Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

Whats 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 nonparticipant 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) Gender Female Male Age in years Education Less than high school High school Some university/college University/college graduate Some graduate work Graduate degree No answer/ Missing Employment Status Employed full-time Employed part-time Not employed, but actively looking for work Student Not actively looking for work No Answer/ Missing 55.4% (222) 44.6% (179) 49.07 years (401) 0.5% (2) 6.0% (24) 25.4% (102) 33.9% (136) 6.7% (27) 27.2% (109) 0.2% (1) 43.1% (173) 15.7% (63) 11.7% (47) 5.2% (21) 22.2% (89) 2.0% (8)

Non-Participants (N) 49.3% (148) 50.7% (152) 46.75 years (300) 1.3% (4) 8.3% (25) 32.7% (98) 29.7% (89) 6.0% (18) 20.7% (62) 1.3% (4) 45.3% (136) 10.7% (32) 8.7% (26) 7.3% (22) 25.7% (77) 2.3% (7)

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

Religious Service Attendance ** Every week Almost every week Once or twice a month A few times a year Never No answer Married and living with spouse Yes No No answer Annual household income*** Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more No answer/ dont know Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/ Pacific islander Native American Other No answer Political Ideology Liberal-leaning (0-4) Exactly in the middle (5) Conservative-leaning (6-10) No Opinion/ Missing Party Affiliation Republican Democrat Other Independent Region LA County Orange County Inland Empire San Diego County Central Coast Central/ Fresno Greater Sacramento Bay Area North Participants (N) 22.9% (92) 7.5% (30) 13.0% (52) 28.9% (116) 26.9% (108) 0.7% (3) 58.6% (235) 40.6% (163) 0.7% (3) 12.0% (48) 14.0% (56) 23.9% (96) 15.2% (61) 11.7% (47) 4.2% (17) 10.2% (41) 8.7% (35) 69.6% (279) 7.0% (28) 14.0% (56) 5.2% (21) 1.2% (5) 2.5% (10) 0.5% (2) 36.7% (147) 17.0% (68) 41.9% (168) 4.5% (18) 28.9% (116) 47.1% (189) 4.7% (19) 19.2% (77) 25.4% (102) 10.0% (40) 9.7% (39) 10.2% (41) 7.0% (28) 6.0% (24) 9.0% (36) 19.2% (77) 3.5% (14) Non-Participants (N) 25.0% (75) 2.7% (8) 12.0% (36) 25.7% (77) 30.3% (91) 4.3% (13) 61.3% (184) 36.7% (110) 2.0% (6) 11.0% (33) 13.7% (41) 17.3% (52) 12.3% (37) 9.0% (27) 5.3% (16) 9.7% (29) 21.7% (65) 65.7% (197) 3.7% (11) 22.0% (66) 5.3% (16) 1.7% (5) 1.7% (5) 0% (0) 37.7% (113) 20.7% (62) 35.7% (107) 6.0% (18) 28.3% (85) 48.0% (144) 3.0% (9) 20.7% (62) 20.7% (62) 8.0% (24) 11.7% (35) 8.7% (26) 7.7% (23) 7.0% (21) 14.3% (43) 18.0% (54) 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 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? 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 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 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 3. Making the State Legislature a single house, instead of its current Senate and Assembly 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 4. Increasing Assembly terms from 2 years to 4, and Senate terms from 4 years to 6 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 5. Allowing initiative proponents to amend an initiative following public input 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 6. Allowing initiative proponents to withdraw an initiative it even after it qualifies for the ballot 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 0.460 NonParticipants 0.434 t-Test

44.6 24.1 31.4 (1.5) 0.577

47.7 22.5 29.9 (0.7) 0.475

***

28.6 14.4 56.9 (10.2) 0.390 53.8 18.2 28.0 (19.0) 0.421 49.9 17.8 32.4 (6.0) 0.622 23.7 14.8 61.6 (7.2) 0.562 34.5 15.5 50.0 (8.2)

38.2 27.3 34.5 (11.0) 0.339 59.5 21.0 19.4 (16.0) 0.337 61.5 13.4 25.1 (5.7) 0.538 30.4 18.7 50.9 (9.0) 0.481 36.6 26.0 37.4 (12.7)

