Final answer:
A candidate receiving 54% with a 3% margin of error means their actual support could range from 51% to 57%. If over 50% is needed to win, they likely win, but it's not guaranteed. The margin of error must be considered in the context of the election format and sample accuracy.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a candidate in an election has received 54% of the votes with a margin of error of 3%, it does not necessarily mean that the candidate has won the election. The margin of error indicates that the true value of the votes could potentially be 3% higher or 3% lower than the reported 54%. Therefore, the actual percentage of votes could range from 51% to 57%. If the percentage needed to win is over 50%, then even at the lower end of the margin, the candidate with 54% would still win. However, if there are more than two candidates, or there are other stipulations for victory (like a runoff), the answer could change. Furthermore, the reliability of the poll is determined by the accuracy of sampling and other factors. Large margins of error can make predictions less reliable.
To elaborate, when the sample represents the actual population accurately, the lower the margin of error, the more predictive the poll becomes. For example, if a poll with a margin of error of ±6% states that a candidate is likely to win 30% of the vote, the actual votes might range from 24% to 36%. In the case where Hillary Clinton is estimated to receive 43% of the vote with an 8% margin of error, it represents a significant possibility that the true vote share could vary between 35% and 51%, which makes it hard to predict the outcome confidently.
Therefore, while a 3% margin of error is generally considered acceptable for polls, it does not ensure victory without considering the exact circumstances of the election and any potential legal requirements that need to be fulfilled for a candidate to be declared the winner.