Kerre Woodham: How can we take polls seriously?

Honestly, I don't know why we report on polls. Seriously, I don't know why I'm even talking about them myself, but it's really ripped my nightie overnight. They're so frustrating, and because media companies commission them, it makes the media look like master manipulators. 

This is from 1News last night (I didn't watch 1News, obvs) but this is from their website – both National and Labour have slid in the latest 1News-Verian poll, while New Zealand First have moved to their strongest position in eight years. If an election were to be held today, the right bloc of National, ACT, and New Zealand First would have 63 seats —enough to form a coalition— while the left bloc of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Māori would have 58 seats. So that's from 1News and their Verian poll.   

This is from Radio New Zealand – after the budget and pay equity changes, the left bloc would have the support to turf the coalition out of power, the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll shows. The preferred Prime Minister and leadership ratings are also bad news for the government, with the exception of Winston Peters, who's seen his highest results since 2017. The ratings of the government's general performance have also continued to slide, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori all gaining compared to the previous poll, they would have a majority with 63 seats between them, compared to the coalitions 57. A direct opposite of what 1News-Verian said.  

How can this be? And it's always headline news. You've got 1News talking about the right bloc being able to hold on to power, but only just, and look out. You've got RNZ crowing about the fact that the coalition government would be turfed out of power with the left gaining hold. And both lead with it, and it leaves me scratching my head and doubting both of them.   

How do you imagine the pollsters collect their data? Random phone calls of 1000 people? No, no, no. It's far more tricky than that, and they put it in every story. It must be an obligation on the part of the media company to say how the data was collected. From TVNZ: Between May 24 and May 28, 1002 eligible voters were polled by mobile phone (500) and online, using online panels (502). What are online panels? Are they things you sign up to yourself? Who knows? The maximum sampling area is approximately plus 3.1%. Party support percentages have been rounded up or down to whole numbers. The data has been weighted to align with Stats NZ population counts for age, gender, region, ethnic identification and education level.  

So what does that mean? If I'm a numpty, am I worth 2 points as opposed to somebody who leaves school worth NCEA and that's worth one? What does that mean? If I'm 18 and I respond, does that mean because there are fewer 18 year olds who respond, does it mean that my reckon is worth double that of somebody who's 50+. How can you weight the information? And not all 18 year olds think the same way. If you're looking at ethnic identification, not all Māori, not all Pakeha, not all Pasifika, not all Chinese people, think the same way. The sample for mobile phones is selected by random dialling using probability sampling. Online sample is collected using an online panel. So that's from 1News.   

This is from RNZ: This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between the 23rd and 30th of May 2025, has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1%.   

I'm of a mind to never discuss the polls again. The statisticians and the research pollsters and the companies all say, oh, no, no, no, it's terribly scientific. Is it really? When you've got two polls conducted over the same time, presumably using the same scientific methods, coming up with two completely different results. If the polls were scientific, surely you'd see a consensus of opinion. You wouldn't go sniffing like a truffle hunter looking for respondents that agree with your particular version of the way things should be. It's like you're researching into an echo chamber. It's not worth the time and the money.  

If this is what RNZ is spending their money on, given that they are funded by the taxpayer, I'd rather they spend it on training up young reporters or allowing a veteran reporter to spend some time doing some investigative journalism, rather than coming up with a poll that supports their worldview. And which is in direct contrast to the other taxpayer funded organisation, which is kind of paying its way at the moment, which is 1News. What is the point? How on earth can we take them seriously when they come up with completely different results and when all the data is weighed, quotas are taken, samplings adjusted. It's an absolute crock. The emperor is stark naked and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.