Charles “Charlie” Scott Venable Brian Kim Cari Hennessy Kelly Harlan Steven Mihalisko.
48
Charles “Charlie” Scott Venable Brian Kim Cari Hennessy Kelly Harlan Steven Mihalisko
-
Upload
ernest-blankenship -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Charles “Charlie” Scott Venable Brian Kim Cari Hennessy Kelly Harlan Steven Mihalisko.
Charles “Charlie” Scott Venable
Brian Kim Cari Hennessy Kelly Harlan Steven Mihalisko
Data Gathering Procedures: General ObservationsData Gathering Procedures: General Observations– MappingMapping– Polling Polling
Data AnalysisData Analysis– Precinct Map Analysis Precinct Map Analysis – Exit Poll Data AnalysisExit Poll Data Analysis
Comparative Precinct DataComparative Precinct Data– Actual VoteActual Vote– Voting RecordVoting Record– Issues Issues – ParticipationParticipation– Level of Education Level of Education – Socioeconomic StatusSocioeconomic Status
Correlative Data Correlative Data Venable ExceptionalismVenable Exceptionalism
OUTLINE
Mapping General Observations
Polling General Observations
DATA GATHERING
DATA ANALYSIS
– Precinct Map Analysis – Exit Poll/Archival Data Analysis
Comparative Precinct Data– Actual Vote– Level of Education – Socioeconomic Status– Issues – Participation– Voting Record
Correlative Data
Precinct Map Analysis
Venab
lic
ious
Percent Of Households with Income Less Than 10,000
(Charlottesville)
(within Venable)
Percent of Households with Income of 100,000 or More
(Charlottesville)
(within Venable)
Median Household Income
(Charlottesville)
(within Venable)
Per Capita Income
Exit Poll/Archival Data Analysis
Comparative
–Actual Vote
–Voting Record
–Issues
–Participation
–Level of Education
–Socioeconomic Status
Actual Vote
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Precincts
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Cou
nt
31
18 17
29
39
94
111
99 98103
62 5
Key
Bush
Kerry
Other
23.7% 71.8% 4.6%
14.0% 86.0%
14.5% 84.6% .9%
22.5% 76.0% 1.6%
26.5% 70.1% 3.4%
Carver
Clark
Tonsler
Venable
Walker
Row %
Bush
Row %
Kerry
Row %
Other
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Democrat
Republican
3rd Party
Presidential Votes in Venable Precinct
Voting Record
WalkerVenableTonslerClarkCarver
Precinct
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
30.00
2.001.00
12.00
8.00
25.00
7.00
13.5014.00
12.50
22.71
10.10
13.90
17.04
18.41
Mode
Median
MeanKey
Issues
8.1% 7.2% 9.3% 4.7% 5.0%
3.0% 1.2% 2.8%
.5%
1.0% .5% .5%
1.0% 3.6% 3.3% 1.4% 4.1%
2.5% 3.6% 1.3% 3.8% 4.1%
7.6% 6.0% 8.7% 9.0% 14.0%
22.7% 23.5% 24.7% 21.8% 19.0%
6.1% 7.8% 6.7% 8.1% 8.6%
3.5% 3.0% 4.7% 4.7% 1.4%
3.0% 6.0% .7% 3.8% 2.3%
2.0% .6% 2.0% .9% 1.8%
1.0% .6% 2.0% .9% 1.4%
10.1% 12.7% 14.0% 7.1% 14.5%
3.5% 2.4% 2.7% 5.7% 5.4%
2.0% 3.0% 3.8% 1.4%
2.0% .6% 2.0% .9% 1.8%
1.0% 2.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4%
4.5% 2.4% 2.7% 3.8% 2.3%
3.6% 3.3% .5% 2.3%
5.6% 5.4% 8.0% 9.5% 3.6%
9.6% 4.2% 2.7% 4.3% 5.4%
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
Col %
1.00
Col %
2.00
Col %
