Yesterday, I wrote about the Afghan election. Tonight, I want to continue by discussing the German election as covered by the Peoria Journal Star by means of a report by an Associated Press writer. A little background according to that newspaper article which was on the second page of the front section of the September 19, 2005 paper. The current Chancellor is Gerhard Schroeder leader of the Social Democrats. The Christian Democrats led by Angela Merkel is the major opposition party. Here are two quotes from the article. "Supporters at Merkel headquarters were subdued after the party's poor performance. The Christian Democrats consistently polled above 40 percent during the campaign, with surveys giving it a double-digit lead." "With 298 of 299 districts declaring, the results showed Merkel's Christian Democrats with 35.2 percent of the vote compared to 34.3 percent for Schroeder's Social Democrats."

Some more background before I comment on the quotes given. Germany is a parliamentary system. There are a number of political parties that run candidates for parliament. If one of the major parties does not win a majority of the parliamentary seats, one of them forms a coalition with a smaller party (or smaller parties) until they do have a majority parliament. Before the election, the Social Democrats had the majority parliamentary power. Here is the number of seats before the election and after the election for the two major parties.

Social Democrats: Before: 251 After: 222 Percent of vote: 34.3%

Christian Democrats: Before: 248 After: 225 Percent of vote: 35.2%

Looking at the data: The Social Democrats had three more seats than did the Christian Democrats before the election. After the election, the Christian Democrats have three more seats than do the Social Democrats. The Christian Democrats gained a total of six seats in relation to the Social Democrats. Both of the two major parties lost seats to the smaller parties. The Christian Democrats received about one percent more of the vote than did the Social Democrats. No coalition has yet been formed by either of the two major parties at the time the article was written.

The Christian Democrats gained six seats in relation to the Social Democrats. They went from the second largest party in parliament to the largest party in parliament replacing the Social Democrats. Yet, the article said that the Christian Democrats had a "poor performance" in the election. Why? Because of created expectations by the media. As the article stated, "The Christian Democrats consistently polled above 40 percent during the campaign, with surveys giving it a double-digit lead."

Here is the problem. Anyone who is knowledgeable about public opinion polls knows that they are not as valid and reliable as the media tries to make them out to be. (One day in the near future I hope to do an article or two on public opinion polls--don't bet the farm on their accuracy.) Yet, because of created expectations by these polls and the news media, the writer of this article can slant the news saying that the Christian Democrats did poorly even though they won more votes than any other party and received more seats in parliament than any other party. (I'd hate to see the story if the Christian Democrats had actually lost!)

The media tries to make black look like white and white look like black. If the Christian Democrats did poorly, then the Social Democrats did even worse because they lost more seats than did the Christian Democrats. An old saying of knowledgeable politicians and others goes like this: "The only poll that counts is the poll on election day." That's one of the many reasons why I don't pay a lot of attention to polls and why the American public should not either. I've got another saying, "Tell me the results you want and I can give you a poll with those very results!"