Of the 15,000 updates/surveys mailed out, approximatey 1000 people responded. Roughly 75% (750) said they supported offshore drilling; 25% (250) people said no to it.
So, let me ask...
Would this survey and its results be legitimate information that you felt worthy to present before the House of Representatives' Committee on Resources in support of HR 4761? Could it be honestly used as the basis for making the following sworn testimony before Congress?
"Recently, I conducted a poll, as did my congresswoman, Rep. Thelma Drake, to gauge the willingness of the citizens in my district, the coastal community of Virginia Beach, to allow OCS activity off Virginia's coast. After two years of relatively intense, negative media attention, my constituents-an overwhelming 75%--(and I believe the percentage was higher in Congresswoman Drake's district) supported offshore exploration and development of our offshore resources."
Further, would this survey and its results merit your extremely earnest pursuit in both authoring and lobbying for legislation whereby the Commonwealth of Virginia would encourage Congress to lift a Federal ban on Atlantic OCS so as to allow Virginia to drill offshore for gas and oil?
Is 750 a response number that you think qualifies what could be considered "overwhelming", especially knowing that the population of Virginia Beach is 438,415. Back in 2003, when you last ran for Senate there were 100,937 registered voters in your Virginia Beach district. As of Dec. 1st, 2006, there are now 107,844. Thus, is 750 what you would testify before Congress as being a "overwhelming" representation of your coastal community?
Main Entry: per-+ju-+ry
Pronunciation: 'p&r-j&-rE, 'p&rj-rE
Function: noun
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing
Second, I am surprised the percentage is so low. If some one wants a high percentage, all they have to do is send that survey to only Republicans. They think drilling off the shores is free enterprise and that there is no such thing as climate change or such drilling will hurt the enviroment.
This is similaer to what happened in VA on the transportation funding. Republicans got their constituents to write letters to their delegates opposing the tax increase or supporting Kaine and transportation. I trid to get Nelson D's to write letters to Watkins Abbitt encouraging transportation funding. After a while I email Watkins to find out how many letters/emails he recieved. He said 1 more plus the one I had sent him. Yet he got well over a hundred saying no taxes.
I am sure he took that to the VA house.
You wouldn't just have to prove that the statement was false or misleading, you would have to prove intent on the part of the official to lie or mislead.
As far as the accuracy of the inferences are concerned, it's hard to say without knowing anything about the survey methods. Theoretically, it is possible to draw conclusions about a population of 100,000+ people based on a sample size of 15,000 and a response rate of only about 1,000.
It would be helpful to know:
1. How was the 15,000 mailing group selected (randomly hopefully--and within the 1st district).
2. How was the survey worded?
3. Who conducted the survey?
4. Who paid for the survey?
Based on just that one sample question--“In an effort to reduce Virginia’s dependence on foreign oil, would you support or oppose a plan that lifts the ban on drilling off Virginia’s coast line?”--the survey has the odor of a statistically invalid push-poll.
A more neutral wording of the question would be:
"Do you support or oppose drilling off the Virginia coast line?"
"In an effort to reduce Virginia's dependence on foreign oil" biases the question.
You could just as well write:
"In an effort to reduce Virginia's dependence on foreign oil, do you support or oppose raising fuel efficiency standards?" (That too would be a biased question).
I asked Rep. Drake for a copy of her poll. She wrote back and told me I was mistaken for contacting her congressional office and to contact her campaign office for the information. I find this too very wrong. This is information gather for the purpose of conducting the public's business. It should be something that stands the light of day.
1. Partisan bias. Two assumptions here:
1. That GOPers are more inclined to open a letter from Thelma Drake; 2. That Dems are more likely to be opposed to drilling of the VA Coast).
2. My sense on this one though is that the real purpose of the letter was simply to move public opinion in the direction that Drake wanted. It's entirely conceivable to me that Gas company interests gave money heavily to Drake's campaign--and in exchange she gives one of the industries pet issues a place in her push poll.