3.00
Col %
4.00
Col %
5.00
25.4% 19.0% 22.2% 15.9% 17.5%
42.9% 14.3% 42.9%
100.0%
50.0% 25.0% 25.0%
8.0% 24.0% 20.0% 12.0% 36.0%
16.7% 20.0% 6.7% 26.7% 30.0%
17.0% 11.4% 14.8% 21.6% 35.2%
21.5% 18.7% 17.7% 22.0% 20.1%
16.9% 18.3% 14.1% 23.9% 26.8%
21.9% 15.6% 21.9% 31.3% 9.4%
20.0% 33.3% 3.3% 26.7% 16.7%
28.6% 7.1% 21.4% 14.3% 28.6%
18.2% 9.1% 27.3% 18.2% 27.3%
18.3% 19.3% 19.3% 13.8% 29.4%
17.9% 10.3% 10.3% 30.8% 30.8%
20.0% 25.0% 40.0% 15.0%
28.6% 7.1% 21.4% 14.3% 28.6%
14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 21.4% 21.4%
30.0% 13.3% 13.3% 26.7% 16.7%
35.3% 29.4% 5.9% 29.4%
18.3% 15.0% 20.0% 33.3% 13.3%
37.3% 13.7% 7.8% 17.6% 23.5%
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
Row %
1.00
Row %
2.00
Row %
3.00
Row %
4.00
Row %
5.00
Percent Issues within Precinct Percent Issue among Precincts
1) Negative Bush2) Positive Bush
3) Negative Kerry4) Positive Kerry
5) Character6) Morals & Values
7) Terrorism and Homeland security8) Iraq/Afghanistan/Draft
9) Health10) Education
11) Environment12) Econ. inequality & Econ. justice
13) Social security14) Economy
15) Taxes & Budget16) Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
17) Supreme Court & Courts issues18) Gay Rights & Gay Marriage19) Abortion & Women’s rights
20) Country headed in right/wrong dir.21) Foreign Affairs Other
22) Domestic Other
mbi04
1) 2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)16)17)18)19)20)21)22)
Precinct 1 Precinct 2 Precinct 3
Precinct 4 Precinct 5
mbi04
Participation
Attempt at Persuasion of Someone Else
75 80 67 88 80 390
58.1% 64.0% 58.8% 69.8% 55.9% 61.2%
54 45 47 38 63 247
41.9% 36.0% 41.2% 30.2% 44.1% 38.8%
129 125 114 126 143 637
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
yes
no
Persuade
Total
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
Total
Minimum Level Participation
Yard Sign or Bumper Sticker
42 53 34 33 50 212
32.1% 41.7% 29.8% 26.0% 34.7% 33.0%
89 74 80 94 94 431
67.9% 58.3% 70.2% 74.0% 65.3% 67.0%
131 127 114 127 144 643
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
yes
no
Sign
Total
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
Total
Medium Level Participation
Money Contributions
47 44 22 23 52 188
36.2% 35.2% 19.3% 18.0% 36.4% 29.4%
83 81 92 105 91 452
63.8% 64.8% 80.7% 82.0% 63.6% 70.6%
130 125 114 128 143 640
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
yes
no
Money
Total
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
Total
Attempt at Contacting a Public Official in Past Year
40 53 41 36 42 212
30.8% 42.1% 36.0% 28.3% 29.4% 33.1%
90 73 73 91 101 428
69.2% 57.9% 64.0% 71.7% 70.6% 66.9%
130 126 114 127 143 640
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
yes
no
Contact
Total
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
Total
High Level Participation
Volunteering
32 28 21 25 23 129
24.6% 22.6% 18.4% 19.7% 16.3% 20.3%
98 96 93 102 118 507
75.4% 77.4% 81.6% 80.3% 83.7% 79.7%
130 124 114 127 141 636
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
yes
no
Vol.
