Silly me, here I am still trying to derive information from the brain-dead Gregoire/Nickels/Clowncil Viaduct opinion poll that cost the taxpayers $1 million only to be wildly misinterpreted by the innumerate media. Instead, I should have just read the KING-5/SurveyUSA poll, which provided a lot more information about voter attitudes for a tiny fraction of the price1.
Sorry, Steinbrueck, Barnett, Westneat and Earling, the poll confirms that the Viaduct is the most popular choice of a divided electorate, and surface-gridlock is a distant 3rd.
The poll tells us that Seattle voted:
30% YES on Tunnel / 69% NO
38% YES on Viaduct / 61% NO
That's a few percentage points more NO votes on both questions and a few percentage points fewer blank votes on both questions than the election results, but pretty close. The poll also explicitly tells us that of the 707 voters surveyed there were:
186 (26%) YES on Tunnel / NO on Viaduct
242 (34%) NO-NO.
(So depending on what happened with the blanks, that would imply 2-4% YES-YES).
The survey also asked follow-up questions, which the Gregoire/Nickels/Clowncil ballot didn't. In particular, what did the NO-NO votes really mean? Of these --
56% Surface-gridlock
21% Viaduct retrofit or different viaduct plan
11% different tunnel plan
Of the people who voted YES tunnel/NO Viaduct --
65% are satisfied only with a tunnel
19% would be fine with Surface-gridlock
3% okay with different viaduct plan
Unfortunately, there was no follow-up for the YES viaduct/No tunnel folks, but based on the information given we can summarize:
Some type of Viaduct is first choice of 38% and first/second choice of 45%
Some type of Tunnel is first choice of 30% and first/second choice of 34%
Surface-gridlock was first choice of 19% and first/second choice of 24%
47% both voted NO on the Viaduct and do not support a different Viaduct, which is slightly more than, but within the margin of error of, those who expressed support for some Viaduct.
"No Viaduct" is not by itself a realistic choice. Like I said, it's a split decision, with no majority, where the Viaduct is the most popular option. (Perhaps this will achieve the most practical, cost-effective, and default outcome of a repair). Surface-gridlock has little traction. But here's hoping that Peter Steinbrueck will make it the centerpiece of his campaign for mayor.
Finally, perhaps the most revealing question is the last one:
Will lawmakers do what voters say? Or will lawmakers ignore the voters?1Jay Levy of SurveyUSA told me that if sold ala carte, this survey would have been priced at $25,000. (KING-5's contractual arrangement with SurveyUSA is more complicated and $25K does not reflect what KING-5 actually paid for the survey). Heck, if SurveyUSA can do a better opinion poll than the government for 2.5% of the price and in only 3 days instead of the five weeks from mailing out the ballots to certifying the election, I'd bet that SurveyUSA could also repair the Viaduct in proportionally less time and for proportionally less money than if we trust the government to do it! Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 27, 2007 01:34 PM | Email This14% Do What Voters Say
74% Ignore Voters
I'd say that Bag o' Nickels and Chirstine Gov Pro Tem have next to no credibility with the populace in general.
Sad how such low performers keep getting elected time and time again.
Uncle Joe was right. Must be the counting . . .
Posted by: Stewart Mill on March 27, 2007 01:57 PMBut, I couldn't understand where my option fit in- the 'retrofit'.
Posted by: swatter on March 27, 2007 01:59 PM1) What do you prefer, viaduct or surface option?
2) What do you prefer, tunnel or surface option?
3) What do you prefer, viaduct or tunnel?
Of course the best way to get these answers would have been to have voters rank the 3 options (and maybe some others) in order.
For example, a yes/no vote in the election could mean the person prefers surface to the viaduct (since they voted no on the viaduct) or it could mean they prefer a viaduct to surface but voted no on the viaduct because they don't "prefer" it to a tunnel.
Of the 26% or so who voted yes/no, if just a third of them would prefer viaduct over surface -- which seems likely to me -- that would bring the viaduct supporters from 43% (in the election) to over 50%.
Of course none of this analysis tells us what voters will think when new information emerges -- especially about the pros and cons of the surface option.
Posted by: Bruce on March 27, 2007 02:06 PMI still maintain that with all the strategizing, countermeasures, calculations, and voter misunderstanding, coupled with the ambiguity of the ballot, will tend counteract each other so as to make the data truly independent. Hence my totals for tomorrow's voting pool are as follows:
Y1Y2 = 11.8% = 18,843
Y1B2 = .9% = 1,444
Y1N2 = 15.9% = 25,348
N1Y2 = 27.2% = 43,356
N1B2 = 2.2% = 3,516
N1N2 = 36.5% = 58,176
B1Y2 = 2.2% = 3,556
B1B2 = 0.2% = 329
B1N2 = 3.0% = 4,791
T. G. Dolando
Posted by: T. G. Dolando on March 27, 2007 02:20 PM"Opiner, considering that the cost of road improvements is so high and we have so many needs, would you prefer to just fix the viaduct and use the rest of the money somewhere else?"
What do you think? End of story. Now, we have to deal with all these other permutations.
Even ivan's dumb democrat voters (his opinion) would agree the retrofit is the best option.
Posted by: swatter on March 27, 2007 02:35 PMBUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS!
The verbal urinating of the Pro-Gridlock/auto-haters & human-haters KROWD has been diffused. They claim a huge YES-YES vote to try & spin the election results....which is obviously untrue based on this poll. Don't let the facts get in the way of your dreams KLOWNS.
Retrofit is the way to go. I am a broken record....but I believe if this option were fully vetted in terms of impact on businesses & Environment as well as a true presentation of the impact on useful life & cost, it would gain the majority vote.
"IF THE VOTE DON'T MEAN SH*T......YOU MUST RETROFIT!!"
---Johnny "Cynical" Cochran
It is also not clear what the 65% of the yes/no voters who won't give up on the tunnel would prefer if the tunnel were not an option. Would they vote for a surface street option or a viaduct option.
In summary, if there were a poll asking voters if there were only two options, the surface street or an elevated viaduct of their choosing, this poll indicates that the maximum percentage of surface street voters could be:
YES/NO voters - 19% of the 26%, plus 65% of the 26%.
NO/NO voters - 56% of the 34% of No/No voters.
No/Yes or blank/yes or yes/yes voters - 57% of the 38%. (the view and ability to handle traffic would be the two that would disqualify them from the surface option).
Total could possibly be as high as 62% of the voters would prefer the surface option rather than the viaduct option of their choice.
This poll as well as the voting questions do not show at all that the surface-gridlock option is the least favorite, the questioning just isn't set up to find that out.
If you did as others did and lay out all the options and costs associated with retrofitting, building a new elevated viaduct, a tunnel, or the surface option; and if you asked the people to rank them 1 to 4 in order of preference and told them you would only count their votes if they ranked all 4 of them, then I bet you a dime to a doughnut that you would be quite surprised at how you could calculate the results to show that the favored solution may in fact be a street option.
I could care less about the viaduct, doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I don't think that Stefan is using his math in a fair way on this, so thought I'd point out that the election and the polling together are insufficient to make a usuable conclusion.
Posted by: Doug on March 27, 2007 04:59 PMIt is just as easy to assume that those 52% voting against the tunnel do not want an elevated viaduct as it is to say those who voted for the elevated viaduct did so because they don't want a surface street option.
I just don't agree with you on your conclusion that the surface street option lost - it's just not in there.
Posted by: Doug on March 27, 2007 05:52 PM