Voodoo polling, an update

You may remember my blog post about the Observer reporting a voodoo poll as if were representative of members of the Royal College of Physicians a couple of weeks ago. Back then an open access poll hosted on a website campaigning against the government's NHS bill found 92.5% of respondents wanted the RCP to "publicly call for the withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill", and this was reported as being representative of the RCP's membership.

I dutifully wrote a letter to the Observer's readers' editor, Stephen Pritchard, and he addresses the report in his column for the Observer today. Mr Prichard writes "we know opposition among hospital doctors is extremely high, but readers have a right to expect that things that we proclaim to be polls are properly conducted, using scientifically weighted samples of a population or group" and, as I have before, points journalists to Peter Kellner's British Polling Council guide for journalists on how to report opinion polls. Full marks to the Observer for addressing the matter seriously.

Meanwhile, the RCP has since commissioned a ballot of its whole membership, professionally carried out by Electoral Reform Services. The ballot managed a 35% response rate. It found that 69% of members were opposed to the bill, but that only 49% thought the RCP should seek the withdrawal of the bill, with 46% saying the College should work constructively with the government to try and improve it.

That's 49% who wanted the RCP to call for the Bill to be withdrawn, not 92.5%. That, dear readers, is an example of why voodoo polls are bunkum.

(Nigel Hawkes at StraightStatistics also has a post welcoming the RCP conducting a proper survey of their membership, rather than touting voodoo polls here)