I was just wondering the rationale behind only have Lib/Lab/Green breakdown of the votes?
Is this based on parliamentary representation or a threshold of respondents? If so, what number/percentage is required to achieve "break out".
I voted Democrat at the last election...
2
Thursday, 30 July 2009 12:16
Graham Young
Hi Luke,
Yes, it is based on the size of the sample. Doesn't relate to percentages.
We hardly get any Democrats or Family First so the statistical margin of error is huge in providing a breakdown for them and the result could be extremely misleading.
I do include them in the qualitative results and will remark on them in that context, but I think I would look a little foolish including them in these percentage breakdowns, even if I put a heavily underline warning on them.
3
Thursday, 30 July 2009 12:19
B
With regard to question 15, how about including an amount of "zero" - as in, I wish to pay nothing for universal dental care, because I don't think we should have it. More bloody nanny state.
4
Thursday, 30 July 2009 12:31
Graham Young
Well spotted on the cost. Zero should be in there now. Hopefully I got it early enough that it won't make any statistical difference.
5
Thursday, 30 July 2009 14:10
Michael B
Why aren't the results (from the information WE provide to your site) provided back to us?
6
Thursday, 30 July 2009 14:30
Graham Young
I don't understand your comment Michael B, I always report back on the results.
7
Thursday, 30 July 2009 14:46
Michael Dwyer
My reply this time referred to the starting decline in world oil supply as the major issue. Is this issue still a sleeper or does it deserve more coverage? After all, our way of life is based on an ever increasing oil supply. Thats no longer true but Kevn R still believes in it. cheers
8
Thursday, 30 July 2009 15:09
Allie
I dont think people having the right to access dental health as being part of a 'nanny state' considering that the mouth is part of the body and is needy for good overall health. It is a known fact that bad dental health equates to higher incidence of heart disease. Get real. The mouth is just another 'specialist' area like gyneacology, paediatrics, neurology et al.
9
Thursday, 30 July 2009 20:31
Greg
The question on "number of children" is misleading. What about grown children who have left home? What about children who don't live with you? What about grown children who haven't left home? The best category is dependent children and it should say that, in order to get the most useful information.
10
Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:53
ozideas
Answers can be misleading if the questions do not allow the real response.
I would be willlng to pay a lot for free dental care for all below average incomes, but nothing for free dental care for the top incomes.
11
Thursday, 30 July 2009 22:21
Graham Young
Greg, you're making an assumption as to what information that question is supposed to elicit. I wouldn't assume dependency from the answers.
Ozideas, we didn't ask for motivations, just for how much people would be prepared to spend. You often find that people are prepared to spend more if they can direct the spending, but you never can direct it. The government has a proposal, and those figures align with the proposal. Their proposal doesn't allow you to direct the spending.
12
Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:27
bb
questions on the health were a waste of time. all of them needed more information
13
Friday, 31 July 2009 18:14
F
Graham, when are you going to do polls on the ETS and the Internet Filter?
The Internet Filter especially seems to have dropped below the radar.
Both deserve public polling and feedback, especially since the Government seems hellbent on pushing the ETS through.
14
Sunday, 02 August 2009 14:17
JohnMich
Graham, I also thought that the question about children was meaningless - I've got 3 but they have all left home years ago so I said 'none'Do I count the same as someone who has never had children?
I would also support the suggestion of an ETS survey and even better one that has a look at the whole climate change thing. I think its a beatup out of which al Gore is making a lot of money.
15
Sunday, 02 August 2009 15:17
Graham Young
Hi John,
If you put none down, then you will be treated the same as someone without kids - no other way to do it. The question on kids is not that important and is there to see whether a theory works or not. I doubt whether any of you with non-dependent children are likely to be in the demographic we are wondering about.
We did do the ETS a while back and you can read the results here http://whatthepeoplewant.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003472.html. I don't think anything much has changed, apart from the Liberals being onto their third position! It was not particularly popular then, and it still isn't.
I was just wondering the rationale behind only have Lib/Lab/Green breakdown of the votes?
Is this based on parliamentary representation or a threshold of respondents? If so, what number/percentage is required to achieve "break out".
I voted Democrat at the last election...
Yes, it is based on the size of the sample. Doesn't relate to percentages.
We hardly get any Democrats or Family First so the statistical margin of error is huge in providing a breakdown for them and the result could be extremely misleading.
I do include them in the qualitative results and will remark on them in that context, but I think I would look a little foolish including them in these percentage breakdowns, even if I put a heavily underline warning on them.
cheers
I would be willlng to pay a lot for free dental care for all below average incomes, but nothing for free dental care for the top incomes.
Ozideas, we didn't ask for motivations, just for how much people would be prepared to spend. You often find that people are prepared to spend more if they can direct the spending, but you never can direct it. The government has a proposal, and those figures align with the proposal. Their proposal doesn't allow you to direct the spending.
The Internet Filter especially seems to have dropped below the radar.
Both deserve public polling and feedback, especially since the Government seems hellbent on pushing the ETS through.
I would also support the suggestion of an ETS survey and even better one that has a look at the whole climate change thing. I think its a beatup out of which al Gore is making a lot of money.
If you put none down, then you will be treated the same as someone without kids - no other way to do it. The question on kids is not that important and is there to see whether a theory works or not. I doubt whether any of you with non-dependent children are likely to be in the demographic we are wondering about.
We did do the ETS a while back and you can read the results here http://whatthepeoplewant.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003472.html. I don't think anything much has changed, apart from the Liberals being onto their third position! It was not particularly popular then, and it still isn't.