Why Spoon Talk Political Polls are Incredulous and Should Not be Taken Seriously

By J. Emeric Benson-Nicol Jr.

Contributor, Global Africans News

The recent call-in poll conducted by SPOON Talk (SPOON) should have little validity in the democratic process of Liberia. This is because the processes and procedures followed in their polls are often odd, bias and skewed toward false and misleading results. First and foremost, it's a sampling of a paltry 25 callers who can in no way state and represent the tens of thousands of CPP membership or the several hundred more that will eventually watch the show over the weeks and months following a particular program. Moreover, there are many bogus callers that participate in these polls simply to distort the result among other things. Meanwhile, SPOON’s recent conducted poll to determine who should head the CPP Ticket is a clear example of these distortions and raises the following questions:

1. How did SPOON select the callers for inclusion in that poll?

2. What about callers that didn’t get through the phone lines that represented another view?

3. Why does SPOON’s results differ so much from the perspective of the actual CPP membership body?

The Problem of SPOON Randomly Sampling only 25 Callers

Probability sampling should be the primary reason for this polling. The concept being-if done flawlessly: randomly picking a sample (cross-section) of the entire population of the CPP constituent could predict the proper behavior, views, or judgments of the CPP membership at-large. In an attempt to find the probability of who would be best suited to led the CPP Ticket in 2023, SPOON proceeding to use 25 “random” callers from an unevenly selected CPP viewership, which resulted in a subjective and deceptive poll result.

Because the 25 callers selected by SPOON did not represent a cross-section of the CPP’s general membership, the recent poll “who is best suited to lead the CPP ticket” was grossly misleading.

The purpose of any objective polling is to derive the same results that would have been achieved if every constituent (the members of the CPP’s population in this case) were to call in and participate. Even though there would be some challenges at every stage of such polling, striving to attain an even representation should be the goal. Notwithstanding, more questions arise when a supposedly independent media company, SPOON, conducts ad-hoc polling during selective programs that tend to draw only a selective audience.

An example of this would be conducting a poll during an interview or discussion that

drives and favors a particular audience or political leader, or polarization of a leader by SPOON's guests prior to conducted CPP Polls as was done by Mr. Henry Costa.

Did SPOON have the equal probability of selection as a rule of thumb to protect the integrity of the poll? No.

Equal probability of selection in this case means an chance of being picked in the sample, which would have demonstrated that the 25 callers were a true representative of the entire CPP’s population, but it was not. The method used in gathering samples is key. And if not then what was SPOON’s methodology used in gathering the 25 callers? This is an important factor as the success or failure of a poll is dependent on how the samples are gathered. If the sample is flawed, then it does not represent the cross-section of the CPP population. Many believe the sampling was flawed.

Conclusion

Generally speaking, the 25 callers that were interviewed for the sample of the poll of who is best suited to be the CPP’s presidential candidate is insignificant to a larger extent because of the integrity of the foundation of the equal probability of selection doctrine in statistics. The poll conducted on SPOON did not meet any statistical standardization. A sample of at least 100 callers would have been significantly important and more accurate than the 25 callers. What is not done right, is not done at all. The poll lacks the integrity to be considered with any seriousness. There is a very high probability that a call-in poll did not represent the population. Once the sample does not represent the population, the integrity of the poll is compromised, rendering it invalid.

Furthermore, how do we know that the callers were not CDCians to present Mr. Joseph Nyumah Boakai as the CPP’s best choice? This is highly likely! With Corruption being the major issue from Madame Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s 12 years presidency which Mr. Boakai was the second in command, many Weah pundits would think that Mr. Boakai would be an easier target for CDC than Mr. Alexander B. Cummings.

The CPP must think critically and analytically, and CPP must put forth a candidate that will make it unlikely for CDC’s propaganda messages to resonate with the electorates. The CDC will find it almost impossible to have negative messages effective against Mr. Alex Cummings as compare to Amb. Joseph N. Boakai.

About the Author

J Emeric Benson-Nicol Jr. is a Diaspora Liberian & a Senior Accountant and Budget Analyst at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington DC.