**

**

**

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

7. Allowing the Legislature to enact into law an initiative that has already qualified for the ballot so it doesnt need to be included on the ballot 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 8. Putting all initiative dealing with the same subject next to one another on the ballot 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 9. Allowing signatures for initiatives to be gathered electronically 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 10. Requiring that initiatives say how they will be paid for if they would cost taxpayers more than $25 million to implement 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 11. Prohibiting initiatives that require the State to spend a substantial portion of its budget for a specific purpose 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 12. Requiring election campaign contributions to be disclosed more frequently 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 13. Allowing voters to rank their top three candidates, so that the winner can be decided in a single election without a second election 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 14. Permitting petitions for ballot initiatives to be distributed electronically, then printed and signed 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 0.455 0.379 **

44.7 16.3 39.0 (8.5) 0.790

8.3 8.0 83.7 (3.7)

54.8 15.1 30.1 (9.3) 0.771

8.3 14.1 77.6 (3.3)

0.496
42.4 15.0 42.6 (5.2) 47.1 14.1 38.8 (3.0)

0.440

0.799
10.9 6.8 82.3 (4.0) 18.1 10.9 71.0 (8.0)

0.719

***

0.558 32.8 20.1 47.2 (8.0) 0.844 5.4 6.9 87.7 (2.5) 0.661
20.6 13.5 66.0 (5.5) 30.6 11.0 58.4 (6.3) 7.2 10.0 82.8 (3.3)

0.478 40.1 27.3 32.6 (11.0) 0.822

**

0.607

0.638 22.4 15.8 61.8 (5.2) 28.5 14.6 56.9 (6.3)

0.594

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

15. Reducing the number of bills a legislator can introduce during a two-year session 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 16. Reducing the length of the state legislative session and making the job of State Legislator a part-time position 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 17. Appointing all California judges for lifetime terms, subject only to recall election 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 18. Applying the sales tax to services in addition to goods 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 19. Flattening the state income tax rates, so that everyone pays closer to the same rate (while continuing to exempt low income individuals) 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 20. Taxing non-residential property at a higher rate than residential property 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 21. Increasing the vehicle license fee from 0.65% to 2% and distribute that additional revenue locally for local purposes 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 22. Requiring that changes in commercial ownership trigger tax reassessments on the same way they do for residential property 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 0.477 43.0 23.2 33.8 (10.7) 0.492
16.2 39.8 (9.2) 17.5 38.3 (10.3)

0.508 38.6 22.4 39.0 (9.3) 0.495

0.349
62.6 15.0 22.4 (8.7) 61.6 12.7 25.7 (5.3)

0.338

0.345
60.3 15.3 24.5 (5.2) 64.5 15.8 19.8 (9.0)

0.295

0.549
35.2 13.1 51.7 (5.0) 38.0 12.2 49.8 (7.0)

0.541

0.529
33.6 17.3 49.1 (6.5) 41.8 21.4 36.8 (6.7)

0.457

**

0.423
49.2 13.9 36.9 (3.2) 59.4 9.9 30.7 (2.3)

0.378

0.688
13.6 15.8 70.6 (10.3) 25.4 20.1 54.5 (12.0)

0.616

**

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

23. Requiring the same 55 percent majority for all local tax proposals 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 24. Assign responsibility for service delivery to the level of government that is best suited to carry it out 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/ 25. Giving control of the funding for a service to the level of government that is responsible for delivering it 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 26. Making it easier for local governments to levy taxes for services they are responsible for providing 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 27. Allow local governments to raise taxes for local services in exchange for requiring greater accountability for program performance 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 28. Establishing a process to consolidate similar services provided by different parts of local governments and special districts 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 29. On a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 is "not at all, 10 is as much as could 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 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 0.653
19.5 16.5 64.0 (8.0) 21.5 16.3 62.2 (10.0)

0.629

0.737
8.0 13.9 78.1 (6.5) 14.0 18.1 67.9 (9.7)

0.679

**

0.659
16.2 14.9 68.9 (7.7) 18.6 22.7 58.7 (10.3)

0.613

0.530
33.4 15.0 51.6 (5.2) 36.9 18.3 44.8 (7.0)

0.498

0.560
29.6 14.8 55.6 (5.7) 35.0 19.7 45.3 (8.7)

