Lasee’s Poll Analysis
By
Looks like Representative Frank Lasee did his homework, and I don’t think it took him too long, considering the source. Just as I suspected in the post called “Zweifel’s Wiffles“, where I questioned Dave Zweifel’s honest assessment of a recent AARP, the American Association of Retired People’s poll in Colorado. Frank understands how polls work and Frank easily demonstrates how AARP skewed the results of this TABOR poll in his latest Lasee’s Notes.
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.
If you know of anyone else who would like to receive Lasee’s Notes, please send an email to LaseesNotes@yahoo.com with the person’s name and email address, and weíll add them to the list.
Laseeís Notes
January 27, 2005Polls
To paraphrase an old saying: polls donít lie, but pollsters sometimes do.
That’s certainly the case with a recent poll conducted by the AARP, the American Association of Retired People, about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR ? click here for more information). Perhaps you heard about it.
They surveyed 1,001 Colorado residents ? likely voters. They claim that over half of respondents want to repeal TABOR outright, and that more than three quarters would support changing it, to allow more spending.
Letís take a closer look.
What if I asked you “knowing that a cat will shred your furniture and will never use its litter box, how likely would you be to adopt one?” How would most people answer that?
What if the question was simply “how likely are you to adopt a cat?” Or “how likely are you to adopt a kitten?” Which question will have a more positive response?
This is exactly what the AARP survey does ? sets up a negative atmosphere, in order to get the response they want.
For example, one question begins by listing out various budget cuts, then claiming (falsely) that TABOR doesnít allow that spending to be restored. The state cut your services, and TABOR wonít let them come back. Would you support changing TABOR?
Seventy-six percent said yes. After a similar set-up, 55% percent said they would support repeal of TABOR.
Now, consider this question from the same survey:
How strongly do you support or oppose overriding TABOR one time only to allow funding for state services that were cut during the recent recession to be restored to previous levels while still limiting future growth and spending?
The response: 21% support, 62% opposed.
Fifty-five percent support a permanent override, but only 21% support a one-time override?
That doesn’t make sense: if you support repeal, you’ll support a temporary override. Itís not everything, but it’s better than nothing, and the repeal option is still there.
How to explain this? Easy ? they didnít set the question up the same way as the other two.
Now consider this question from a different poll, conducted in March, 2003:
In 1992 Colorado voters passed Amendment 1, the TABOR Amendment, a constitutional amendment that requires voting on all tax increases and limits the annual increase in revenue state and local government can spend. After ten years of operation, do you support the amendment, not support the amendment or want to change the amendment?
No setup, no attempt to establish or influence any preconceived notions. Just a brief description of TABOR.
The result: 60% supported TABOR. Another 16% supported, but wanted changes made. Only 15% didnít support it.
When you ask the questions honestly, you get honest answers. It would be nice to expect a little honesty even from the spending lobby, who have already decided to stand against TABOR.
No related posts.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Laseeís Notes
ByLiberal vs. Conservative – Why Can’t We Agree?
Why canít politicians just get together and do the right thing for the people of Wisconsin?
Thatís a question we hear, and read, often. Why the squabbling? Why the fighting? Why not just do what common sense tells us is right?
The answer is, because we donít agree on whatís right. We have serious disagreements over whatís best, and over what the government should and should not do.
On one side is the extreme liberal view: government should take responsibility for anything, everything. Whatever needs there are, government should fill them. Take care of everyone, cradle to grave: provide food, clothes, a warm, clean home, and health care, regardless of the choices people make for themselves ? whether they put effort out on their own behalf, whether they make good choices or not. Itís the governmentís responsibility to provide these things.
The conservative extreme ? government provides nothing other than roads and prisons, and weíre not so sure about the prisons.
There arenít many of us on either of those extremes. Everyone falls somewhere to the left or right of center, and not always on the same issues: some conservatives want government to spend more, some liberals want government to regulate less.
Government provides K-12 education. If you take the liberal view, then it doesnít matter how a student behaves, whether he does his homework, dresses appropriately, participates in class (or even shows up on his own). It doesnít matter if the studentís parents are never home, and take no interest in the studentís education. If that student isnít getting a good education, then the government has to do something more to provide it.
On the other hand, if you think the government should provide the building, teacher, and book, and what happens after that is the individualís (student and family) responsibility, youíre taking the conservative view.
Depending on which view you take, you will produce a different system. One will require more people, more money, more regulation to give the government more authority over individual lives. The other will require less.
This is why we argue: common sense tells us different things. One side wants more government power, the other wants more freedom for individuals, even when individuals make the wrong choices.
Thatís a litmus test that will always point you in the right direction, on the political map: is it more important to throw more money ? money our government must first take from us ? at problems, or is it better to leave more money in peopleís pockets so they can make their own decisions, and solve their own problems?
Which way is more likely to work?
No related posts.
The AARP poll was stacked and Lasee has it right. The respondants voted in the last election by 70 percent. Also the income was skewed to upper income and, as expected, to the retired. So much for random selection.
I wonder if the Minister of Propaganda for the Hudson School District will use the same polling outfit to “survey” the citizens to see if they would like some big new buildings.