Analyzing the “Pre-Election Survey” Publicized as a Neutral Assessment

Independent Advocacy

Formal Rebuttal Statement

Analyzing the “Pre-Election Survey” Publicised as a Neutral Assessment

Issued by: Minhaz Samad Chowdhury • Date: January 12, 2026

Democratic Accountability • Media Freedom • Political Rights

Context of Review

We have reviewed the publicly circulated survey attributed to Projection BD and partners, reportedly fielded from 21 Nov to 20 Dec 2025 with 22,174 registered voters across 64 districts. While opinion research is vital, this release emphasizes headline figures without the disclosures necessary for verification.

1. The Illusion of Precision

The survey release emphasizes precise "neck-and-neck" vote shares. However, large numbers are meaningless without documented sampling.
Interact below to see how a lack of methodology affects data reliability.

Audit Controls

Toggle the audit mode to apply international transparency standards (ESOMAR/WAPOR) to the reported figures.

Audit Failed

Missing sampling design, weighting scheme, and error margins. Data reliability cannot be verified.

Figure 1: Reported Vote Shares Status: Public Release

*Source: Figures attributed to Projection BD, Jagoron Foundation, Narrative, IILD.

2. The Transparency Gap

We compared the survey's disclosures against international norms. The checklist below highlights missing elements required for scientific validity.

0

Verifiable Safeguards

22k+

Respondents (Claimed)

Why Disclosure Matters

Without knowing how respondents were selected (Sampling Frame) or adjusted (Weighting), large numbers do not prove representativeness.

Disclosure Checklist

3. Our Concerns

The risks of opaque polling in a pre-election environment.

1

Insufficient Disclosure

The public material lacks minimum information to assess scientific validity: sampling design, selection procedures, weighting, and response rates are absent.

2

Misleading Narrative Framing

Framing results as “neck-and-neck” without transparency can influence voter behaviour. This risks becoming a political communication instrument rather than neutral measurement.

3

No Verifiable Quality Safeguards

Large sample sizes (22,174) are meaningless without documented sampling and quality control. Quantity does not substitute for proof of integrity.

4

Public-Interest Harm

In a pre-election environment, opaque surveys can erode trust, polarise society, and distort democratic choice. Transparency is a safeguard.

Call to Action

We call on the organisers to publish—immediately and in full—standard methodological documentation consistent with international norms.

Sample Frame Selection Method Weighting Scheme Questionnaire

"Until these disclosures are made, the survey should not be treated as reliable evidence of public opinion."

© 2026 Formal Rebuttal Statement Analysis.

Visualizations powered by Chart.js. No SVG or Mermaid JS used.