0.504

0.704
8.2 21.2 70.6 (11.7) 17.9 16.3 65.8 (12.3)

0.656

0.339

0.300

69.0 16.8 14.2 (2.0)

73.6 13.6 12.9 (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. 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 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 99. 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 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. 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 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 States 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. 0-4 5 6-10 (DK/NA) 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? Agree strongly (1) Agree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly (0) (DK/NA) 0.663 0.601
*

23.3 9.0 67.7 (2.7)

31.3 14.6 54.1 (2.0)

0.496

0.468

33.9 35.4 30.7 (5.7)

35.5 37.6 26.8 (4.3)

0.497

0.498

31.5 36.0 32.5 (6.5)

33.3 35.4 31.2 (5.0)

0.503

0.457

35.6 22.0 42.4 (4.7)

42.4 25.7 31.9 (4.0)

0.750

0.666

***

33.5 38.1 9.5 9.0 10.0 (2.5)

39.9 34.9 8.7 11.4 5.0 (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? Agree strongly (1) Agree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly (0) (DK/NA) 36. Most public policy issues are so complicated that a person like me cant really understand whats going on. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree? Agree strongly (1) Agree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly (0) (DK/NA) 0.376
7.3 21.6 9.0 26.6 35.6 (0.5) 8.1 23.9 12.5 23.2 32.3 (1.0)

0.349

0.520

0.510

27.5 24.0 5.0 16.8 26.8 (0.2)

25.8 25.4 5.7 18.7 24.4 (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 Q1 Q3 Q4 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q2a Q2b Q2c Q2d Q2e Q2f Q2g Q2h Q2i Q2j Q2k Q2l Q2m Q2n Q2o Q2p Q2q Q2r Q2s Q2t Q2u Q2v Q2w Q2x Q2y Q2z Q2aa Q2ab Q2ac Q2ad Q2ae Q2af Q2ag Q2ah Q2ai Q2aj Q2ak Q2al Q2am .49 .77 .73 .48 .52 .56 .54 .67 .43 .38 .44 .30 .58 .80 .85 .69 .87 .63 .51 .48 .37 .55 .55 .75 .82 .84 .72 .77 .68 .58 .66 .70 .84 .83 .80 .81 .78 .70 .48 .32 .46 .71 .43 .34 .51 .48 Unweighted T3 mean .47 .78 .76 .47 .51 .57 .55 .69 .45 .39 .42 .28 .61 .81 .86 .70 .89 .65 .54 .47 .35 .54 .58 .77 .84 .85 .72 .78 .70 .62 .67 .72 .84 .85 .81 .83 .80 .71 .50 .31 .51 .70 .40 .35 .48 .49 Weighted T3 Unweighted T3 .02 -.01 -.03 .01 .01 -.01 -.01 -.02 -.02 .01 .02 .02 -.03 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.02 -.02 -.03 .01 .02 .01 -.03 -.02 -.02 -.01 .00 -.01 -.01 -.04 -.01 -.02 .00 -.02 -.01 -.02 -.02 -.01 -.02 .01 -.04 .01 .03 -.01 .03 -.01 p-value .429 .744 .530 .592 .779 .725 .855 .685 .837 .863 .594 .580 .469 .943 .954 .846 .818 .820 .624 .978 .506 .859 .188 .675 .792 .977 .881 .820 .883 .233 .922 .718 .951 .807 .827 .752 .481 .604 .640 .590 .117 .877 .326 .557 .746 .743

Appendix 3: Representativeness of Sample

A Note on Racial/Ethnic Composition There were noticeably fewer Hispanics in the participant group vis--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 PPIC 62.2% 22.6% 5.2% 6.8% 100% PPIC 64.2% 20.5% 5.2% 6.9% 100% Registered Sec. of State 22% 8% 100% Political Data 21.2% 8.83%

White Hispanic Black Asian Other Total PPIC Survey

Weighted Survey data from PPIC state-wide survey in September 2010. Source: http://www.ppic.org/main/dataSet.asp?i=1041 Secretary of State From: http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/g10.html Only two ethnicities available as you can see here http://swdb.berkeley.edu/pub/data/G10/G10_SOR_codebook.txt Registered Voter Data via Political Data (Polling Firm) Source: http://www.politicaldata.com