The Caribbean Development Research Services Inc (CADRES) Poll of March 2010 has received much scrutiny from all of the political parties in Guyana.
The first to raise questions about this poll was the PPP/C which issued a press statement referring to the poll as “a bogus poll.” Dr Randy Persaud and others questioned the identity of those who paid for the poll and pointed to the recent trend of push polls used by political campaigners to manipulate public opinion. The first position taken by the Stabroek News was that “Since CADRES has declined to disclose who commissioned the poll, there is no point in pursuing the matter of funding – if indeed the funder and commissioner are two separate entities, which has not been indicated.” Under pressure, however, the Stabroek News was forced to investigate and came up with the revelation that the poll was commissioned by Floyd Haynes, of the Washington-based Newton Group. Haynes is married to former AFC MP Chantelle Smith. The paper is yet to admit that Haynes is the owner of the Newton Group and not just another employee.

Dr Persaud called out the newspaper in a letter published in its June 9, 2010 edition by stating “Stabroek News must immediately admit it made a mistake regarding the CADRES poll and it must apologise to the Guyanese people forthwith. Anything else would be tantamount to uppity-cosmopolitan arrogance of the Lacytown variety”
It would appear that the uppity Lacytown group could not ignore the prodding of the cocktail circuit in the face of so much evidence of bias. The paper, in ensuing articles, confirmed the points raised in other sections of the media while not admitting to any form of bias until Sunday June 27, 2010. In an article titled “CADRES poll sample not representative of national demographic profile:,” the SN admitted that the poll contained a design bias in the selection of the survey group but to date has not admitted its lack of professionalism, collusion and bias in the publication of the poll itself.

In a publication designed to help the working journalist do a thorough, professional job covering polls, the National Council on Public Polls, in keeping with its mission to help educate journalists on the use of public opinion polls, lists twenty questions journalists should ask about poll results. Questions such as who did the poll and who paid for the poll are among the first, followed by what method was used to select a fair sampling of contributors and the nature as well as the sequence of questions asked, and finally the margin of error. The document warns that “Examples of suspect polls are private polls conducted by a political campaign. These polls are conducted solely to help the candidate win — and for no other reason. The poll may have terrifically slanted questions or a strange sampling methodology, all with a tactical campaign purpose” and concludes that “if the poll was conducted correctly, and you have been able to obtain the information outlined here, your news judgment and that of your editors should be applied to polls, as it is to every other element of a story.”

It is obvious that the paper failed to apply the required judgment in its haste to publish information which placed the ruling party in a bad light. Stabroek News is yet to admit that CADRES is an organisation that is engaged in political campaigning in Guyana as advertised by the orgainsation’s own website and later confirmed by the leader of the opposition. Such a significant piece of information should have been included in the report as it would have alerted the reader about the bias of the pollster and placed the poll clearly in the category of a push poll.

In its press release on the poll, CADRES stated “approximately 1,000 Guyanese voters were interviewed and these were randomly selected from villages in each of the ten administrative regions of Guyana and in each instance the sample was proportionate to the percentage of the population that actually lives in that administrative region. The margin of error associated with a survey of this nature is +/- 5% and as such it could be said to be a reasonable indicator of public opinion”

According to the Sunday SN Report, “CADRES did not establish pre-set racial categories in which interviews were to be conducted,” the report on the survey seen by this newspaper (SN) said. “The interviewers were instructed to focus on those areas where political support for both parties was most neutral and in some instances, these areas turned out to be racially ‘unrepresentative’ of the national demographic profile…” It added, “This is more a design bias than a design flaw and the poll might therefore exaggerate the electoral swing away from the PPP/Civic.”

Furthermore “39.6% of the sample was Afro-Guyanese, 26.6% was Indo-Guyanese, 22.2% was mixed, 7.1% was Amerindian, 2.3% was Portuguese, 0.4% was Chinese, 0.1% was Anglo (White) and 1.8% was classified as “other race.” However, at the time the last census was conducted, Indo-Guyanese made up 43.5% of the country’s population, Africo-Guyanese made up 30.2%, Mixed Race persons made up 16.7% and Amerindians 9.2%, while Anglo, Chinese, Portuguese and others made up slightly under 0.5%.” According to the report, the “design bias” did not mean that the shifts in electoral support identified were incorrect; rather, it argued that the poll would demonstrate “definitive trends” which were perhaps at this stage “slightly muted.” Moreover, it emphasised that “if the poll were to have canvassed 17% more Indo-Guyanese, the result would be no different, since the PPP/Civic would not attract the support of all these persons.”

