Oh yes. Don't get me wrong. I encourage your efforts, but it would be great if you could roll up your sleeves next time and think, "mmm. How can we get back some of the randomness we're lacking here?" I didn't realize how truly involved polling was until I read some of the links Acadia posted. Statistics is a funny animal. I always found calculus, geophysics and the like to be quite intuitive, but what 'seems' right with statistics frequently isn't. Here's a quote from one of Acadia's links: "The key reason that some polls reflect public opinion accurately and other polls are unscientific junk is how people were chosen to be interviewed. In scientific polls, the pollster uses a specific statistical method for picking respondents. In unscientific polls, the person picks himself to participate." ...the buzz words being "In unscientific polls, the person picks himself to participate". Maybe that could be eliminated some how next time? Anyway, good luck with it. Looks like a daunting task for a layman to me. I really admire your efforts.