don't be a knob jockey and start making posters demonising same sex couples with children on the back of a study using only 20 family's with same sex parents.
 

aCunningPlan

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Posts
4,496
Likes
7,463
Location
County Grant
AFL Club
Geelong
Some say 1,000 people used in a poll as being not enough, this study used only 20;





But in saying it was only 20, the study shows more research needs to be conducted to get a better picture of how children are affected in same sex family's. Simply put; more data needs to be gathered.

Conclusion of the study:


https://www.hindawi.com/journals/drt/2016/2410392/

Key points in bold, do not dismiss the data out of hand, but also don't be a knob jockey and start making posters demonising same sex couples with children on the back of a study using only 20 family's with same sex parents.
I got belted and it has had a lasting impact on me, does that mean all Queenslanders are not allowed to marry ?
 

Happy Mastenator

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Posts
13,977
Likes
15,083
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Some say 1,000 people used in a poll as being not enough, this study used only 20;





But in saying it was only 20, the study shows more research needs to be conducted to get a better picture of how children are affected in same sex family's. Simply put; more data needs to be gathered.

Conclusion of the study:


https://www.hindawi.com/journals/drt/2016/2410392/

Key points in bold, do not dismiss the data out of hand, but also don't be a knob jockey and start making posters demonising same sex couples with children on the back of a study using only 20 family's with same sex parents.
Saw a tweet that the author was a right wing catholic who was anti-gay and only ever gets his reports published in pay to publish journals, not peer reviewed.

One would think he had an agenda to push...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom