Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

What’s Next California?

Deliberative Poll in Torrance, CA June 24-26, 2011

Representativeness Analysis: Participants vs. Separate Sample of Non-Participants

Participants were compared to a separate sample of 300 non-participants – registered voters who were never invited to the event. The tables below compare the participant sample to the non-participant sample in both demographics and attitudes. There were no significant differences between the participants and non-participants in gender, age, education, employment status, ethnicity, political party affiliation, or political ideology. There were, however, small differences in income and religious attendance and some significant differences on some policy proposals. To ensure that these differences did not affect our results, we weighted our participant sample by propensity scores to match the non- participant sample on pre-deliberation policy attitudes. Weighting affected our results (presented at the end of this document) only minimally – there were no significant differences at T3 and few if any differences in attitude change between the weighted and unweighted versions of our participant

sample.”

Hence, we conclude that any attitudinal differences at time 1 did not affect our results.

Note. Percentages shown with cell frequencies in parentheses. All significance tests are two-tailed unless otherwise noted. *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 

Participants (N)

Non-Participants (N)

Gender

   

Female

55.4% (222)

49.3% (148)

Male

44.6% (179)

50.7% (152)

Age in years

49.07 years (401)

46.75 years (300)

Education

   

Less than high school

0.5% (2)

1.3% (4)

High school

6.0% (24)

8.3% (25)

Some university/college

25.4% (102)

32.7% (98)

University/college graduate

33.9% (136)

29.7% (89)

Some graduate work

6.7% (27)

6.0% (18)

Graduate degree

27.2% (109)

20.7% (62)

No answer/ Missing

0.2% (1)

1.3% (4)

Employment Status

   

Employed full-time

43.1% (173)

45.3% (136)

Employed part-time

15.7% (63)

10.7% (32)

Not employed, but actively looking for work

11.7% (47)

8.7% (26)

Student

5.2% (21)

7.3% (22)

Not actively looking for work

22.2% (89)

25.7% (77)

No Answer/ Missing

2.0% (8)

2.3% (7)

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

Religious Service Attendance **

Participants (N)

Non-Participants (N)

Every week

22.9% (92)

25.0% (75)

Almost every week

7.5% (30)

2.7% (8)

Once or twice a month

13.0% (52)

12.0% (36)

A few times a year

28.9% (116)

25.7% (77)

Never

26.9% (108)

30.3% (91)

No answer

0.7% (3)

4.3% (13)

Married and living with spouse

   

Yes

58.6% (235)

61.3% (184)

No

40.6% (163)

36.7% (110)

No answer

0.7% (3)

2.0% (6)

Annual household income***

   

Less than $25,000

12.0% (48)

11.0% (33)

$25,000 to $49,999

14.0% (56)

13.7% (41)

$50,000 to $74,999

23.9% (96)

17.3% (52)

$75,000 to $99,999

15.2% (61)

12.3% (37)

$100,000 to $124,999

11.7% (47)

9.0% (27)

$125,000 to $149,999

4.2% (17)

5.3% (16)

$150,000 or more

10.2% (41)

9.7% (29)

No answer/ don’t know

8.7% (35)

21.7% (65)

Ethnicity

   

White

69.6% (279)

65.7% (197)

Black

7.0% (28)

3.7% (11)

Hispanic

14.0% (56)

22.0% (66)

Asian/ Pacific islander

5.2% (21)

5.3% (16)

Native American

1.2% (5)

1.7% (5)

Other

2.5% (10)

1.7% (5)

No answer

0.5% (2)

0% (0)

Political Ideology

   

Liberal-leaning (0-4)

36.7% (147)

37.7% (113)

Exactly in the middle (5)

17.0% (68)

20.7% (62)

Conservative-leaning (6-10)

41.9% (168)

35.7% (107)

No Opinion/ Missing

4.5% (18)

6.0% (18)

Party Affiliation

   

Republican

28.9% (116)

28.3% (85)

Democrat

47.1% (189)

48.0% (144)

Other

4.7% (19)

3.0% (9)

Independent

19.2% (77)

20.7% (62)

Region

   

LA County

25.4% (102)

20.7% (62)

Orange County

10.0% (40)

8.0% (24)

Inland Empire

9.7% (39)

11.7% (35)

San Diego County

10.2% (41)

8.7% (26)

Central Coast

7.0% (28)

7.7% (23)

Central/ Fresno

6.0% (24)

7.0% (21)

Greater Sacramento

9.0% (36)

14.3% (43)

Bay Area

19.2% (77)

18.0% (54)

North

3.5% (14)

4.0% (12)

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

Attitude Comparison Results (*** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05; Valid percentages are reported for valid responses. Raw percentages are reported for DK/NA responses.)

 

Participants

Non-

t-Test

Participants

1. To begin with, all in all, on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is "extremely poorly”, 10 is “extremely well,” and 5 is exactly in the middle, how well or poorly would you say the system of democracy in California works these days?

0.460

0.434

 

0-4

44.6

47.7

 

5

24.1

22.5

 

6-10

31.4

29.9

 

(DK/NA)

(1.5)

(0.7)

 

On a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is "extremely undesirable”, 10 is “extremely desirable,” and 5 is exactly in the middle, how desirable or undesirable would you say each of the following is? 2. Increasing the number of legislative districts so that each legislator represents fewer people

0.577

0.475

***

0-4

28.6

38.2

 

5

14.4

27.3

 

6-10

56.9

34.5

 

(DK/NA)

(10.2)

(11.0)

 

3. Making the State Legislature a single house, instead of its current Senate and Assembly

0.390

0.339

*

0-4

53.8

59.5

 

5

18.2

21.0

 

6-10

28.0

19.4

 

(DK/NA)

(19.0)

(16.0)

 

4. Increasing Assembly terms from 2 years to 4, and Senate terms from 4 years to 6

0.421

0.337

**

0-4

49.9

61.5

 

5

17.8

13.4

 

6-10

32.4

25.1

 

(DK/NA)

(6.0)

(5.7)

 

5. Allowing initiative proponents to amend an initiative following public input

0.622

0.538

**

0-4

23.7

30.4

 

5

14.8

18.7

 

6-10

61.6

50.9

 

(DK/NA)

(7.2)

(9.0)

 

6. Allowing initiative proponents to withdraw an initiative it even after it qualifies for the ballot

0.562

0.481

**

0-4

34.5

36.6

 

5

15.5

26.0

 

6-10

50.0

37.4

 

(DK/NA)

(8.2)

(12.7)

 

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

7.

Allowing the Legislature to enact into law an initiative that has

0.455

0.379

**

already qualified for the ballot so it doesn’t need to be included on the ballot

 

0-4

44.7

54.8

 
 

5

16.3

15.1

 
 

6-10

39.0

30.1

 
 

(DK/NA)

(8.5)

(9.3)

 

8. Putting all initiative dealing with the same subject next to one another on the ballot

0.790

0.771

 
 

0-4

8.3

8.3

 
 

5

8.0

14.1

 
 

6-10

83.7

77.6

 
 

(DK/NA)

(3.7)

(3.3)

 

9.

Allowing signatures for initiatives to be gathered electronically

0.496

0.440

*

 

0-4

42.4

47.1

 
 

5

15.0

14.1

 
 

6-10

42.6

38.8

 
 

(DK/NA)

(5.2)

(3.0)

 

10. Requiring that initiatives say how they will be paid for if they would cost taxpayers more than $25 million to implement

0.799

0.719

***

 

0-4

10.9

18.1

 
 

5

6.8

10.9

 
 

6-10

82.3

71.0

 
 

(DK/NA)

(4.0)

(8.0)

 

11. Prohibiting initiatives that require the State to spend a substantial portion of its budget for a specific purpose

0.558

0.478

**

 

0-4

32.8

40.1

 
 

5

20.1

27.3

 
 

6-10

47.2

32.6

 
 

