| SUMMARY TABLE 2:
CLUSTERING OF VOTES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KEY FINDINGS: |
1 |
Overall 53.7% of all respondents voted for
all 14 potential legislative reforms and 1.1% of all respondents voted
against all 14. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Boldfaced values in the row of column % YESes and in the rows of
column percentages different significantly from the overall average as they
are at least 3 standard deviations away from the corresponding overall average. |
|
|
3 |
The percentages for mostly and all yes are
far greater than those far greater than the corresponding percentages for
mostly and all NO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Owners, CCFJ members and residents in either
the Northern or West Coast regions were significantly more likely to block
vote in favor of all 14 possibilities than other respondents. Conversely, respondents in most other Non-owner |
|
|
|
Interest groups were significantly more likely
to block vote against all 14 issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Potentially causal relationships were found between two sets of
respondent traits, Interest and Additional Remarks Made, and the tendency to
cluster votes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * * * INTEREST * * * *
* * * * |
* * * * * * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * *
REGION [8] * * * * * * * * |
* *
ADDITIONAL REMARKS MADE * * |
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD |
|
|
|
|
|
* * * GENDER [5] * * * |
|
CCFJ MEMBER [7] |
|
|
WEST |
EAST |
|
|
PRIORITY |
COMMENT |
|
|
|
|
OVERALL |
OWNER |
MEMBER [1] |
LAWYER |
C.A.M. [2] |
OTHER [3] |
N.A. [4] |
|
MALE |
FEMALE |
D.K. [6] |
|
YES |
NO |
|
NORTH |
CENTRAL |
COAST |
COAST |
SOUTH |
|
ONLY |
ONLY |
BOTH |
NEITHER |
| OVERALL TOTALS |
|
1033 |
|
740 |
130 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
135 |
|
584 |
389 |
60 |
|
196 |
837 |
|
35 |
202 |
156 |
137 |
503 |
|
176 |
131 |
418 |
308 |
| % WITHIN CATEGORY |
|
100.0% |
|
71.6% |
12.6% |
0.7% |
1.3% |
0.8% |
13.1% |
|
56.5% |
37.7% |
5.8% |
|
19.0% |
81.0% |
|
3.4% |
19.6% |
15.1% |
13.3% |
48.7% |
|
17.0% |
12.7% |
40.5% |
29.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RAW NUMBERS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| YES TO ALL 14 |
|
555 |
|
418 |
50 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
72 |
|
314 |
209 |
32 |
|
121 |
434 |
|
22 |
116 |
95 |
76 |
246 |
|
101 |
61 |
236 |
157 |
| MOSTLY YES |
|
442 |
|
304 |
70 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
58 |
|
249 |
169 |
24 |
|
74 |
368 |
|
13 |
80 |
59 |
58 |
232 |
|
71 |
63 |
172 |
136 |
| HALF AND HALF |
|
9 |
|
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
0 |
9 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
| MOSTLY NO |
|
16 |
|
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
|
10 |
5 |
1 |
|
1 |
15 |
|
0 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
8 |
|
1 |
1 |
5 |
9 |
| NO
TO ALL 14 |
|
11 |
|
7 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
8 |
3 |
0 |
|
0 |
11 |
|
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
|
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PERCENT OF TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| YES TO ALL 14 |
|
53.7% |
|
56.5% |
38.5% |
57.1% |
38.5% |
87.5% |
53.3% |
|
53.8% |
53.7% |
53.3% |
|
61.7% |
51.9% |
|
62.9% |
57.4% |
60.9% |
55.5% |
48.9% |
|
57.4% |
46.6% |
56.5% |
51.0% |
| MOSTLY YES |
|
42.8% |
|
41.1% |
53.8% |
28.6% |
53.8% |
0.0% |
43.0% |
|
42.6% |
43.4% |
40.0% |
|
37.8% |
44.0% |
|
37.1% |
39.6% |
37.8% |
42.3% |
46.1% |
|
40.3% |
48.1% |
41.1% |
44.2% |
| HALF AND HALF |
|
0.9% |
|
0.5% |
3.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
|
0.5% |
0.8% |
5.0% |
|
0.0% |
1.1% |
|
0.0% |
0.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.6% |
|
1.1% |
1.5% |
0.5% |
1.0% |
| MOSTLY NO |
|
1.5% |
|
0.9% |
3.1% |
14.3% |
0.0% |
12.5% |
2.2% |
|
1.7% |
1.3% |
1.7% |
|
0.5% |
1.8% |
|
0.0% |
2.0% |
0.6% |
2.2% |
1.6% |
|
0.6% |
0.8% |
1.2% |
2.9% |
| NO
TO ALL 14 |
|
1.1% |
|
0.9% |
1.5% |
0.0% |
7.7% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
|
1.4% |
0.8% |
0.0% |
|
0.0% |
1.3% |
|
0.0% |
0.5% |
0.6% |
0.0% |
1.8% |
|
0.6% |
3.1% |
0.7% |
1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % MOSTLY &
ALL YES |
96.5% |
|
97.6% |
92.3% |
85.7% |
92.3% |
87.5% |
96.3% |
|
96.4% |
97.2% |
93.3% |
|
99.5% |
95.8% |
|
100.0% |
97.0% |
98.7% |
97.8% |
95.0% |
|
97.7% |
94.7% |
97.6% |
95.1% |
| % SPLIT EQUALLY |
|
0.9% |
|
0.5% |
3.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
|
0.5% |
0.8% |
5.0% |
|
0.0% |
1.1% |
|
0.0% |
0.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.6% |
|
1.1% |
1.5% |
0.5% |
1.0% |
| % MOSTLY & ALL NO |
|
2.6% |
|
1.9% |
4.6% |
14.3% |
7.7% |
12.5% |
3.0% |
|
3.1% |
2.1% |
1.7% |
|
0.5% |
3.1% |
|
0.0% |
2.5% |
1.3% |
2.2% |
3.4% |
|
1.1% |
3.8% |
1.9% |
3.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 STD. DEVIATION |
|
0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Calculated
Chi-Squared Valued [12]: |
0.0004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6628 |
|
|
|
0.0194 |
|
|
0.0101 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.1154X10^-21
[13] |
|
| Implication of
Chi-Squared Test |
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
|
|
|
3 ROWS X 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
3 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS |
|
2 R0WS X 2 COLUMNS |
3 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
3 ROWS X 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|