Representative Dan Kristiansen — who convinced a group of humans to elect him on multiple occasions and everything — has a post about a web poll he conducted earlier. My most fervent hope is that he finds a way to start it off that seems like it’s reaching too hard to have a catchy intro but ends up kind of creepy.
Last week, you allowed me into your homes and/or mobile devices to offer a short survey [the link to you’ve completed the survey is his — Carl] on a proposed transportation revenue package. The response was great and very informative for me. I wanted to share some of the results of this virtual listening tour. While the survey remains open and I will continue to request public input, below is an update on where results stand as of October 29.
So a few questions: “You allowed me into your homes and/or mobile devices,” huh? You’re going with that? What if people didn’t think they were letting him into their homes, but just taking a simple web survey? What if someone took it on a laptop but not at home? Does he need to specify and/or? Really wouldn’t “thanks for taking a minute to complete my survey, if you did” work just fine?
Also, “the results of this virtual listening tour” is an interesting way of saying “the results of a poll of people who were on a Republican’s email list and/or found their way to the state House GOP website.” Anyway, on to the results.
Would you be willing to pay 10 cents or more per gallon of gas to pay for transportation projects around the state?
- 13.4% Yes
- 85.6% No
- 1% I’m not sure
If you had to pay 10 cents or more per gallon of gas, how would this impact you financially?
- 7.7% It would have little to no impact on me financially
- 41.2% It would have a moderate impact on me financially, but I could probably afford it
- 51.1% It would have a negative impact on me financially and I cannot afford it
Gosh, it sounds like the people who answered this survey really are a representative sample… of the people who took the survey. Or maybe they’re demanding price controls on gas? That would be an interesting follow up question. To the extent that’s possible when you’re talking about the results of a web poll. Also, his district is pretty close to the I-5 bridge that collapsed. Maybe he could have asked a question about if that had more or less impact than a 10 cent a gallon tax increase. But I guess we’ll never know because we can only ever look at the cost of taxes, not the cost of losing what those taxes pay for. The closest we get is the next question:
If our state moves forward with a transportation revenue package, please rank what you think the funding priorities should be:
The numbers below are rating averages. The lower the number, the higher prioritization participants gave that particular issue. As you will see below, participants believe “Maintenance, including bridge and road preservation” should be the state’s top funding priority. And they believe that “More pedestrian and bicycle paths” should be the lowest priority of the six options.
- 1.55 Maintenance, including bridge and road preservation
- 2.24 New lanes for congested roadways
- 3.53 Large projects
- 4.08 Washington State Ferries
- 4.52 Transit agencies
- 5.08 More pedestrian and bicycle paths
Does he mean sidewalks instead of “pedestrian”? Just general pedestrian, like paying someone to walk more? Is it infrastructure, and/or paths, that pedestrians and bikes have to share?