Total
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
Total
Vote in City Council May of 2004
49 62 50 23 80 264
38.0% 50.0% 45.0% 18.5% 56.7% 42.0%
80 62 61 101 61 365
62.0% 50.0% 55.0% 81.5% 43.3% 58.0%
129 124 111 124 141 629
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
yes
no
Vote
Total
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
Total
Writing a Letter to Editor of Newspaper in Past Year
14 19 13 11 17 74
10.8% 15.1% 11.5% 8.7% 12.1% 11.6%
116 107 100 115 124 562
89.2% 84.9% 88.5% 91.3% 87.9% 88.4%
130 126 113 126 141 636
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
Count
% within precinct
yes
no
Letter
Total
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
Total
Age
WalkerVenableTonslerClarkCarver
Precinct
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
48.00
26.00
35.00
37.00
35.50
44.56
30.15
37.74
39.12
40.15
Median
MeanAge
WalkerVenableTonslerClarkCarver
Precinct
80
60
40
20
Ag
e
80
60
40
20
40 30 20 10 0
Frequency
403020100
Frequency
40 30 20 10 0
Frequency
403020100
Frequency
40 30 20 10 0
Frequency
Education
5.9% 10.2% 34.7% 31.4% 9.3% 8.5%
3.3% 15.0% 43.3% 30.8% 7.5%
5.1% 35.4% 31.3% 21.2% 7.1%
3.3% 23.8% 39.3% 22.1% 1.6% 9.8%
14.6% 38.7% 26.3% 5.8% 14.6%
Carver
Clark
Tonsler
Venable
Walker
Row %
less thanhigh
school
Row %
Highschool
Row %
Associateor
Bachelor
Row %
MA/MBA
Row %
JD
Row %
Ph.D
7 12 41 37 11 10
4 18 52 37 9
5 35 31 21 7
4 29 48 27 2 12
20 53 36 8 20
Carver
Clark
Tonsler
Venable
Walker
less thanhigh school High school
Associate orBachelor MA/MBA JD Ph.D
35.0% 10.5% 18.2% 23.4% 52.4% 17.2%
20.0% 15.8% 23.1% 23.4% 15.5%
25.0% 30.7% 13.8% 13.3% 12.1%
20.0% 25.4% 21.3% 17.1% 9.5% 20.7%
17.5% 23.6% 22.8% 38.1% 34.5%
Carver
Clark
Tonsler
Venable
Walker
Col %
1.00 lessthan high
school
Col %
2.00 High
school
Col %
3.00 Associate
orBachelor
Col %
4.00 MA/MBA
Col %
5.00 JD
Col %
6.00 Ph.D
Percent of Persons Over 25 with HS Degree or More
Percent of Persons over 25 with a BS Degree or More
Persons 25 Years or Older With Less than 9 Years of School
Persons 25 Years or Older With a High School Degree or More
Persons 25 Years or Older With a BS Degree or Higher
Socioeconomic Status
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Precincts
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Per
cen
t
Income
lt 25k
25 to 50k
50 to 75k
75 to 100k
100 to 200k
200k
Carver Clark Tonsler Venable Walker
Precinct
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Co
un
t
Key
own
rent
Summary Of Comparative Data-Actual Vote
- 3rd highest percentage in votes for Kerry/ 3rd highest percentage in votes for Bush
-Voting Record
-By far, Venable has the lowest average of years registered
-Issues
-Overall, Economy and Iraq are the most prevalent Issues
-Venable, however, shows a different trend. From most to least prevalent, the issues are:
1) Iraq 2) Foreign Affairs other 3) Terrorism and Homeland Security 4) Health Care 5) Economy
-Participation
-Persuasion: highest percentage of attempts at persuasion
-Signs: lowest percentage of signs
-Money: lowest percentage of contributions
-Contact: lowest percentage of contacting official
-Volunteering: 3rd highest percentage of volunteering
-Newspaper: lowest percentage of writing to the editor
-City Council Vote: lowest percentage of city council vote
- Age
- lowest average and median age…by far
-Education
-2nd highest percentage with at least a high school degree
-2nd highest percentage with at least a Bachelor’s
-2nd highest percentage with a Phd.