(DK/NA)

(8.0)

(11.0)

 

12. Requiring election campaign contributions to be disclosed more frequently

0.844

0.822

 
 

0-4

5.4

7.2

 
 

5

6.9

10.0

 
 

6-10

87.7

82.8

 
 

(DK/NA)

(2.5)

(3.3)

 

13. Allowing voters to rank their top three candidates, so that the winner can be decided in a single election without a second election

0.661

0.607

*

 

0-4

20.6

30.6

 
 

5

13.5

11.0

 
 

6-10

66.0

58.4

 
 

(DK/NA)

(5.5)

(6.3)

 
 

14. Permitting petitions for ballot initiatives to be distributed electronically, then printed and signed

0.638

0.594

 
 

0-4

22.4

28.5

 
 

5

15.8

14.6

 
 

6-10

61.8

56.9

 
 

(DK/NA)

(5.2)

(6.3)

 

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

 

15. Reducing the number of bills a legislator can introduce during a two-year session

0.477

0.508

 
 

0-4

43.0

38.6

 
 

5

23.2

22.4

 
 

6-10

33.8

39.0

 
 

(DK/NA)

(10.7)

(9.3)

 

16.

Reducing the length of the state legislative session and making the job of State Legislator a part-time position

0.492

0.495

 
 

5

16.2

17.5

 
 

6-10

39.8

38.3

 
 

(DK/NA)

(9.2)

(10.3)

 

17. Appointing all California judges for lifetime terms, subject only to recall election

0.349

0.338

 
 

0-4

62.6

61.6

 
 

5

15.0

12.7

 
 

6-10

22.4

25.7

 
 

(DK/NA)

(8.7)

(5.3)

 
 

18. Applying the sales tax to services in addition to goods

0.345

0.295

*

 

0-4

60.3

64.5

 
 

5

15.3

15.8

 
 

6-10

24.5

19.8

 
 

(DK/NA)

(5.2)

(9.0)

 

19.

Flattening the state income tax rates, so that everyone pays closer

0.549

0.541

 

to the same rate (while continuing to exempt low income individuals)

 

0-4

35.2

38.0

 
 

5

13.1

12.2

 
 

6-10

51.7

49.8

 
 

(DK/NA)

(5.0)

(7.0)

 
 

20. Taxing non-residential property at a higher rate than residential property

0.529

0.457

**

 

0-4

33.6

41.8

 
 

5

17.3

21.4

 
 

6-10

49.1

36.8

 
 

(DK/NA)

(6.5)

(6.7)

 

21. Increasing the vehicle license fee from 0.65% to 2% and distribute that additional revenue locally for local purposes

0.423

0.378

 
 

0-4

49.2

59.4

 
 

5

13.9

9.9

 
 

6-10

36.9

30.7

 
 

(DK/NA)

(3.2)

(2.3)

 
 

22. Requiring that changes in commercial ownership trigger tax reassessments on the same way they do for residential property

0.688

0.616

**

 

0-4

13.6

25.4

 
 

5

15.8

20.1

 
 

6-10

70.6

54.5

 
 

(DK/NA)

(10.3)

(12.0)

 

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

23.

Requiring the same 55 percent majority for all local tax proposals

0.653

0.629

 
 

0-4

19.5

21.5

 
 

5

16.5

16.3

 
 

6-10

64.0

62.2

 
 

(DK/NA)

(8.0)

(10.0)

 

24. Assign responsibility for service delivery to the level of government that is best suited to carry it out

0.737

0.679

**

 

0-4

8.0

14.0

 
 

5

13.9

18.1

 
 

6-10

78.1

67.9

 
 

(DK/

(6.5)

(9.7)

 
 

25. Giving control of the funding for a service to the level of government that is responsible for delivering it

0.659

0.613

*

 

0-4

16.2

18.6

 
 

5

14.9

22.7

 
 

6-10

68.9

58.7

 
 

(DK/NA)

(7.7)

(10.3)

 

