Did bookies understand the results associated with the Scottish referendum in advance, while polls were way off the mark? It sure appears that way.

Scotland has voted to stay in the UK, with 55.3 percent of voters determining 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 because 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 destination: contradictory and fluctuating wildly. They ranged from the lead that is six-point the ‘yes’ vote up to a seven point lead for the ‘no’ vote within the weeks leading up to your 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 Error

Perhaps Not the bookies, though. That they had it all figured down ages ago. Although the pollsters’ predictions were see-sawing, online activities outfit that is betting had already decided to pay out bettors who had their cash on a’no’ vote several times before the referendum even occurred. Even though there clearly was a whiff of a PR stunt about that announcement, it was made from a position of supreme confidence, because the markets that are betting rating the likelihood of a ‘no’ vote at around 80 percent at the very least a week before the vote took place. It was a forecast that, unlike compared to the heavily swinging results of the pollsters, remained stable in the lead as much as the referendum.

But why, then, are polls so unreliable in comparison with the betting markets, and exactly why is the news in such thrall with their wildly results that are unreliable? The polling companies freely admit that their studies are inaccurate, usually advising that we must allow for a margin of mistake, commonly around five percent. This means in a closely fought race, such as the Scottish referendum, their information is utterly worthless. 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

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

Research conducted by Professor Justin Wolfers shows that this question yields better forecasts, because, to quote Wolfers, it ‘leads them to also reflect on the opinions of these around them, and perhaps also since it may produce more truthful responses.’

Dishonest Answers

In a situation for instance the Scottish referendum, where there exists a large and popular movement for change, those interviewed by pollsters tend to be more likely to express their support for change, while curbing their concerns about the feasible negative effects. When expected about a problem 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 federal government in Westminster, but it also means uncertainty and possible economic chaos.

As Wolfers claims, ‘There is a historical propensity for polling to overstate the likelihood of success of referendums, perhaps because we’re more willing to tell pollsters we will vote for change than to actually do so. Such biases are less inclined to distort polls that ask individuals who they think will win. Indeed, in giving their expectations, some respondents may even reflect on whether or otherwise not they believe present polling.

In short, when expected whether they would vote for an separate Scotland, an important wide range of Scots apparently lied. Gamblers, having said that, were brutally honest.