Going back to the CADRES press release we learn “This approach projects PPP/Civic support at 38%; PNCR support at 31% and AFC support at 26%. The contemporary political reality can therefore be best analysed from the perspective of electoral swing which measures improvement and deterioration in the fortunes of a political party between elections. The swing analysis indicates that in March the PPP/Civic’s support had fallen by 16% while the AFC’s had risen by some 18% and the PNCR’s fallen by 3%.

If we were to readjust the above computations for the 17 % differential mentioned above, the PPP/C support would increase by 17%, while a corresponding decrease would be distributed among the PNC/R and AFC by 10% and 7% respectively, in proportion to their 31% and 26% polled. This simplified mathematical formula would change the projection to PPP/Civic support of 55%; PNCR support at 21% and AFC support at 19%. This means that the swing analysis now indicates that PPP/Civic’s support had risen by 2% while the AFC’s had risen by some 11% and the PNCR’s fallen by 13%.

The CADRES press release, in its analysis, claims that the AFC “appears to have absorbed the 16% of voters who defected from the PPP/Civic and also the 3% that moved away from the PNCR”. It goes on to state that “No single opposition force can now command a majority on its own and moreover the trends in the data suggest that the AFC has and will continue to erode PNCR support but cannot win on its own.” Clearly there was no 16% defection from the PPP/C as the selection of the persons polled reduced the number of Indian participants by 17% of the national average to accomplish this deception. Just as clearly, CADRES knew this would be the result as they admit in their analysis that “There were few surprises regarding the racial profile of the voters, since the PNCR’s support base is still largely Afro-Guyanese, while the PPP/Civic’s is still predominately Indo-Guyanese. The AFC is at present a mixed party but more inclined towards the Afros than Indos, while the smaller party supporters are more mixed and those who refused to state their po
litical party support are now more inclined to be Afro.

Although this has proven to be the case in this poll, it is also apparent from the analysis that the PPP/C draws its support not only from the Indian base but also from the other groups in Guyana. The last census report place the Indian population at 43%; the party has demonstrated that it traditionally attracts another 11% in support from the other ethnic groups in Guyana to continue winning elections by around 55% of the national vote. This makes the PPP/C the only proven multi ethnic party in Guyana. It also means that the other political parties continue to vie for the remaining 45% of the votes thus making their task of fielding a Presidential Candidate almost hopeless.
The most astute and experienced opposition politician is without doubt the honorable Robert Corbin of the PNCR. He said that he found the polls instructive. He immediately pointed out the limitations, however, when he said that he had read the poll for what it was, and it was a reflection of the feelings of society at a particular time. He noted that these samples would be influenced by a number of factors including the sample that was selected by the persons conducting the poll. Further, Corbin said the poll is very instructive as to what could be achieved if the political opposition parties were to work together.
In the final analysis, it would appear that the poll has confirmed what we knew all along. The AFC has been making inroads into the support base of the PNCR at an alarming rate.  The members of the AFC have stated repeatedly that their support base is Afro-Guyanese and have even accused their PPP/C defector of not bringing any Indo-Guyanese into the fold. The poll showed that the governing PPP/Civic had lost significant support since 2006, and that an alliance of opposition parties could produce an outcome in their favour. We now know that this is not so and that all a big tent coalition could achieve is a redistribution of the 45% they traditionally manage to garner at each election.  To determine who would benefit from all of the above push polling and deception we just need to follow the money trail. CADRES was paid a hefty sum, if we are to be guided by past reports on the amounts paid to CADRES for a poll, and even more for its service as a political campaign Manager.  If a coalition does materalise, the party with the largest block of voters in the coalition will benefit the most and will most likely absorb all of the smaller participants as has been the trend with all coalition parties. One thing is for sure either way; the leader of the opposition still has not changed despite the best efforts of the alliance.

Finally, from all indications, the PPP/C Presidential Candidate in 2011 is most likely to succeed as CADRES concluded that “the data does demonstrate that the PPP/Civic still commands the single largest bloc of voters and would have first option to form a government if an election were held.” If we factor in the 17% swing, the PPP/C, with 55% of the votes ,will in fact win by another landslide.