[Darth Reagan]

Not dishonest at all. See my reply #31. It's the math and how the formulae work out. You can review the methodology here.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'm only complaining about the display, not the results, of course. The results give the impression of trying to fool the public (and you probably are not trying to do that).

There are too many significant figures displayed relative to the input data. Displaying (in this case) four significant figures implies that the data is good to 1 part in 10000. Most of this data is good to about 1 part in 30. This is a common advertising ploy; the purpose is to give the data more "gravitas" by implying a high precision. There's a PDF file discussing some of the issues here .

I think that there is an error in your formula. You are dividing by the Aggrate Poll but I think you only meant to divide by the weights (I may have read it wrong). The formula is prima facia wrong as it does not reflect the correct method of combining statistical data. This isn't too importang because your weighting of polls has a higher impact.