We also believe, the voters want candidates that display a necessary trait---"Common Sense."
We will be introducing two new candidates in the near future that display that and many other positive attributes.
In the meantime, here are the results of our poll question.
Thanks to all those that took the time to respond.
Art
*******************************************************************************************
At This Point, Concerning The 2010 OV Election----- (Multiple responses are acceptable)
I will definitely vote | 196 (89%) |
I may vote | 2 (0%) |
I don't plan on voting | 0 (0%) |
I'm not eligible to vote | 5 (2%) |
I will vote for all incumbents running | 7 (3%) |
I will NOT vote for any incumbent | 31 (14%) |
I may vote for some incumbents | 86 (39%) |
We need more like Bill & Salette | 120 (54%) |
We don't need any more like Bill & Salette | 24 (10%) |
Who represents us is critical for our future | 156 (71%) |
It doesn't matter who represnts us | 0 (0%) |
We definitely need more "common sense" on council | 150 (68%) |
Votes: 219
18 comments:
I think it is fair to say though our polls are not statistically sound because it is comprised of people who decide to vote; not all possible voters.
On the other hand, our poll results seem to be "dead on" when it comes to the way things actually turn out.
So, I guess you could say our polls are "directionally correct" and a good indicator of what the actual result will be.
The LOVE site poll on the Naranja Park bond issue was certainly a good indicator of how the actual vote would turn out. Of those who answered the survey on this site, the majority voted against it. Of those who voted on election day, the majority voted against it.
So even though these polls are not scientific (is any poll scientific?) they are certainly an indicator of what the public is thinking.
Your's is a reasonably good description, Zeeman.
VC...I am not sure "scientific" is a good descriptor also. I think "statistically accurate" is what we are looking for in a good poll.
Don
OVOT - 'statistical probability' not 'statistically accurate' is a more appropriate descriptive. There is no such thing as a 'statistically accurate' poll! If you can, name one.
Zev....And I am confident that you have some credential(s)to support your term or you have a cousin/niece/brother-in-law that works for Rasmussen or Zogby. Many polling companies will state that their work product is accurate within +/- 5% or what ever the sampling size dictates.
But I am now convinced that your description is what the world should use. :-)
In real estate, three different appraisers, given equal opportunity for attaining supportive 'data', will generally come up with three different values for a given property; thus, an appraisal is referred to as 'an OPINION of value'.
The same can be said of polls and pollsters. They are not, in finality, dead-on 'accurate'; they offer 'PROJECTIONS' based upon supportive data, and, as further evidenced by their '+' or '-' inclusions, they are therefore giving 'OPINIONS of probability'.
OVOT: damn, I have no brothers-in-law, no sisters, no cousins, no nieces, no nephews, no one I even know involved in 'professional' polling. Oh me, oh my, what is a person to do? LOL
Once again, Cox has nothing better to do than take a posting and NOT address the "core issue."
He will "nit pick" any and all valid points where his ONLY concern is to offer an arrogant comment about another blogger.
The poll speaks for itself. Cox can say whatever he pleases. It won't change the fact the the intelligent voters of Oro Valley will do the right thing.
After all, even before the blog came to be, the voters did the right thing: they did NOT elect Cox twice!
Art...
There are times when your responses make me laugh so hard my sides hurt. Here I compliment folks and have some fun with Zev (noted by the :-) following the comment) and he returns the lightheartedness with his "LOL" following and you are outraged.
You want some core issue questions, try this one. On the poll results you show raw numbers followed by a percentage. I would be curious what that percentage represents? Based on the answer to that question I will have other comments.
LOVE!!!!
Just in case there may be someone other than Cox that could not understand the percentage noted in the responses, allow me to explain.
We had, as noted, 219 responses. We pointed out that multiple responses were permitted.
If, for example, 196 responded stating they would definitely vote, that was 89% of the 219 responses we received.
Another example is 150 responded that we need "more common sense" on the council. That means that 68% of the 219 responses believe "common sense" is important.
Conversely, not one person indicated they will not vote nor did they think who repesents us is not important.
That relates to 0%.
I found it really funny that Cox had trouble grasping this "higher math." Oh well!
I didn't have any difficulty with the math. You obviously did. I am just an advocate for accurate reporting (you probably view that as "nit pick"),which I have previously stated is somewhat laxed in many of your postings. I think that you should report the number 24 as 11% unless you want folks to think you had 240 responses. Did you have 240 votes??? Surveys can be such a touchy issue.
Now to my other comment regarding the "core issue". I am always looking at the bright side and therefore I am tickled that only 54% of the folks on this blog think we need more like Latas and Garner. There is a silver lining.
Cox--- The more you comment, the more you come across as a simpleton.
To suggest I was trying to deceive the readers as to the number of responses is either ignorant or stupid when I posted clear as day--- Votes: 219.
More ignorance on your part. I do not calculate the percentages. It is done by Goggle. I post the question and appropriate response, and that is all.
Once again, our readers get another chance to judge you for what you are. That says it all.
Cox--- Now I'll address your other asinine comment where you said: "I am tickled that only 54% of the folks on this blog think we need more like Latas and Garner."
Again, you prove you have no comprehension skills. I just noted the math, that you think you understand, but obviously, do not.
So---I'll repeat. Those that responded could check one or more of the appropriaqte responses.
You may be "tickled," but you have no clue why.
Of the 219 responses, 120 saw fit to say we need more candidates like Bill & Salette. Only 24, believe as you do.
So, out of 144 votes, Bill & Salette are looked upon favorably by 120 folks. THAT COMES TO 83.3%!!!
You keep thinking they ONLY got a 54% approval rating. That proves you have no clue what is going on in the real world. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
When did I say you were trying to deceive?
The bottom line Art is that under YOUR name you post inaccurate information. YOU are responsible for your own posts...not Google. Your initial response indicated that you were responsible for the calculations. Does "we" mean you and Google. The last time I asked for your definition of "we" you said it really meant YOU. Were you inaccurate then or are you inaccurate now?
Secondly, 46%(99 using the "we" number) of those who responded did not think enough of the Latas/Garner team to state that we need more like them. Kudos to the 99+/-!!!
The entire discussion goes to my exact point, previously made. You can twist, interpret, slant poll results any way you want. You want to interpret one way, I choose another. The difference is when we see your way, there is always that attack garbage. You have a problem.
If anyone believes Cox makes any sense, PLEASE come forward!
Answer the questions Art. Stop hiding. Either produce some information or SHUT UP!!!
Be revelant or be irrevelant. My vote is the latter. It's time you are called to task on your 'non-positions'. It's time that you be called to task on your gutter posts. Either contribute to the betterment of this community or SHUT UP.
Turn it over to Zeeman who at least has some objective commentary.
Zeeman....Please rescue Art. Throw him a life line. He is becoming an embarassment....and I use the word becoming kindly.
Cox-- All our readers know what a fool you are. Those that didn't certainly found out in your recent diatribe against Salette & Jeff Latas.
This will be my last comment here. I won't dignify you with any more responses that a simpleton like you can not understand.
Continue here, if you wish, but you'll end up talking to yourself.
Maybe you can convince yourself that you're not the fool the rest of know you are!
The end!
Art...Run like the guttersnipe coward you are rather than make some attempt to defend your position or positively contribute. You are nothing more than a selfserving, ego maniac
My gloves are off when it comes to you. You deserve no respect from me or any member of this community.
By the way, the last time I saw you you were having a discussion with one of Oro Valley's finest. How did that come out?????
Care to share with the rest of the blog crowd?????
LOVE!!!!!
Post a Comment