1 / 20

Methodology

Methodology. Interviews conducted by telephone with 1500 randomly selected California registered voters likely to vote in November 2010 Statewide Election Dates of interview: May 6 – 14, 2009 Margin of error for the full sample is +/-2.5% Margin of error for half the sample is +/-3.6%.

nbarras
Télécharger la présentation

Methodology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Methodology • Interviews conducted by telephone with 1500 randomly selected California registered voters likely to vote in November 2010 Statewide Election • Dates of interview: May 6 – 14, 2009 • Margin of error for the full sample is +/-2.5% • Margin of error for half the sample is +/-3.6%

  2. Right Direction/Wrong Track: Voter opinion of the state differs dramatically from their perception of how things are going at the local level. (Ranked by Right Direction) 2. Would you say that things in are generally headed in the right direction or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?

  3. About a third of voters know that a local special purpose tax or bond measure requires two-thirds approval of local voters. (Split Sample) Multiple Choice Open-end 4a & b. Do you know what percentage is needed for local voters to pass a local tax or bond measure to fund a specific local service in their City or County? Is it. . . ? Split Sample

  4. Informing voters about the current two-thirds requirements has a significant effect on support for a 55% threshold for local finance measures. (Split Sample) Would you support or oppose a requirement that local tax and bond measures that fund specific local services in cities, counties or school districts, be approved by 55% of local voters instead of the present two-thirds vote requirement? Would you support or oppose a requirement that local tax and bond measures that fund specific local services in cities, counties or school districts, be approved by 55% of local voters? Total Support62% Total Support53% Total Oppose30% Total Oppose40% Q5a/5b.

  5. Proposition 39 Ballot Language – 55% Threshold for Local School Bond Measures Proposition 39. School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes Accountability Requirements. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Authorizes bonds for repair, construction or replacement of school facilities, classrooms, if approved by 55% local vote. Fiscal Impact: Increased bond debt for many school districts. Long-term costs statewide could total in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Potential longer-term state savings to the extent school districts assume greater responsibility for funding school facilities. November 2000 Election Day January 1999 Baseline Survey

  6. Voters were read a summary of current law and a proposed ballot initiative. • Information Statement: California’s State Constitution currently requires local special purpose tax and bond measures to be approved by two-thirds of voters, which is 66.7%, in a given city or county, and for certain school funding measures. Special purpose tax measures are those where funds must be dedicated for a single local service or project. • “Let me ask you about a possible statewide initiative that may appear on the ballot next year. This initiative would do two things: • First, it would require the approval of (55/50) percent of local voters to pass a tax or bond measure to fund specific local services - like public safety, emergency room care, transportation and local schools - instead of the present two-thirds vote requirement. • Second, it would require mandatory accountability provisions for local funding measures, including annual independent performance audits, citizens’ oversight, and public expenditure reports. • Knowing this, would you support or oppose this ballot initiative?”

  7. Total support for changing the threshold level is similar at 55% and 50%, but there is greater intensity (“strongly support”) at the 55% level. November 2010 Likely Voters 50%+1 Threshold 55% Threshold Total Support53% Total Support56% Total Oppose35% Total Oppose38% 6/7. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

  8. 55% Threshold Demographics: Party and Gender Party Gender (46%) (36%) (18%) (46%) (54%) % of Sample 6. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

  9. 55% Threshold Demographics: Ethnicity % of Sample (16%) (5%) (67%) (5%) (26%) 6. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

  10. 55% Threshold Demographics: Region % of Sample (24%) (22%) (22%) (9%) (11%) (12%) (11%) 6. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

  11. Voters have a higher regard for local government and are more concerned about protecting local services. (Ranked by 2009 Total Strongly/S.W. Agree) 10. I am going to read you a list of statements. I’d like you to tell me whether you generally agree or disagree. Split Sample

  12. The accountability provisions and greater local control of funds attached to the initiative are well-received by voters. (Ranked by Total Strongly/S.W. Support) 12. I am now going to read you some different provisions that may also be included in the potential initiative to require the approval of at least 55%/50% percent of local voters to pass a tax or bond measure to fund specific local services. Please tell me whether you support or oppose that provision. Split Sample

  13. Most Effective Statements in Support of an Initiative to Change the Threshold for Local Finance Measures (Ranked by Total More Inclined to Support Initiative) 65% 65% 64% 13. I am going to read you some statements made by people who support this initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to support this initiative. *Split Sample

  14. After the messages, two-thirds support a 55% threshold for local finance measures and nearly three-in-five support a simple majority. 55% Threshold 50%+1 Threshold Vote after Messages Vote after Messages Initial Vote Initial Vote Total Support56% Total Support64% Total Support53% Total Support58% Total Oppose35% Total Oppose28% Total Oppose38% Total Oppose36% 6/14a/7/14b. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

  15. Statements Opposed to Changing Two-thirds Requirement for Local Finance Measures (Ranked by Total More Inclined to Oppose Initiative) 53% 52% 15. I am going to mention to you some statements made by people who oppose this possible statewide ballot initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to oppose such an initiative. Split Sample

  16. Continued 49% 49% 46% 15. I am going to mention to you some statements made by people who oppose this possible statewide ballot initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to oppose such an initiative. Split Sample

  17. Continued 45% 43% 37% 15. I am going to mention to you some statements made by people who oppose this possible statewide ballot initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to oppose such an initiative. Split Sample

  18. Even after negative messages, three-in-five voters support changing the threshold to pass local tax and bond measures to 55%. 6/14a/16a. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

More Related