26. Making it easier for local governments to levy taxes for services they are responsible for providing

0.530

0.498

 
 

0-4

33.4

36.9

 
 

5

15.0

18.3

 
 

6-10

51.6

44.8

 
 

(DK/NA)

(5.2)

(7.0)

 

27. Allow local governments to raise taxes for local services in exchange for requiring greater accountability for program performance

0.560

0.504

*

 

0-4

29.6

35.0

 
 

5

14.8

19.7

 
 

6-10

55.6

45.3

 
 

(DK/NA)

(5.7)

(8.7)

 

28. Establishing a process to consolidate similar services provided by different parts of local governments and special districts

0.704

0.656

*

 

0-4

8.2

17.9

 
 

5

21.2

16.3

 
 

6-10

70.6

65.8

 
 

(DK/NA)

(11.7)

(12.3)

 

29. On a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is "not at all”, 10 is “as much as could

0.339

0.300

*

reasonably be expected,” and 5 is exactly in the middle, how much or little would you say the California State Legislature is able to get things done? IF N/A, REFUSED, then 98; IF NO OPINION, then 99.

 

0-4

69.0

73.6

 
 

5

16.8

13.6

 
 

6-10

14.2

12.9

 
 

(DK/NA)

(2.0)

(1.7)

 

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

30. On another 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is “not at all”, 10 is “completely”, and 5 is exactly in the middle, to what extent is the ability of the State Legislature to get things done affected by tensions between political parties? IF N/A, REFUSED, then 98; IF NO OPINION, then 99.

0.663

0.601

*

0-4

23.3

31.3

 

5

9.0

14.6

 

6-10

67.7

54.1

 

(DK/NA)

(2.7)

(2.0)

 

31. And, on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is completely at the local level, 10 is completely at the State level, and 5 is exactly in the middle, how much decision-making authority should there be at the local level versus the State level? IF N/A, REFUSED, then 98; IF NO OPINION, then

0.496

0.468

 

99.

0-4

33.9

35.5

 

5

35.4

37.6

 

6-10

30.7

26.8

 

(DK/NA)

(5.7)

(4.3)

 

32. And, on the same scale, how much taxation power should there be at the local versus State level? IF N/A, REFUSED, then 98; IF NO OPINION, then 99.

0.497

0.498

 

0-4

31.5

33.3

 

5

36.0

35.4

 

6-10

32.5

31.2

 

(DK/NA)

(6.5)

(5.0)

 

33. On another 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is “completely by voters in referendum”, 10 is “completely by the State Legislature”, and 5 is exactly in the middle, how much of the State’s major decisions should be made by voters in referendums versus by the State Legislature? IF N/A, REFUSED, then 98; IF NO OPINION, then 99.

0.503

0.457

*

0-4

35.6

42.4

 

5

22.0

25.7

 

6-10

42.4

31.9

 

(DK/NA)

(4.7)

(4.0)

 

34. People with views very different from mine often have good reasons for their views even when they are wrong. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?

0.750

0.666

***

Agree strongly (1)

33.5

39.9

 

Agree somewhat

38.1

34.9

 

Neither agree nor disagree

9.5

8.7

 

Disagree somewhat

9.0

11.4

 

Disagree strongly (0)

10.0

5.0

 

(DK/NA)

(2.5)

(0.7)

 

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

35. Public officials care a lot about what people like me think. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?

0.376

0.349

Agree strongly (1)

7.3

8.1

Agree somewhat

21.6

23.9

Neither agree nor disagree

9.0

12.5

Disagree somewhat

26.6

23.2

Disagree strongly (0)

35.6

32.3

(DK/NA)

(0.5)

(1.0)

36. Most public policy issues are so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what’s going on. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?

