This is a very good point. It raises the question of whether any of that $122 million is going towards addressing sampling bias https://twitter.com/oz_f/status/894780836314087425 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @GidMK
The idea is pretty simple: old people use mail. Young people, less so. You will over-sample old people and under-sample young
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
The obvious remedy would be to spend hugely on a marketing campaign targeted at young people (maybe using social media)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
The issue here is that any expense increases the cost of the (already expensive) postal time-wastage
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Also, the government doesn't WANT young people to vote more, because then the results will almost certainly be pro
#MarriageEquality1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Basically, if the planned postal plebiscite goes ahead without a huge investment in marketing for young people, it's a complete sham
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
But even if they invest massively in marketing to young people, their sample is still going to be skewedhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/894782971504336896 …
Health Nerd added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Young people are more likely to not have fixed addresses, for example. Hard to be part of a postal plebiscite with no fixed address
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
To put it another way; A POSTAL PLEBISCITE IS UNDEMOCRATIC
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You are intentionally choosing the form of response most likely to be impossible for the most people @TurnbullMalcolm you should be ashamed
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.