Talk:Opinion polling for the 2022 French legislative election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

France

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ifop 6-9 May

There are two hypotheses (the second is on page 8 of the report). Utilisateur19911 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harris and the DVG

It is not clear why NUPES is extended to include the diverse left in the first two Harris polls. The pollster has used the same question wording throughout and has never explicitly bundled the diverse left with NUPES (unlike Cluster17). Utilisateur19911 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harris does bundle the DVG with the Parti socialiste in the non-NUPES scenarios, so those parts of the table look fine. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it myself. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ifop 13-16 May

Once again, the poll includes a scenario for the four main left parties absent NUPES. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster17 seat projection

I am surprised to see that someone added a cluster17 seat projection, since they said they would not make any, and the link goes to some obscure personnal site. It should be removed in my opinion. I must say, for ethical reasons, that I'm pro-NUPES activist, so I'll refrain from touching the page, but I can't help but notice that this projection is not very well documented (tho its in my favour). 37.171.140.74 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Motta's homemade seat projections

Motta's self-published projections are not a reliable source and are obviously inadmissable. It is especially unacceptable to misrepresent them as the work of the polling companies on whose data Motta says he bases his calculations.

While Motta has posted numerous projections on his personal website, one in particular, which he says is based on Cluster17 data, keeps being added to the table here for reasons unknown — it is not, for example, the only one flattering to NUPES.

If editors want to make the case for including all third-party projections, however obscure and untrustworthy, by all means do so. In the meantime, please stop reverting the deletion of the Motta's most recent "Cluster17" projection. The reasons for removing it have been clearly explained, and none of the reverting editors has offered counter-arguments for including it. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster17 : "The reliability of these polls seems unsatisfactory"

The Cluster17 institute is in the sights of the polling committee, which considers that the methodology used is unsatisfactory: https://www.rtl.fr/actu/debats-societe/cluster17-la-fiabilite-de-ces-sondages-parait-insatisfaisante-estime-sur-rtl-la-commission-des-sondages-7900124293

Should Cluster17 polls be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WALKER0021 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]