Posts tagged ‘Election 2012’

Perceptual Map of Oregon’s Nine Ballot Measures

This post presents a perceptual map of Oregon’s nine November 2012 statewide ballot measures. This analysis is based on 1,000 interviews from tracking polls we’ve conducted in September and October.

First, the Perceptual Map of all three factors in one place:

The idea of a perceptual map is to see how the measures are associated. One way to think of it is that there are nine measures on the ballot and nine separate issues to decide. How people vote on these nine questions are driven by deeper, latent, issues. Please see the end of the post for the methodology.

The factors are driven by the weight in the measures. Since there are two casino measures, the casino issue takes up approximately double the weight.

There are three factors (three dimensions). Each one can be seen as distinguishing between a positive and a negative side. The first distinguishes the two Casino measures (82 and 83) from all the others. The second distinguishes the two constitutional measures (77 and 78) and the kicker measure (85) from the two casino measures (82 and 83) and the inheritance tax (84). The third distinguishes the transfer tax and inheritance tax (79 and 84) from the marijuana measure (80).

The nine measures can be grouped. The two casino measures (82 and 83) are always together and on their own. Relatively closer to them are the two business measures (79 on the Real Estate Transfer Tax and 84 on the inheritance tax). These two pairs generally stand apart from the other five measures. The two constitutional measures (77 and 78) are usually close together. The remaining three measures (80, 81, and 85) generally stay near the constitutional measures, but their relative positions change.

One interesting pattern is that the “pro-business” measures are grouped with the casino measures and the “progressive” measures are grouped with the constitutional measures.

The relative positions are probably easier to see when presented as a series of two-dimensional maps.

Factors 1 and 2

Factors 1 and 3

Factors 2 and 3

The share of the total variance: Factor 1: 23 percent – Factor 2: 19 percent – Factor 3 14 percent

These data are from a series of tracking polls we’ve of the Oregon General election. It’s part of a longer-term research project and not for any client. Each of the surveys is only 200 voters and has too much individual variation to be reported. Our results generally match results from all the other surveys.

QUESTIONS
Now, I would like to talk to you about some measures that will be on the November ballot.
If the election were held today on ________________, would you vote yes or no?
IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat?
IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?
DO NOT ROTATE QUESTIONS
1. Measure #77 Amends Constitution: Governor may declare “catastrophic disaster” (defined); requires legislative session; authorizes suspending specified constitutional spending restrictions
2. Measure #78 Amends Constitution: Changes constitutional language describing governmental system of separation of powers; makes grammatical and spelling changes
3. Measure #79 Amends Constitution: Prohibits real estate transfer taxes, fees, other assessments, except those operative on December 31, 2009
4. Measure #80 Allows personal marijuana, hemp cultivation/use without license; commission to regulate commercial marijuana cultivation/sale
5. Measure #81 Prohibits commercial non-tribal fishing with gillnets in Oregon “inland waters,” allows use of seine nets
6. Measure #82 Amends Constitution: Authorizes Establishment of Privately-Owned Casinos; Mandates Percentage Of Revenues Payable To Dedicated State Fund
7. Measure #83 Authorizes Privately-Owned Wood Village Casino; Mandates Percentage Of Revenues Payable To Dedicated State Fund
8. Measure #84 Phases out existing inheritance taxes on large estates, and all taxes on intra-family property transfers
9. Measure #85 Amends Constitution: Allocates Corporate Income/Excise Tax “Kicker” Refund To Additionally Fund K Through 12 Public Education

METHODOLOGY
This tracking survey series is comprised of five statewide Oregon surveys of 200 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon General Election voters conducted each of September 17-18, October 1-2, October 15-16, October 22-23, and October 29-30, 2012. The margin of error at the sample median is plus or minus five percent.

The total sample contains 1,000 interviews.

The perceptual map was constructed using factor analysis. Technically, it a Principal Components Analysis was used with unrotated factors. Factors were deemed significant if their eigenvalue was greater than one.

This methodology was used because it involved the least number of assumptions and, in that sense, was the “purest” way to obtain the results. There are more sophisticated methods that would arguably be more illuminating. The objective here was lack of bias and transparency.

Pat Farr’s Increasing Favorability – December 2011 to May 2012

Despite Eugene being such a divided city between North and South, Pat Farr’s campaign for county commissioner significantly raised his favorability ratings citywide in Eugene.

QUESTION:
Now, I am going to read the names of some people. Please tell me whether you have heard of each. IF HEARD OF … Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Pat Farr?

METHODOLOGY:
All surveys consist of 200 telephone interviews of likely Eugene General Election voters. The margin of error at the overall sample median is plus or minus 7 percent.

The surveys were conducted December 5-6, 2011, January 10-11, 2012 and May 23-24,2012.

The graphic only includes “Hard Name ID” ratings. “Don’t Know” and “No Opinion” ratings were omitted.

Divided Eugene: Handy and Prociw Votes Compared

This post shows something interesting from the May Primary.

Here are numbers from all the City of Eugene precincts that are also in the North Eugene County Commissioner District. Kevin Prociw received 5,100 votes for Mayor and Rob Handy received 3,398 votes for County Commissioner.

In part, this shows how badly Handy and Prociw were beaten.

This also shows Eugene really is a divided town. Handy running as an incumbent county commissioner was handily out polled by a candidate outspent nearly 35 to 1.

