Problems with political polls

Our city leaders marched bravely into the electoral fray last November in a quest for a one-cent sales tax increase, fully confident that the voters would support the initiative because a poll said the support was there.|

Our city leaders marched bravely into the electoral fray last November in a quest for a one-cent sales tax increase, fully confident that the voters would support the initiative because a poll said the support was there.

Of course, the poll was not an accurate crystal ball, and the measure failed. What went wrong?

Well, one way to find out why a poll is wrong is to do another poll. Indeed, another poll has been conducted, and your intrepid scrivener has just obtained the results of that poll. The information gleaned is certainly interesting. But first, let me say that, unlike many naysayers, I do believe in polls as a fairly accurate snapshot at the time the poll is taken. But, a poll taken in the calm and quiet of a Wednesday evening after dinner doesn’t equate to votes cast in the heat and noise and rhetoric of a vigorous campaign.

As it turned out, the authors of Measure Q, the sales tax measure, did not anticipate that it would become a central issue in the incredibly close mayor’s race, which contributed to its defeat. That contest was still fresh in the minds of those responding to the poll, which set out to learn why the community said “no.”

For starters, 61 percent of those answering said they voted against Measure Q. The reasons for voting “no” include the following:

Because it was a “forever” tax with no expiration date, 72.6 percent said they didn’t like it.

Because it was a general tax without a locked in spending plan, 77.8 percent said they didn’t like it.

But when asked if the one-cent tax was too high, the opposition dropped to 55.7 percent, still enough to defeat it, but a decided drop-off.

And, when asked if they thought the measure failed because it included funding for the Rainier crosstown connector, only 21.1 percent responded “yes.”

The poll asked respondents if there was support for a future sales tax. Without getting too deep into the numbers, the poll results seem to indicate substantial support for a future tax effort if it offered a locked-in plan on how the money would be spent, the city council could not spend it on anything else, and it had a definite expiration date, sooner rather than later.

Then, the poll asked what services should be funded with a future sales tax. The answers were: Street and sidewalk repair, 88 percent; Rainier crosstown connector, 70.4 percent; fire and ambulance services, 62.5 percent; park maintenance and youth sports fields, 58.4 percent; police services, 50.3 percent; youth and anti-gang programs, 47.5 percent.

Now the city, which still has the lowest sales tax rate in the county, has to decide if they want to take another run at public support through a sales tax increase. Whatever they do, it isn’t likely to happen soon; perhaps next spring at the earliest. By that time, they will need to do another poll.

Now to something on the lighter side. Recently, there has been a series of official City Hall email correspondence between our mayor, his council colleagues and city staff where Mayor David Glass has asked for a council discussion of a two-year building moratorium because of the recent “draught.” Now, those of us who struggled through English 101 know that “draught” is the way our oh-so-rarefied British cousins across the waters spell what we call “draft.” On the other hand, severe rain-deprivation is properly spelled “drought.” As Casey Stengel said, you can look it up.

Then the fun begins. Glass’s “progressive” council colleague Teresa Barrett, in the email exchange, makes comments repeating the misspelling of drought, although in fairness to Barrett, she offers some thoughts on water conservation that warrant some study. Then, City Manager John Brown, in announcing he is agendizing the matter for the April 6 meeting, also refers to the current “draught.”

Let’s just hope that our city leaders’ efforts to assure an adequate future water supply don’t result instead in a prohibition against cold drafty rooms.

(Don Bennett, business writer and consultant, has been involved with city planning issues since the 1970s. His email address is dcbenn@aol.com.)

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.