Finding Common Ground: Release of Interim Report

Text Size:

Home » Blog » Finding Common Ground: Release of Interim Report

Finding Common Ground: Release of Interim Report

July 27th, 2010

By Joe Goldman, Vice President of Citizen Engagement, AmericaSpeaks

Today, AmericaSpeaks released its second round of analysis from the June 26 National Town Meeting. Please take a look at the narrative report, slide show, and 19 site reports that we have posted to our new Results page.

Over the next several days, we will be posting to the blog a series of articles that dig into the data that we have analyzed so far. In the meantime, there are a few things worth point out about these results.

First of all, we have included some initial break downs of how voting was shaped by the ideological views of participants. Early in the event, we asked people to identify their ideological position on economic and fiscal issues. We were able to look within the keypad voting data to see where liberals and conservatives tended to share views and where they tended to differ (and by how much.)

Second, we have also been able to break out data based on the site that participants attended. You can read the 19 site reports to get a sense for how views from your community related to views from across the country.

Third, we were able to compile the percent of table groups that included each option in their deficit reduction packages.

Fourth, we were able to correct the voting results in four questions that had been calculated incorrectly. It turned out that on those questions in which participants were able to vote for multiple options, a flaw in the voting software meant that the system was double counting (e.g. if you hit the number 3 button several times, it would record several votes for number 3 instead of just one.) Fortunately, Turning Point Technologies was able to go through the data files and eliminate double counting. Notably, this error essentially didn’t change the relative position of options within a given category. Rather, the big difference is that it lowered the percentage support for many options in these four questions. We apologize for any confusion that this has caused. Turning Point Technologies has assured us that they will be correcting the software error.

Fifth, we have completed a thorough analysis of the ideas submitted through the laptop computers at each table to supplement the real-time analysis conducted by the theme team on June 26. Our analysis has confirmed the work done by the theme team, but also picked up a few additional themes from the data.

Finally, please note that we will have at least one additional round of analysis to release in the coming weeks. We are still conducting an analysis of how support for options correlated with one another for individual voting as well as across table packages. Additionally, we will add results from the Community Conversations, which have been coming in more slowly than we had anticipated.

We’ll also work to put up raw data from the laptop computers and the overall voting results, so that those of you who are interested in conducting your own analysis can do so.

Enjoy!

Kervick

The corrected report is an improvement although it is still a bit confusing to me.

But I am glad a disclaimer was added that indicated that the results of June 26 were not intended to be representative of the general US population. This was indeed a more liberal, older, and more racially skewed group with a disproportionate (higher) African-American and (lower) Latino representation. That would seem to account for the preference for more taxes as opposed to budget cuts, and preference for military cuts over other federal spending cuts. It would be interesting to see how America would vote of this were a matched sample.
Linda Sturgeon

The one thing that doesn't make this data 'pure' for table decisions is that people sitting at each table had to come to as close of a concensus as possible for a group decision on questions. This 'forced' people to move to the majority's view at their table or even for the majority to move from theirs enough to work with 'dissent' at a table. So, at my table it was predominently of progressive view...and produced that viewpoint. If conservative I'm sure the same happened. But if mixed it would water down either left or right views to views in the middle (not necessarily representing the true views of individuals, but, compromise). It looks like individual electronic voting was done as well (which wasn't done where I participated) only table consensus. Perhaps someone can clarify further as I only had the experience of concensus table decisions (and handed in my personal voting on paper).
Cfmpilot

There is an error in the Overland Park report - It says we had "20" participants, and I think that should have read "200". Great event, not a very difficult task to balance the budget.

stay in the loop

speak out

Like this? share it on:

stay in the loop

speak out

join more discussions on: