pn 936. Do polls lead the way? The latest 1News Kantar poll on Christchurch

Christchurch's Wizard of Oz

Why do we conduct polls if the results are so obvious, unclear or difficult to explain? Could one reason be because the poll's intention or effect is to influence the way we think and vote?

This month's Q & A Kantar poll was about the forthcoming October local government elections in Christchurch.  I do not know why Christchurch and not other cities, and they did not say. Perhaps there will be more later.

The poll's main question was about support for mayoral candidates. Other than the Wizard of Oz none would be known to most people, including, I suspect, many voters in Christchurch.  Businessman Phillip Mauger had 45% support and his main rival former health CEO David Meats had 26%.  71% of National voters and males over 55 years of age (70%) supported Mauger. The 1News heading "Christchurch's next mayor: Poll shows big a  lead for Phil Mauger" won't hurt his chances! Neither will the publication of the poll results. Back to my opening comment.

Some 500 people were polled online. Of these 26% said they did not know, 8% refused to answer and 4% did not plan to vote, making a total of 190 or 38% of those polled.  For the mayoral support question, this left a  poll of 310.  Hardly an adequate sample size, though Kantar claimed the sampling error was ±4.4%; less for when the results were broken down into age groups, sex, ethnicity and which party people voted for.  But how much less reliable, Kantar did not say.

 Supplementary questions

Supplementary questions asked about confidence in the council, the proposed new stadium, more space for cyclists and adding chlorine to the water supply.

1. Confidence in the Council. Yes 36%, No 68%, Did not know etc 15%. More Labour Party supporters voted "yes" (50%), and more ACT (73%), National (57%), males over 55 years of age (55%) and NZ Europeans (51%) voted "no".

Given that the outgoing mayor and most councillors were Labour, this result is hardly surprising.

2. Does spending on the proposed new stadium represent good value for the ratepayer's money?  Yes 47%, No 41%, Did not know etc. 12%. More National Party supporters (62%) and men (54%) said "yes" and more Green Party supporters (59%)  said "no".  I'd say opinion was about equally divided.  Another hardly surprising result.

3. Should more road space be made available for bicycles to encourage cycling? Yes 29%, No 64%, Did not know etc. 7%.  More Labour (49%)  and people aged 18-34 (38%)  said "yes" and more ACT (86%), people aged 70 and over (83%) and NZ Europeans (66%) said "no". Interesting if statistically valid; there seems to be a lot of self-interest here.

4. Support for chlorine to be added to drinking water? Yes 23%, No 65%, Did not know etc. 12%. Those more likely to say "no" NZ Europeans 68%.   It would appear that support and opposition were not linked to any political party, age group or sex.  What is surprising is the high level of opposition to a disinfectant that kills most water-borne bacteria and viruses that could cause serious diseases. The low level of chlorination used in water supplies is not a health risk.