Dear, kindly share with your readers.

Thanks

Kwena Kambona

"Dear All:

Edward Bansa’s thoughts entitled “T he flip side of Steadman polls and Govt initial vote rigging schemes,” refers:

WHILE appreciating the exciting and extremely provocative thoughts of Edward Bansa, I would wish to correct a few misconceptions for purposes of aiding a fair analysis and digestion of the alleged Steadman-Government ploy. (And please, allow me to state here that I am not an employee or associate of the pollster but rather I am merely stating KNOWN facts).

1. It is UNTRUE that Steadman’s projections during the 2005 Constitutional referendum were off the mark

2. In fact the posting of 45 percent lead for the Orange camp as compared to 35 percent for the Banana camp (as on Friday October 21) was MOST apt

3. On the contrary, it is legislators Paul Muite and Morris Dzoro (of the Banana camp) who accused Steadman of doctoring the poll results in favour of the Orange side

4. Nonetheless, the perception that Steadman was insincere had nothing to do with figures released by the pollster but rather the feeling among Orange supporters that the margin of their lead was bigger than that projected by Steadman

Much as we confess that Bansa’s argument is plausible (it is prudent to be cautious), ODM and Raila supporters could unknowingly be playing into the hands of those who want them to be part of their consolation game. Just when did JALUO DOT COM start interesting Kenyans from all corners of the country?

I now turn the rest of my space to a report by Steadman CEO, Mr George Waititu titled “Taking Risks, Reaping Reward: The Steadman Group’s Polls on Kenya’s 2005 National Constitutional Referendum” as published in the WAPOR Newsletter, Fourth Quarter 2005.

Excerpts: “ Steadman (as had been the case on previous occasions) was subject to bitter attacks when the results of its October Referendum poll were released. Based on a national sample of some 2,000 respondents

who attested to being registered voters (a requirement for participating in the referendum, from the total of 2,500 people interviewed) 42 percent were prepared to vote “ Orange ”, whereas only 32 percent declared their intention to vote “ Banana ”, with 22 percent still undecided. (Another 4 percent refused to answer the question.)

The bitterest reaction to the poll, however, came not from the pro-government, “ Banana ” side, but from the “ Orange ” side. This stemmed not just from the fact that “ Orange ” rallies seemed to attract larger and more energized crowds, but also from (due, apparently, as much to fears of government retaliation as to doubts about their methodological rigor), the “ Orange ” supporters clung to them as ‘gospel’, ignoring the (under-publicized) fact that the poll had been limited to urban areas, where anti-government feelings are often much higher than in rural areas, for various reasons. Utilizing mobile phone text messaging to widely disseminate their supposed “big lead”, supporters of the “ Orange ” campaign therefore sought to discredit the Steadman poll with its much closer gap between the two positions.

In reaction to such doubts (as noted, especially, but by no means limited to the “ Orange ” campaign), it was decided to undertake yet another poll.

Notwithstanding the cost, then, a second survey was undertaken barely a week before the event, and this time, for public credibility rather than for technical requirements, the sample was increased to 3,000.

Results were ready on November 16. They clearly confirmed the earlier position, with 53 percent now indicating their intention to reject the draft, with 39 percent supporting it, and only 10 percent still claiming

to be undecided.”