At Midfield: Noynoy (60%), Villar (37%), Erap (18%), Chiz (15%), Gibo (5%)
Juan Country (Philippine Commentary): Noynoy (60%), Villar (37%), Estrada (18%) Esucdero (15%) Roxas (12%) Teodoro (5%) Lacson (4%) Fernando (1%) Teodoro (1%)
But savvy readers are already scratching their heads and wondering why these numbers don't add up to 100% as one might expect and instead exceed 100%.
This is not quite the kind of survey that people think it is, because above two bloggers have not made any kind of mathematical or arithmetical errors and have faithfully posted information found elsewhere on Twitter (@Leah Navarro) and other sources. But the simple fact is the percentages reported by SWS should not add up to 100%. They should add up to 300%. And therein lies a statistical tale of great and grave interest to us all...
What SWS does not emphasize however, is that in this very important survey, they appear to "throw out" or at least not report ABOUT HALF OF THE RESPONDENT DATA, which they do mention in a very tiny note on their website: SWS does not report any candidate names by less than 0.14% of the respondents. Confused? Read on...
Every three months, the Social Weather Stations conducts its regular, uncommissioned Quarterly National Survey. SWS asks 1200 randomly selected voting age Filipinos, a variety of questions, including those that usually get reported as hunger and poverty statistics, social attitudes, and of course political preferences. Since September 2007, the Social Weather Stations has included the following question in its Quarterly survey as part of its public opinion polling on the 2010 national elections:
"Under the present Constitution, the term of Pres. Arroyo is up to 2010 only, and there will be an election for a new President in May 2010. Who do you think are good leaders who should succeed Pres. Arroyo as President? You may give up to three names."
SOURCE: Social Weather Stations 2nd Quarter 2009 Press Release
Above Chart summarizes over two years of SWS polling. The raw data (all of it) is contained in the Table below:
Please notice that about ONE HALF of all the data, and by far the largest percentage of the choices goes to someone named "LESS THAN THE THRESHOLD", which SWS pegs at 0.14% (if you carefully comb through the graphics in the link I supplied to SWS above you can find this!) My take is that when the respondents get to that third possible choice, they end up naming their father, mother, wife, uncle, mayor, themselves! or some other unknown that together with everybody else's third choices usually make up to half of the SWS data!
But as it should, the data does add up to 300% in all columns. I have a theory I cannot prove, that it is actually the second placer in these SWS polls that represents a kind of plurality choice. Noynoy has come out of nowhere (less than 0.14 percent!) to take a whopping --but sympathy confounded--60%.
But the claimed Margin of Error of plus or minus 2.5 percent is SPURIOUS, as one can easily verify that the reported percentages do not add up to 100%! Since there is no fixed menu of candidates given in the question, and the respondents were free to name up to three choices, this form of statistical survey cannot be conventionally analyzed and its accuracy ascertained using the methods that are applicable to more conventional surveys.
The more realistic measure of how accurate this series of polls is likely to be can be better seen in the numbers of one particular "CANDIDATE" that is never mentioned in the SWS spin of its own data: namely that of NONE or DON'T KNOW, which an inspection of the above chart will show actually competes with the leaders of the survey, and in fact, apparently topped the First Quarter SWS survey. But this fact never made it to the headlines.
Indeed, I would submit that the REAL STATISTICAL ERROR in the SWS survey is at least equal to the NONE or DON'T KNOW percentage.
SOURCE: Philippine Commentary