I couldn’t agree more with Michael about this;
Significantly, for a poll at the beginning of a broad-based community-wide engagement strategy, there was no option for respondents to indicate they were undecided or not sure whether they would support the initiatives being proposed. Most questions required a response, so there was almost no option to leave a particular question unanswered.
The closed and bureaucratic approach to garnering support for initiatives promoted as benefitting the community as a whole may have the opposite of the intended effect. There are reports that an independent group may be formed to support the bond issue. Perhaps they’ll do a better job of engaging the community.
The problem is they don’t want to ‘engage’ the public. They want a small group of supporters to vote this in on a special election in September. Let’s just say some of my foot soldiers and I have been keeping detailed notes, and if they move forward with the current plan, they may have some surprises awaiting them.
Sorry about the poor quality of the scanned postcard accompanying the article. Something having to do with how it was created and saved (by me) and then pasted from MS Word to the web platform at The Nonprofit Quarterly. It’s readable if you squint. I will point out that the graphic is larger than the original, and we’re trading larger fuzziness for the sharp but smaller print size of the original.
A properly run issue advocacy committee will need to learn the voters who are in favor of their issue … and work hard to be certain those votes are represented (i.e. cast) in the election.
A properly run issue advocacy committee will also seek to understand specific reasons why a voter may be ‘Undecided’ or ‘No’. Message and/or structure of the issue referendum need to be responsive to these concerns (especially if there is need for more “yes” votes for adoption and passage.
To do otherwise insures defeat.