Ipsos Reid has done an interesting poll on the PC Leadership recently. They have not been asking who you would vote for but rather how favourable or unfavourable is your “impression” of each candidate.
Asking who you will vote for is so changeable and volatile and influenced by extraneous and often meaningless influences. Name recognition and recent media coverage can drive impulse answers and not necessarily reflect actual voting behaviours.
Asking favourable or unfavourable impressions generates more reflective, qualitative and evaluative responses about candidates. Not perfect but more informative of what people are “feeling” about candidates.
Our web based Policy Channel Survey “Send ‘Em a Message” asks for a deeper level of your thought about candidates. We ask how likely is it that you would recommend each candidate to friends and family. Now participants are more invested in their answers because they reflect back on themselves not just the candidates. Not perfect either but we get more than impressions and feelings, we introduced a personal reputation risk element when we ask for candidate recommendations
The comparison in results is difficult to make but here are the findings from each survey. Remember the Policy Channel “Send ‘Em a Message” results are not scientific because it is web based with self selecting participants but not random.
The first number is the Ipsos Reid Very Favourable and Somewhat Favourable aggregate percentages.
The second number is the Policy Channel Somewhat Likely, Very Likely and Extremely Likely to Recommend aggregate percentages.
Dinning: 56% 56%
Hancock 40% 65%
Stelmach 39% 43%
Norris 35% 25%
McPherson 30% 20%
Oberg 44% 17%
Morton 34% 13%
Doerksen 28% 19%
Dinning has the same level based on impressions and the likelihood of recommended to friends and family. Hancock and Stelmach are more highly regarded when one risks personal reputation by making a recommendations to friends and family. All other candidates are not as likely to be viewed as favourably when one has to “invest” or “risk” personal reputation through a candidate recommendation.
When the Ipsos Reid’s “Not Very Favourable” and “Not At All Favourable” impressions are aggregated then Oberg, Doerksen and Morton leave bad impressions with the most people, 38%, 36% and 35% respectively. The “best of a bad lot” winners are still Dinning, Stelmach and Hancock with Norris and McPherson in the middle again.
If Albertans start to think seriously about this campaign and about the characters of the people to whom they should grant their consent to be government then we could see a different outcome. Different at least than the conventional media wisdom and pundit wizardry is now suggesting.
Will that happen? The earlier Ipsos Reid poll said only 30% of current card carrying PC’s intended to vote in this selection process. Scary at so many levels. Nobody really knows what is going to happen. Citizens can show up to vote with $5 and a drivers license and decide on the spot who to support.
There is obviously a real potential a high jacking of this leadership selection process by a well organized special interest group if ordinary citizens do not engage. But that is democracy and we always get the government and governors we deserve. The Progressive Conservative brand is at stake here as well...just as it ought to be in a leadership contest.
Next posting will be on strategic voting and what group of candidates going through to the second ballot will be best for Alberta.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteJust curious if you have any insight into why so few PC members intend to vote? You'd think they'd be among the most motivated participants. Is there a lack of engagement in the process by the media? Does the campaign lack discussion of issues that concern regular party members? Who do you think benefits most from this apparent apathy?
Yes, Ken, curious what your thoughts are as to the people that have obviously bought memberships yet don't expect to go out and vote. Are these people ones that have been pressured to buy one (or were given one for free), and yet do not feel a connection with the party? And if so, which candidate(s) would this hurt the most/least?
ReplyDeleteThe turn out is going to be low based on two things...the sales of memberships seems not to be even as brisk as in 1992 and that was not very impressive at about 78000. There were 48% more sold in the one week between the first and second ballot when Betkowski scared the hell out of the Klein crew by beating them by 1 vote in the first go-round and all other candidates endorsed Nancy but theri support was so thin it did not deliver enough additional support.
ReplyDeleteSecondly it is easier to give someone 5 bucks to get them off your back...kind of like buing the chocolate bar from the school fundraiser or the raffle ticket from the obnoxious office guy. Intention of actually participating in those circumstances - zero to nil.
Federal Liberal delegate selection a month or so ago did not have high participation either. I am told one Edmonton constituency had over 700 memebers and only a 17% turnout. That was a delegate selection process so someone would have had a vested personal interest in getting their 'memebers' out to vote for them. It did not happen.
This proces coold be hijacked by a committed special interest group like the evangelicals and they are organized I can assure you.
Interesting analysis. It seems that low participation rates of members of political parties in party events is relatively widespread. I read today that the turnout for the CPC leadership race was 36%. What does all this say about the general health of our political parties?
ReplyDeleteThanks Ken for that analysis. I think you hit the nail right on the head. Many people are simply not interested in the race. My dad bought a membership because someone just kept on bugging him - I know for a fact he won't go out and vote.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad there wasn't something like a referendum within the party on an issue attached to the voting slip. Maybe more people feel inclined to go out and vote.
I guess it also depends on the weather, especially when rural voters have to drive more than an hour to their voting station - that's just a disgrace.
Ken, I know Dinning was opposed to more polling stations in rural ridings (for obvious reasons). Is Hancock making efforts to ensure that EVERY Albertan who wants a say is given an opportunity? I mean, if the weather is bad, in addition to the already low participation rates, do you think rural voters will drive such long distances to vote?
Dinning has a MACHINE.
ReplyDeleteMorton has the MORAL MAJORITY.
OBERG has the OUTSIDERS.
All three of these groups are the most formidable of the campaign and that is why these three are likely to be the top. But then look at which group above has the most growth potential, and I would argue that its the Machine.
Hence, get ready for Premier Dinning.