0.520

0.510

Agree strongly (1)

27.5

25.8

Agree somewhat

24.0

25.4

Neither agree nor disagree

5.0

5.7

Disagree somewhat

16.8

18.7

Disagree strongly (0)

26.8

24.4

(DK/NA)

(0.2)

(0.3)

Weighted Versus Unweighted Version of Participant Sample The participant sample was weighted for attitudinal differences with the comparison group at time 1. The weighting also took account of knowledge differences and the different representation of Hispanics between the participant sample and the comparison group (even though the difference in levels of Hispanic representation in the two samples was not statistically significant.) The table below shows that the time 3 opinions between the weighted and unweighted samples showed no statistically significant differences on any attitude item. The columns are the means on a 0 to 1 scale for T3 for the weighted and unweighted versions of our participant sample. The question numbers correspond to the tables in the other appendices.

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

Weighted T3 vs. Unweighted T3

 

Weighted T3 Mean

Unweighted T3 mean

Weighted T3 - Unweighted T3

p-value

Q1

.49

.47

.02

.429

Q3

.77

.78

-.01

.744

Q4

.73

.76

-.03

.530

Q7

.48

.47

.01

.592

Q8

.52

.51

.01

.779

Q9

.56

.57

-.01

.725

Q10

.54

.55

-.01

.855

Q2a

.67

.69

-.02

.685

Q2b

.43

.45

-.02

.837

Q2c

.38

.39

.01

.863

Q2d

.44

.42

.02

.594

Q2e

.30

.28

.02

.580

Q2f

.58

.61

-.03

.469

Q2g

.80

.81

-.01

.943

Q2h

.85

.86

-.01

.954

Q2i

.69

.70

-.01

.846

Q2j

.87

.89

-.02

.818

Q2k

.63

.65

-.02

.820

Q2l

.51

.54

-.03

.624

Q2m

.48

.47

.01

.978

Q2n

.37

.35

.02

.506

Q2o

.55

.54

.01

.859

Q2p

.55

.58

-.03

.188

Q2q

.75

.77

-.02

.675

Q2r

.82

.84

-.02

.792

Q2s

.84

.85

-.01

.977

Q2t

.72

.72

.00

.881

Q2u

.77

.78

-.01

.820

Q2v

.68

.70

-.01

.883

Q2w

.58

.62

-.04

.233

Q2x

.66

.67

-.01

.922

Q2y

.70

.72

-.02

.718

Q2z

.84

.84

.00

.951

Q2aa

.83

.85

-.02

.807

Q2ab

.80

.81

-.01

.827

Q2ac

.81

.83

-.02

.752

Q2ad

.78

.80

-.02

.481

Q2ae

.70

.71

-.01

.604

Q2af

.48

.50

-.02

.640

Q2ag

.32

.31

.01

.590

Q2ah

.46

.51

-.04

.117

Q2ai

.71

.70

.01

.877

Q2aj

.43

.40

.03

.326

Q2ak

.34

.35

-.01

.557

Q2al

.51

.48

.03

.746

Q2am

.48

.49

-.01

.743

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

A Note on Racial/Ethnic Composition

There were noticeably fewer Hispanics in the participant group vis-à-vis non-participant group. The difference was within what normal random variation is liable to produce. However, as noted, we took the precaution of including Hispanic representation in our matching analysis to check whether it made any difference to our results. The version of our participant sample in which Hispanic representation was made to resemble the comparison group did not produce different results.

Here is a breakdown of the racial composition of the California registered and eligible voter population, as estimated from voter registration data (in which ethnicity can be imputed from names), by commercial firms that provide survey sample such as Political Data, and from analyzing survey data from PPIC.

Racial breakdown of Eligible Voters and Registered Voters in California

 

Eligible

Registered

 

Sec. of

Political

 

PPIC

PPIC

State

Data

White

62.2%

64.2%

Hispanic

22.6%

20.5%

22%

21.2%

Black

5.2%

5.2%

Asian

6.8%

6.9%

8%

8.83%

Other

-

-

-

Total

100%

100%

100%

PPIC Survey

Weighted Survey data from PPIC state-wide survey in September 2010.

Secretary of State

Only two ethnicities available as you can see here –

Registered Voter Data via Political Data (Polling Firm)

Source: http://www.politicaldata.com