Because POA initially posted numbers incorrectly? I just accessed site and my computer screen read:
43% Al Gore
43% George W. Bush
1% Ralph Nader
1% Harry Browne
0% Howard Phillips
1% John Hagelin
11% Not Sure
I was skeptical, to say least, when I read numbers in Nathan's post because they were so different from 2 Florida polls that I (as a poli sci guy) track regularly: most recent Mason-Dixon poll has RN at 3% (3.5% plus/minus margin of error), most recent Florida Voter poll has Nader at 6% (4% plus/minus margin of error). Despite attempting to resist, my social science mind clicked on: sampling problem?, 200 person sample/7% margin of error? Actually, my first thoughts were about respondent "trickstering," something that pollsters/survey researchers don't like to acknowledge.
Of course, 6% Nader vote (which I think unlikely) in Florida would probably toss state to Bush. Even 3% Nader vote, depending on what the approximately 10% undecided do, if current dead-heat (on that, Mason-Dixon and Florida Voter agree with POA) in polls were to hold.
In general, I'm not anti-polling even though I'm cognizant of their limitations, problems, misuse, etc. Record of polls in predicting elections is quite good even though I'm not sure what that really tells us. With respect to "issue" polls, folks tend to rely on results only if they like findings. So much for objective measure against which to judge accuracy. But, as cost of conducting polls has fallen with new technologies, plethora of polling organizations has emerged. Commodification/marketization of "opinion" has led to growing willingness to compromise survey methodologies.
Re. POA, gotta love folks who have no shame in placing presidential election poll results alongside those predicting which teams will make it to Super Bowl and who will win Heisman Trophy. Michael Hoover