-Socioeconomic Status
- Highest percentage of people with 200k and over
-Highest percentage of people with 25k or less
-Highest Rent rate
Correlative Data
• Student Vote– Presidential Vote– Participation– Issues
student * income Crosstabulation
37 7 0 4 3 4 55
68.5% 25.0% .0% 30.8% 33.3% 50.0% 47.0%
17 21 5 9 6 4 62
31.5% 75.0% 100.0% 69.2% 66.7% 50.0% 53.0%
54 28 5 13 9 8 117
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within income
Count
% within income
Count
% within income
student
not student
student
Total
lt 25k 25 to 50k 50 to 75k 75 to 100k 100 to 200k 200k
income
Total
Why Consider Student Vote
Income Disparity as a Result of Student Residence
student
58 44.6 48.3 48.3
62 47.7 51.7 100.0
120 92.3 100.0
10 7.7
130 100.0
student
not student
Total
Valid
SystemMissing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Percentage of Student Voting at VenableRecall…
Age: Mean 30, Median 26, Mode 22
VR: Mean 10, Median 7, Mode 2
(all figures well below those of other precincts)
Rent: very high in Venable
Presidential Vote
National Figures
student * presvote Crosstabulation
7 49 2 58
12.1% 84.5% 3.4% 100.0%
18 44 0 62
29.0% 71.0% .0% 100.0%
25 93 2 120
20.8% 77.5% 1.7% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
student
not student
student
Total
Bush Kerry Other
presvote
Total
Venable Figures
Participationmoney * student Crosstabulation
9 13 22
15.5% 21.0% 18.3%
49 49 98
84.5% 79.0% 81.7%
58 62 120
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
yes
no
money
Total
student not student
student
Total
time * student Crosstabulation
12 10 22
20.7% 16.4% 18.5%
46 51 97
79.3% 83.6% 81.5%
58 61 119
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
yes
no
time
Total
student not student
student
Total
sign * student Crosstabulation
13 16 29
22.4% 26.2% 24.4%
45 45 90
77.6% 73.8% 75.6%
58 61 119
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
yes
no
sign
Total
student not student
student
Total
persuade * student Crosstabulation
43 39 82
74.1% 65.0% 69.5%
15 21 36
25.9% 35.0% 30.5%
58 60 118
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
yes
no
persuade
Total
student not student
student
Total
contact * student Crosstabulation
14 20 34
24.1% 32.8% 28.6%
44 41 85
75.9% 67.2% 71.4%
58 61 119
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
yes
no
contact
Total
student not student
student
Total
letter * student Crosstabulation
5 6 11
8.6% 10.0% 9.3%
53 54 107
91.4% 90.0% 90.7%
58 60 118
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
yes
no
letter
Total
student not student
student
Total
votecity * student Crosstabulation
4 18 22
7.0% 30.0% 18.8%
53 42 95
93.0% 70.0% 81.2%
57 60 117
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
Count
% within student
yes
no
votecity
Total
student not student
student
Total
Recall…Persuasion: highest percentage of attempts at persuasion
Signs: lowest percentage of signsMoney: lowest percentage of contributions
Contact: lowest percentage of contacting officialVolunteering: 3rd highest percentage of volunteering
Newspaper: lowest percentage of writing to the editorCity Council Vote: lowest percentage of city council vote
IssuesVenable: Student Issues
National Figures: Student Issue Voting
Venable: Non-Student Issues
Issues: All Precincts
Summary• Presidential vote: Venable voting tendencies of students reflect the national
voting trends; however, within the Venable district the percentages of votes for Kerry were much higher than the national averages.
• Participation: The levels of political participation within the Venable precinct are strongly skewed with the large percentage (almost half of the respondents) of student voters. With the large difference between a student populace and the other voting populace of the precinct, no generalizations between socioeconomic levels and political activity can be reached (since the student populace holds a majority in the lower income levels of less than 20k).
• Issues: The student populace of the Venable precinct, when separated from the other polls, strongly correlated with national data of interest in particular issues. These issues were mainly Iraq situation, foreign affairs other, and homeland security and terrorism; all of which largely deal with the international political regime of politics. In comparison, the non-student populace, when separated, mirrored the issue interests of other precincts. The importance lying in issues of Iraq and homeland security but also with health, the economy, and taxes and budget (predominantly domestic affairs within the US).
If you would like to learn more about Venable Precinctvisit us for a venabliciously good time:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~clh7n/venable.htm
Love,Team Venable
