There was a lot of information in the first story about the township consolidation people’s survey.
I left out the cross tabs, which provide breakouts of answers to the questions, so I have put them below.
How to read cross tabs: Each crosstab represented a matrix of voters as they reported preferences in each pair of items. Cross tabs are useful in identifying between group variance that is masked in top line results. For distribution to be considered normal, variance is assumed to be random and equal between groups and significant deviations represent relationships that can be explored as moderating and/or predictive factors for preference. For instance, Party affiliation is the best predictor of general election candidate support. We expect to see high correlations between candidate party and voter party.
Each row/column intersection represents a group of voters that answered accordingly. This group is compared to other groups in both the row and column. Orange shadowing across rows tells the reader what percentage each column account for the row item, whereas Yellow shading tells the reader what percentage each row accounts for down the column.
Cross Tab Results Note: Look for Red Bolded numbers within the Tabs that correlate to the discussion below Tabs I – IV – There are not meaningful differences between townships that suggest as regional base of support or opposition to Consolidation. Townships where samples are low show greater variation, however this is a factor of sample size and not true variation. We expect smaller samples to generate greater variance.
Tabs I – IV – There are not meaningful differences between townships that suggest as regional base of support or opposition to Consolidation. Townships where samples are low show greater variation, however this is a factor of sample size and not true variation. We expect smaller samples to generate greater variance.
Tab V. – Greater than half (57%) of those that do not believe Consolidation will save money, but still want the Board to put the measure on the ballot. This suggests a desire to let voters have say over Consolidation.
Tab VI. – Those who believe Consolidation will save money will overwhelmingly (96%) support the measure on the ballot. Simultaneously, those who do not believe Consolidation will save money will overwhelmingly oppose (86%) the measure on the ballot. Given the +36% top line Support and the +10% differential for ballot intention between belief in savings, Consolidation enjoys a comfortable majority.
Tab VII. – Democrats report a slightly higher uncertainty towards the ability of Consolidation to save money.
Tab VIII. – Those who support the idea of Consolidation also feel strongly that the Board should move to place it on the ballot (96%). Looking diagonally across and down this tab, we see a consistent correlation between ones opinion of Consolidation andwhether the Board should act to place it on the ballot.
Tab IX. – Here we see that party plays little role in determining support or opposition for Consolidation as a ballot measure. Comparing the Yellow shaded boxes to one another across rows, one sees a consistent ~ 80% supports, 9-12% pposition, and 6-10% uncertainty for the Board putting Consolidation on the ballot. Party is therefore not a mediating or moderating factor to support of Consolidation.
Tab X- Democrats are 10% more unsure about supporting Consolidation. This may come as a result of the nature of the debate, where it is taking place and the Democrats preferred news sources. These unsure Democrats (35%) represent the most persuadable group on Consolidation.
Here are the questions that were asked: