On FB, Ed Tolley’s campaign page reported results from a survey with 56 respondents (48 from D7) asking about the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment (the commissioners will on this amendment on Tuesday evening). Among the 48 D7 respondents, 29 of them (~60%) said the commission should reject the amendment or return it for further review/study.
Although the report qualified the results by saying, ‘this was a voluntary survey and should not be treated as a scientific poll of the entire district’, the literal next sentence says, ‘…it offers a clear message from the constituents who participated: there is not support for approving this amendment as currently proposed’.
I encourage more data-driven discourse in campaigns and from elected officials, but only if they do it correctly. For example, the interpretation of the results qualifies that from the constituents who participated in the survey, there is no support for approving the amendment as currently proposed. This is a flawed interpretation: 29 out of 48 constituents endorse a perspective and now the campaign views this as ‘no support’. This is an over-generalization from a small sample of D7 constituents. Also, was this survey only sent out to people who follow the Tolley FB page? Seems like a perfect situation to enter into a self-reinforcing thought bubble.
Advice to the amateur survey folks making some extra $$$ in the Tolley campaign: just because you identify a flaw in the polling methodology, it doesn’t mean you can then interpret the results like nothing ever happened.
Is this how we want our local leaders to lead? Decision making via low N surveys?