The recently published Times of Suriname article, which claims, based on a poll by the Jamaican research firm Bluedot, that the National Democratic Party (NDP) is currently leading in the run-up to the elections, raises quite a few questions. NeuroAD, a specialized data-driven strategy and opinion analysis company, feels compelled to respond to this publication with content. We do so not out of political considerations, but out of our responsibility for methodological accuracy, data transparency and correctly interpreted statistics.
Our first point of interest concerns Bluedot's digital presence. The most recent content post on Facebook is dated March 18, 2025, and the footer at the bottom of their website page still lists the year 2022. The agency's current status raises questions, especially since multiple attempts to contact Bluedot by phone remained fruitless. This lack of operational visibility in the field complicates verification of their practices, sampling frames and data processing.
A willingness to dialogue was also lacking. NeuroAD wanted to engage in dialogue with Times of Suriname for further explanation of the research methodology used, including sampling, margins and weightings. As confirmed by Mr. Polsbroek today when we called him, he chooses not to address this at this time, a choice we respect, but which does not strengthen the substantive credibility of the poll.
What really concerns us is the sample used and the statistical claims. According to Bluedot, the poll was conducted among 1,025 respondents in only three districts: Paramaribo, Wanica and Commewijne. However, Suriname has ten districts with significant socio-demographic differences. This creates a serious distortion of the national picture. In addition, Bluedot claims a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of ±4%. This margin of error is itself theoretically possible in the case of a perfect random sample from a homogeneous whole, but loses value as soon as there is underrepresentation of population groups or geographical skewing. For example, if districts such as Marowijne, Nickerie or Brokopondo are excluded, the margin of error at the national level is statistically misleading and factually untenable. Moreover, our internal analyses at NeuroAD based on broader samples spread across all ten districts and multiple moments of measurement paint a significantly different picture of political preferences and trends in the electorate. Our specialization in developing strategic communications frameworks, we can confidently state that the sample as used by Bluedot does not under any circumstances meet the minimum requirements to serve as useful input for such applications. On this basis, we conclude that the underlying data is methodologically incorrect.
On top of that, the way the figures are interpreted in the article from Times of Suriname including predictions about possible coalition formations does not do justice to the limitations of polling. Polls are snapshots with margins of uncertainty, not election results or predictors of power distribution. Presenting results as actual electoral projections suggests to the public a degree of certainty that is not supported by the numbers themselves.
At NeuroAD, we take our responsibilities seriously. We conduct our research with care for all strategic communications reports, and communicate results in their proper context, with an eye for nuance, margins of uncertainty and validity. This is precisely why we consider it necessary to have an open, preferably public debate with Bluedot and its director, Mr. Larren Peart. Not to polarize, but to strengthen public trust in opinion research by jointly reflecting on methods, interpretations and transparency.
In an election year like this, reliable data is not a luxury but a democratic imperative. We remain available for substantive conversation and hope Bluedot will want to take that responsibility.
www.neuroad.net