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES: 1. Wards 7 and 8 were grouped together because include only small portions of the North Eugene County Commission District. For the record, Handy won Ward 7. 2. There is not a perfect overlap with Precinct 1781. There were 30 fewer voters in the North Eugene County Commissioner district than in the City of Eugene. All other precincts had an identical number of voters.

North Eugene County Commission Votes by Region

This graphic compares the support for Pat Farr, Rob Handy, and Nadia Sindi by region in the North Eugene County Commissioner District 2012 Primary.

Overall, Farr won by nearly two-to-one and a nearly 30-point margin. Farr also won seven of the eight regions defined above. He even won the portion of Ward 7 in the district.

Handy only won his River Road home ground. However, Handy’s margin was only 14 points! Eugene city councilors rarely do well in River Road. River Road Community Organization neighborhood leaders often do very well there.

2012 Primary Springfield Mayor and City Council Results

This post follows the Springfield Mayoral election post at http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=7831.

The ward-by-ward Springfield mayoral and city council votes continues to confirm how different Springfield is from Eugene.

There is an extremely strong citywide consensus in favor of the current city leadership.

Wards 1 through 3:

Wards 4 through 6:

Looking a five winning candidates in six wards (a total of 30 observations), only one was under 50 percent (Ralston in Ward 3) … and even then not by much.

Source of Data: Lane County Elections

A Springfield Ward Map is at: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/Pubworks/TechnicalServices/SpatialDataProducts/StandardMaps/std_map_wards.pdf

Springfield 2012 Primary Mayor Results by Ward

The ward-by-ward Springfield mayoral vote confirms how different Springfield is from Eugene. Compared with the Eugene Mayoral contest (http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=7828), the Springfield mayoral results were almost constant citywide.

Lundberg won by almost exactly the same percentage in every ward. Piercy had a 40-point spread between her top and bottom wards in Eugene. Lundberg had only a 7-point spread between her top and bottom wards.

Source of Data: Lane County Elections

A Springfield Ward Map is at: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/Pubworks/TechnicalServices/SpatialDataProducts/StandardMaps/std_map_wards.pdf

Eugene 2012 Primary Mayor Results by Ward

The ward-by-ward mayoral vote once again confirms how politically divided Eugene is. Piercy won overwhelming victories in the three southern wards – Ward 1, Ward 2, and Ward 3. Piercy’s margin was much less in the other five wards. Piercy actually lost Ward 6 to Prociw. Piercy’s spread was nearly forty points from her high of 86 percent in Ward 3 and her low of 47 percent in Ward 6. The Prociw campaign was most visible in northwest Eugene.

Source of Data: Lane County Elections

A Eugene Ward Map is at: http://www.eugene-or.gov/index.aspx?NID=532

 

Support for New Eugene Street Repair Bond

Street repairs continue to be something Eugeneans are willing to pay for.

The potential bond that the city council is looking at receives strong support. These numbers echo the strong support polled in December for a $40 million bond: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=6992.

QUESTION
Now, I would like to ask you about some issues facing Eugene. Do you support or oppose a $43 million street repair bond?

METHODOLOGY
200 telephone interviews of likely 2012 Eugene General Election voters were conducted a May 23 and 24, 2012. The margin of error at the sample median for each survey is 7 percent.

2012 Primary Eugene Mayoral Contest Simulation

This post presents some analysis of the polling results presented earlier. The unadjusted results are at: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=7734.

Polls, especially of local races, invariably include many undecided voters. Pollsters can  improve estimates of the actual ballot standing.Pollsters can assign the undecided vote based on rules of thumb. This graphic uses a standard method to assign the undecided to each of the three candidates for Eugene Mayor.

It seems that Prociw made significant gains after the ballots were mailed. He became Piercy’s most important challenger. Not only did he collect the lion’s share of undecided voters, see the earlier post, but the predicted vote shifted towards him as well. Piercy opponents, over time, learned that he was their choice.

QUESTION
If the election for Mayor of Eugene were held today, would you vote for Kitty Piercy, Kevin Prociw, or Jon Walrod (ROTATE NAMES)? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way would you lean?

METHODOLOGY
200 telephone interviews of likely 2012 City of Eugene Primary voters were conducted February 22 through 24, 2012. The margin of error at the sample median is 7 percent.

The election results are the final unofficial numbers from Lane County Elections.

The adjustment assumed that not more than one-third of the undecided voters would vote for the incumbent and that the remaining votes would be divided among the challengers in proportion to their support. In this case, Mayor Piercy was allocated one-third of the undecided, Prociw four-ninths (2/3*8/12) and Walrod two ninths (2/3*4/12).

2012 Primary Springfield Mayoral Contest Simulation

This post presents some analysis of the polling results for the Springfield mayoral race presented earlier.  This graphic shows tracking poll predictions and the final vote. The original results are at: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=7741.

Using this simulation technique, there was virtually no change in support levels during the two months of the campaign before the election. This implies that Springfield voters are pretty settled on their preferences for mayor and probably on the direction of the city.

QUESTION
If the election for Mayor of Springfield were held today, would you vote for Christine Lundberg or Denise Bean (ROTATE NAMES)? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way would you lean?

METHODOLOGY
200 telephone interviews of likely 2012 City of Springfield Primary voters were conducted March 13 and 14, 2012. The margin of error at the sample median is 7 percent.

The election results are the final unofficial numbers from Lane County Elections.

The adjustment assumed that one-third of the undecided voters would vote for the incumbent and that the remaining two-thirds would go to the challenger. In this case, one-third of the undecided were assigned to Lundberg and two-thirds to Bean.