I'd like to hear more about the commentary inserted in the interview here that states: "The poll had 500 respondents with an intentional oversample of 100 voters of color." If the intentional oversample was used to get an additional and more statistically reliable reading of the opinions of voters of color ("in the crosstabs," as they say), that's defensible. But if the oversample was part of the 500 surveyed and used without adjustment or clarification to present the opinion of all voters, that's not defensible. I'd like to know which was the case here.
The polling fiasco mostly illustrates the difference between polling to objectively measure public opinion on a subject, and polling to create campaign messaging around a subject. The Commission (and its public outreach contractor) seemed only interested in the latter.
Regardless, I can't tell whether Robin Ye's response is disingenuous or simply proof that he wasn't listening, but there was plenty of public comment and comment from City Council about different parts of the proposal needing to be separated "back in April, May and June." (June being past the Commission's comment deadline, of course.) Simply replay the video from the formal hearings, or scroll the scores of written comments -- it's all there. The reality is that the Commission's collective mind was made up many months earlier.
Indeed, the Commission didn't deliver a three-legged stool; it delivered a five-legged one, which will work better with two faulty legs removed. Multi-member districts, regardless of the voting method, are doomed to failure, and the ranked-choice / single-transferable-vote scheme can't save them. Letting the public vote on the items separately would have allowed the public to correct the Charter Commission mistakes while retaining a solid piece of much-needed civic furniture.
I'd like to hear more about the commentary inserted in the interview here that states: "The poll had 500 respondents with an intentional oversample of 100 voters of color." If the intentional oversample was used to get an additional and more statistically reliable reading of the opinions of voters of color ("in the crosstabs," as they say), that's defensible. But if the oversample was part of the 500 surveyed and used without adjustment or clarification to present the opinion of all voters, that's not defensible. I'd like to know which was the case here.
The Commission's entire discussion of whether to present the proposed charter reforms as a single or multiple subjects took 12 minutes on June 6, 2022, starting at 2:28:40 here: https://www.portland.gov/omf/charter-review-commission/events/2022/6/6/charter-commission-work-session-hybrid
The topic was not even on the agenda "back in April, May."
The polling fiasco mostly illustrates the difference between polling to objectively measure public opinion on a subject, and polling to create campaign messaging around a subject. The Commission (and its public outreach contractor) seemed only interested in the latter.
Regardless, I can't tell whether Robin Ye's response is disingenuous or simply proof that he wasn't listening, but there was plenty of public comment and comment from City Council about different parts of the proposal needing to be separated "back in April, May and June." (June being past the Commission's comment deadline, of course.) Simply replay the video from the formal hearings, or scroll the scores of written comments -- it's all there. The reality is that the Commission's collective mind was made up many months earlier.
Indeed, the Commission didn't deliver a three-legged stool; it delivered a five-legged one, which will work better with two faulty legs removed. Multi-member districts, regardless of the voting method, are doomed to failure, and the ranked-choice / single-transferable-vote scheme can't save them. Letting the public vote on the items separately would have allowed the public to correct the Charter Commission mistakes while retaining a solid piece of much-needed civic furniture.