Method
The study was conducted using Survey Monkey, an online survey engine. The respondents were a self-selected sample of Facebook users. There were 35 usable responses. No demographic data was collected.
The population size was taken to be 1262, the average number of votes cast for mayor in the last three elections (2003, 2006, 2009). The 2007 by-election was not used as MACA could not make the numbers available.
Fire hall and other capital projects
6 out of 35 respondents (17%) reported having attended the public meeting held 16 April 2012 by the Town Council to report on the process and answer questions.
The respondents were asked to identify the correct funding scheme for the fire hall replacement out of the following options:
- $6.20 million from Town reserves
- $6.20 million of which $2.94 M from Town reserves, $2.20 M from the federal Build Canada Fund, and $1.06 M from the territorial Community Capacity Building Fund
- $6.20 million of which $2.94 M from Town reserves and the rest as a 15-year, prime + 0.5% mortgage
- $6.20 million of which $2.94 M from Town reserves and the rest through increased property taxes starting in 2013
- None of the above
Respondents who attended the meeting all identified #2 as the correct answer. Out of those who did not attend, 56% picked the correct answer, 8% chose the mortgage, and 36% chose "none of the above." They were not asked what exactly they envisioned.
The respondents were asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "No, absolutely not", and 5 is "Yes, absolutely", the following questions:
- Was it appropriate to give the fire hall replacement priority over other capital projects?
- Will maintenance of sewers, water lines and roads receive less funding as a result of the fire hall replacement project?
- Should landowners be the only ones with a say in how the Town spends money?
The responses were as follows:
| Attended | Didn't attend | Overall | |
| Appropriate decision | 4.8 | 3.0 | 3.4 |
| Maintenance changes | 1.7 | 3.1 | 2.8 |
| Landowners' dictatorship | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
It does not follow that the meeting was attended only by supporters of the fire hall; I, for example, had expected to disagree, having read misleading information on Facebook. The correct information presented at the meeting changed my mind.
In my opinion these results show that the Council's information meetings are effective. Those who attended clearly understood and retained what was said (one notable exception did not choose to participate in the survey). Those who did not attend, aptly, have no opinion as a group, though individually they might.
The question on the landowners' dictatorship was introduced to test support for Sandra Lester's claim that this is and should be the case. The amount of support for this nonsensical idea was surprisingly high, with 12% choosing "yes, probably" and 15% choosing "yes, absolutely." Of course, being unconstitutional and out of style for several centuries, this concept hardly needs to be dignified with a rebuttal, but just in case, consider the following:
- 33% of residents in Hay River are renters
- 42% of Town revenue comes from property taxes
So, for those who supported the landowners-only suffrage, let's say you guys vote on the 42% that comes from property taxes (even though your renters pay the taxes on one third of your properties), and the rest of us will vote on the remaining 58%. Sounds pretty fair to me.
The respondents were then asked which of the following capital project should proceed next:
- Replacement of sewer and water lines
- Replacement of Town Hall
- Replacement of the Community Centre (Arena)
- Road upgrades in Old Town
- Building a cultural centre
- Building more sports facilities
- Other – specify
The results were as follows:
This is unfortunate since Town Hall is next on the agenda, yet scored lowest with the voters. The replacement of sewer and water lines, whether deemed capital or maintenance, is probably not really in competition with the other projects since it is a separate fund with its own revenue, and, in theory, its own reserve. There were no suitable entries under "other – specify". One was for a sport facility and was included in that category, the other was for road maintenance which is not a capital item.
Council priorities
The respondents were asked to select from a list which issues they would like the next council to address. The order of the list was randomised each time to avoid biasing results towards the top of the list. Results, with 95% confidence intervals, were as follows:
| Issue | Value | Confidence | Rank |
| Economic growth | 61% | 26% | 1 |
| Permanent doctors | 58% | 26% | 2 |
| Birth services | 48% | 27% | 3 |
| Water and sewage system overhaul | 35% | 25% | 4 |
| Affordable housing | 32% | 25% | 5 |
| Accountability of council | 29% | 24% | 6 |
| Vandalism and littering | 26% | 23% | 7 |
| Protection and maintenance of green spaces | 23% | 22% | 8 |
| Land development | 23% | 22% | 8 |
| Activities for teens at night | 23% | 22% | 8 |
| Animal control | 19% | 21% | 11 |
| Development of cultural facilities | 19% | 21% | 11 |
| Transparency | 16% | 20% | 13 |
| Regulation of ATVs | 16% | 20% | 13 |
| Development of sports facilities | 16% | 20% | 13 |
| Procurement process – small contracts | 10% | 16% | 16 |
| Procurement process – large contracts | 10% | 16% | 16 |
| Replacement of capital assets | 10% | 16% | 16 |
| Food security | 6% | 13% | 19 |
| Flood mitigation | 6% | 13% | 19 |
The respondents picked on average 5 issues each.
It's very interesting to note that some of the issues that make the most noise, such as flood mitigation, are in fact very low on the collective agenda, while the top concern, economic growth, is only ever addressed in broad statements, not in specific proposals, let alone action.
The replacement of water and sewage lines, while important, should not be significantly influenced by the Council, as it has little choice but to approve the recommendations of the administration in that matter. To do otherwise would be rather irresponsible.
As for the idea of permanent doctors, not only has it been explained ad nauseam why that won't happen, but I personally would not care to see it happen, because the odds are good that I'd be stuck with a doctor I don't like for the rest of my life. With locums, at least there's always a non-zero chance of getting a good one.
It's also very interesting that the percentage concerned about affordable housing is nearly equal to the percentage of renters. Not surprisingly: the 2006 census found that rents are 27% higher here than the national average, even though the value of houses is 31% less and 20% of occupied private dwellings are in need of major repairs (8% nationally). While average mortgage payments are also 25% higher than the national average, renters are more sensitive to the disparity of what they get to what they pay for, due to the cognitive bias of the owners that inclines them to believe they paid fair value for their purchase. No one likes to believe they got hosed on a major purchase, whereas it's not difficult to convince oneself one's landlord is overcharging.
From a psephological point of view, the most interesting analysis of these results is to see which candidates are associated with the key issues. The candidates were therefore cross-tabbed against the main five issues, thusly:
| Economic growth | Permanent doctors | Birth services | Water and sewage system overhaul | Affordable housing | Average | |
| Latour, Ken | 72% | 59% | 62% | 70% | 60% | 65% |
| Cassidy, Andrew | 56% | 35% | 38% | 40% | 70% | 48% |
| Wallington, Kevin | 33% | 35% | 46% | 40% | 50% | 41% |
| McKay, Vince | 28% | 35% | 38% | 40% | 50% | 38% |
| Lakusta, Tom | 39% | 18% | 46% | 30% | 50% | 37% |
| Jameson, Kandis | 33% | 29% | 46% | 20% | 20% | 30% |
| Courtoreille, Roy | 28% | 29% | 15% | 30% | 20% | 25% |
| Hanson, Dorie | 17% | 18% | 15% | 30% | 40% | 24% |
| Marie, Elise | 22% | 12% | 15% | 30% | 40% | 24% |
| Crook, Kim | 22% | 18% | 31% | 20% | 20% | 22% |
| Collins, Eileen | 22% | 18% | 8% | 10% | 30% | 18% |
| O'Brien, Dawna | 17% | 12% | 15% | 20% | 20% | 17% |
| Cross Gauthier, Tracy | 22% | 18% | 8% | 20% | 10% | 16% |
(Note: the candidates have not themselves declared their intention to run, at least not to me. Their names were put forward by respondents to my previous surveys.)
For brevity, only the top five issues, and only the candidates who scored at least 10% on the average of the five issues, are presented. The numbers shown represent the percentage of voters interested in that issue who would vote for that candidate. The candidates are sorted in descending order by the average of their five scores.
The moral of this table is that while economic growth is the main issue for the town electorate, there is very little faith in the ability of any candidate to effect it. Cassidy and Latour scored well, but of course Cassidy and Latour score well on everything since most people are voting for them. Other than that, any candidate who can make a convincing economic pitch should have a good chance to get elected; yet conversely, since economic growth is probably the hardest problem to solve, any candidate who runs on an economic platform is facing the risk of a significant backlash if said growth fails to materialise within the next three years.
Only one respondent suggested another issue: "review, re-write and enforce by-laws."
Attributes of councillors
The respondents were asked to select from a list which skills, qualities and attributes are important in a municipal councillor. The order of the list was randomised each time to avoid biasing results towards the top of the list. The list contained nine attributes taken from the Five Factor personality model and were used to score the hypothetical ideal councillor on the Five Factors. The results for those attributes, with 95% confidence intervals, were as follows:
| Main dimension | Attribute | Value | Confidence |
| Agreeableness | Cooperation | 42% | 26% |
| Sympathy | 3% | 9% | |
| Altruism | 3% | 9% | |
| Conscientiousness | Self-discipline | 55% | 26% |
| Dutifulness | 32% | 25% | |
| Cautiousness | 6% | 13% | |
| Extraversion | Friendliness | 23% | 22% |
| Assertiveness | 19% | 21% | |
| Gregariousness | 0% | n/a |
Because the respondents likely did not understand all the terms, the top attribute was selected out of each dimension. The hypothetical candidate therefore scores some 55% in conscientiousness, 42% in agreeableness, and 23% in extraversion. This makes him what Gramzow et al. in Patterns of Self-Regulation and the Big Five calls "cluster 2" and compares to Rank's "adapted" personality type, which "learns to conform to the norms and values of society. These persons resolve the conflict surrounding autonomy by adopting the culture’s goals and standards as their own. Thus, their emotional stability comes from inhibiting pursuit of their own desires and impulses, instead pursuing and adhering to those of society." Conveniently for me, I happen to be Cluster 2 myself – though of course, I suspect Eichmann was too.
As for the other listed attributes, the results were as follows:
| Attribute | Value | Confidence |
| Integrity | 81% | 21% |
| Dependability | 74% | 23% |
| Intelligence | 58% | 26% |
| Education | 52% | 27% |
| Literacy | 32% | 25% |
| Diplomacy | 29% | 24% |
| Political experience | 29% | 24% |
| Loyalty | 16% | 20% |
| Uncritical attitude | 10% | 16% |
| Bluntness of speech | 3% | 9% |
| Numeracy | 3% | 9% |
| Construction experience | 3% | 9% |
| Business ties | 3% | 9% |
| Demagogy | 0% | n/a |
| Sleight of mouth | 0% | n/a |
On the one hand, this works out well for me, since integrity, dependability and intelligence are the three qualities I put on my resume (along with literacy only if the potential employer seems literate).On the other hand, it is a rather strange selection for two reasons. One, our three previously elected mayors (the ones whose elections I remember) are quite the opposite of this description, being high in demagogy and sleight of mouth, but low in integrity and dependability, and certainly not above average in intelligence. As far as I can tell from personal communications by citizens, the same could be said of most of the ones before them, too.
Second, it's bizarre that literacy scored only 32%, and numeracy had only one vote (mine). Municipal councillors receive a monthly briefing packet from the administration, which can run between 150 and 200 pages. Their job consists mostly in reading and understanding the information in that packet, conduct further research as needed, and then make an informed decision in a timely manner. Literacy and numeracy are so crucial to the job of councillor that both Cassidy and Latour, when interviewed separately, identified them as the first necessity for a councillor. In fact, both described the necessary attributes as follows:
- Literacy
- Ability to liaise with the electorate
- Ability to speak to the issues
- Low inclination to take things personally
- Commitment
Finally I find it very strange that "political experience" scored 29%, as the Hay River municipal council can hardly be considered anything but an entry-level political position. Perhaps the respondents meant experience in that particular position, which is certainly of some help.
Once again, the results were cross-tabbed with the candidates to see who is perceived as what. The most strikingly nonsensical finding is that everyone who picked "uncritical attitude" also voted for me. Certainly that's the first time I've ever been called "uncritical", that I know. This shows that either the respondents did not understand some of the terms, or they don't really know the candidates, or both. So a good campaign could make a considerable difference.
On the other hand, one must also consider the possibility that respondents are simply projecting the qualities and agendas they value onto their favourite candidates, which would explain why the candidates were ranked in the same order whether based on straight votes, on correlation with issues, or on correlation with attributes.
In any case, I took the top seven attributes (down to literacy, which had to be included in the list), averaged them, and then ranked the candidates on the average, thusly:
| Attribute | Integrity | Dependability | Intelligence | Self-discipline | Education | Cooperation | Dutifulness | Literacy | Average |
| Latour, Ken | 67% | 57% | 76% | 53% | 57% | 58% | 56% | 63% | 61% |
| Cassidy, Andrew | 46% | 48% | 41% | 47% | 43% | 50% | 56% | 63% | 49% |
| Lakusta, Tom | 38% | 43% | 35% | 53% | 36% | 42% | 56% | 63% | 46% |
| Jameson, Kandis | 42% | 33% | 35% | 47% | 50% | 33% | 22% | 50% | 39% |
| McKay, Vince | 29% | 33% | 41% | 33% | 36% | 42% | 33% | 38% | 36% |
| Wallington, Kevin | 38% | 29% | 53% | 33% | 29% | 42% | 33% | 13% | 34% |
| Marie, Elise | 21% | 24% | 24% | 27% | 21% | 25% | 33% | 25% | 25% |
| Hanson, Dorie | 21% | 19% | 24% | 20% | 29% | 17% | 22% | 38% | 24% |
| Collins, Eileen | 21% | 24% | 12% | 20% | 21% | 25% | 22% | 38% | 23% |
| Courtoreille, Roy | 21% | 24% | 24% | 13% | 21% | 8% | 33% | 25% | 21% |
| Crook, Kim | 21% | 24% | 24% | 33% | 7% | 17% | 22% | 0% | 18% |
| Lefebvre, Brian | 17% | 19% | 12% | 13% | 29% | 8% | 11% | 38% | 18% |
| Gagnier, Sue | 13% | 10% | 12% | 20% | 29% | 25% | 11% | 25% | 18% |
| Cross Gauthier, Tracy | 21% | 14% | 12% | 13% | 14% | 17% | 11% | 25% | 16% |
| Dawson, Bonnie | 8% | 10% | 12% | 20% | 21% | 25% | 11% | 13% | 15% |
Candidates with less than a 15% average were excluded for brevity.
