StupidLikeAFox wrote: » I'm not having a go but there is a science to polling. It doesn't consist of whacking a few responses into an excel sheet and creating a pie chart The Irish Independent poll was carried out by Kantar, who similar to Red C etc are a professional polling company. They have a professional reputation to uphold. There are methods to polling, including ensuring the population is randomly sampled. Believe it or not, if you truly randomly sample a population i.e. your sample is normally distributed across age/socio economic/regional cohorts etc, 1000 responses can be more than enough to get an accurate reflection of the overall population, within a margin of error (which is usually published along with the study). This can all be proven statistically, which is what these polling companies are paid to do to ensure the results are accurate without having to ask 3 million people their opinion. Not sure about the Joe.ie poll but it was probably just a click of a button on their website. This means the results reflect their website visitors and whoever shared it the most - completely open to abuse and in no way a statistically accurate reflection of anything.
Hqrry113 wrote: » What he was saying was that polls are constantly unaccurate and differ with each poll, other posters were using the poll as some sort of factual evidence that these are the opinions of the people and that's that. He meant there were probably numerous polls on this but the independent decided to report on this one because maybe they felt it better suited their agenda more than the other ones as the independent is widely knows for being anti republican.
jh79 wrote: » The Independent commissioned the poll for the centenary, that's why they reported it. The sampling was done to be reflective of the population so the agenda of the independent is irrelevant. The previous poll showed a drop in support for a UI from when a hard brexit was a possiblity. This poll showed that trend is continuing as Brexit settles down. Both of the last two polls show little support for paying for a UI in the Republic. Two different polling companies for two different newspapers both showing a drop in support for a UI in the North and a only a small minority in the Republic willing to pay for it.
Hqrry113 wrote: » Either way polls are usually flawed and most of the time miss certain segments of the population there have been numerous polls on Irish Unity in the last few months showing far higher support for a United Ireland where far more people were surveyed. Another recent poll for a United Ireland in Northern Ireland by LucidTalks for the times showed 45% of people in support of a United Ireland and only 48% against it and it surveyed a far higher number of people than the Kantar poll. I don't find it surprising the independent poll was one of the least attractive for a United Ireland it doesn't matter to me who conducted the poll they constantly try subliminal tactics in their articles against a United Ireland.
Shebean wrote: » If you ask people would they support saving baby puppies if it meant higher taxes, they'd probably say no.
Marco23d wrote: » Well why doesn't blanch the polling expert of boards elaborate?
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/northern-ireland-polling-firm-lucidtalk-has-wrongly-claimed-it-member-uk-professional-research-body-3127161 Leave aside some of the nonsense in this article and you find a key reason why LucidTalk show stronger support for a united Ireland - they recruit people online only. That will mean that their vote won't include older and rural people in Northern Ireland to the correct levels. As young urban people are more likely to support a united Ireland (as all polls show), the Lucid Talk polls are skewed.
FileNotFound wrote: » Do we in the Republic get a vote on this ever happening? Or is it like when Germany unified?
Hqrry113 wrote: » Yes we do. As part of the constitution prior to the late 80s it was already claimed as part of the Republic of Ireland.
FileNotFound wrote: » So a unification vote up north would be followed by a vote down here.
BonnieSituation wrote: » There will be a vote. Though it could be argued that the constitutional aspiration and the signing and subsequent approval of the GFA in 1998 by the citizens of this State remove the need for a referendum.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Unlike for the north the GFA is not specific about a referendum in the south but does say that the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions is required.
yourdeadwright wrote: » Like I said I'm against it & I'm neither old (late 30's) or conservative , The idea is great I just can't see how it works without causing absolute hell for the people who find life tough enough already in the south ,It'll be a finical disaster for us as a country even more so just coming out of the pandemic , Sounds great but it won't work on so many levels,
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » So for example, could sinn fein make a UI a core part of a general election campaign, pitch it as a de facto referendum on Irish unity ( like sturgeon in scotland), and if they got into power then say that it was the "democratic will of the people". Hypothetically speaking of course, I don't think they would do that in reality
Barry904 wrote: » Just out of curiosity, what is the main newspaper that you read? I kind of know already.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Any party could do that. It would be very dangerous though. So they wouldn't. As I've stated before, there is an argument to be made that we made our decision on reunification in 1998.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Constitutionally we have said we want a UI. That is the without argument. We had the wording put clearly in front of us and we accepted it by a large majority.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Well there is an argument to be had. The ruling assumption is that we require a referendum.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I wouldn't be surprised if someone challenged he need for a referendum come the time. A referendum here is a sop to the partitionists really. I personally think it's a good idea to have one, if only to silence the begrudgers.
FileNotFound wrote: » A referendum is a fair way to go, 1998 is a long time ago. Opinions have changed. When it's not in the near the heart strings get pulled at the idea of a UI. If we have a debate on the economic impacts etc would so many rush to support? Even the entire political landscape would change. Lots for people to chew on. I'd see those that don't want UI in the south as Republicans who want the republics to remain as is. And the UI voters as unionists who want a union with the North.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