Again, this shows a very low amount of faith in the proposed candidates, since even Latour, despite his popularity, scores only 61% on the qualities the voters think they're looking for, and no one else made 50%.
Voting intentions – council
The candidates proposed for this survey were those nominated in previous surveys, minus those who scored below 33% 19 times out of 20 in the last survey. The results were as follows:
| Candidate | Value | Confidence | Rank | Elected |
| Latour, Ken | 59% | 26% | 1 | yes |
| Cassidy, Andrew | 38% | 26% | 2 | yes |
| Jameson, Kandis | 38% | 26% | 2 | yes |
| Wallington, Kevin | 34% | 25% | 4 | yes |
| Lakusta, Tom | 31% | 25% | 5 | yes |
| McKay, Vince | 31% | 25% | 5 | yes |
| Lefebvre, Brian | 21% | 22% | 7 | yes |
| Collins, Eileen | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Courtoreille, Roy | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Crook, Kim | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Cross Gauthier, Tracy | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Hanson, Dorie | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Marie, Elise | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Gagnier, Sue | 14% | 18% | 14 | no |
| Milne, Jackie | 14% | 18% | 14 | no |
| Dawson, Bonnie | 10% | 16% | 16 | no |
| Griffiths, Jeff | 10% | 16% | 16 | no |
| O'Brien, Dawna | 10% | 16% | 16 | no |
| Buerger, Geoff | 7% | 14% | 19 | no |
| Simpson, Keelen | 3% | 10% | 20 | no |
| Dumas, Earle Jr. | 0% | n/a | 21 | no |
| Wilkie, Jamie | 0% | n/a | 21 | no |
Of course, not all these people will run. The results are similar to the previous survey, except that Milne is down from 33% ± 14%, to 14% ± 18%. The two intervals overlap, of course, so it could be just a statistical fluctuation.
There was a downward trend for all the candidates who were in both surveys, except Jameson. This is due in part to the higher number of candidates proposed, some of which (Latour, Wallington) are very popular, along with a decline in the number picked by each respondent, from 4.2 to 4.0.
The moral is that Latour, Cassidy, Jameson, McKay, Lakusta and Wallington are probably shoo-ins, should they decide to run. The battle for the remaining seats could go to just about anyone. A good campaign is therefore necessary.
Voting intentions – mayor
The candidates proposed this time were McKay and Lefebvre, because word of mouth suggests they're the most likely to run, and myself, because having read the financial statements, it occurred to me I could quit my day job for what the mayor gets paid. The results were as follows:
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| None | 19 | 48% ± 16% |
| Lefebvre | 10 | 25% ± 14% |
| McKay | 7 | 18% ± 12% |
| Marie | 4 | 10% ± 10% |
Zut alors. No quitting my day job, I guess. As in previous surveys, I did not include "none of the above" as a choice, but calculated it from the number of respondents who did not answer the question. And while all three candidates' intervals overlap, only mine includes zero. Yay me! Oh well. So, we're still looking for a mayoral candidate who might be acceptable to the town, other than the ones who aren't running.
Conclusions
- People who went to the fire hall meeting support the fire hall; those who didn't have no opinion.
- There is massive popular support for fixing the sewage / water system, and very little for replacing the Town Hall.
- The issues of concern to voters AND within the Council's bailiwick are economic growth and affordable housing.
- The voters think they value integrity, dependability and intelligence, but electoral results do not support that theory.
- The voters are clearly unaware of the skills required in a municipal councillor.
Latour, Cassidy, Jameson, McKay, Lakusta and Wallington will very likely be elected if they run for council. - The voters do not want McKay, Lefebvre or myself for mayor. Because they want Latour or Cassidy.
No comments:
Post a Comment