I've always believed that consumers of poll data are welcome to draw their own conclusions about what the data mean and how they apply to legislative settings. However, almost two decades as a pollster have also shown me that partisans can occasionally twist poll data to mean just about anything they want it to.
In that spirit, I'd like to respond to what I consider misguided conclusions in a Star Tribune editorial ("Poll: Make education a legislative priority," May 12) about a survey that my company, Meeting Street Research, conducted on behalf of the Center of the American Experiment.
First, the editorial discounted our finding that Minnesotans reject higher gas taxes and suggested that our questionnaire skewed the response through a misleading question. I say "discounted our finding" because the editorial didn't disagree that voters rejected a gas tax by more than two to one (65 percent to 29 percent) in favor of existing sales taxes on automobile-related expenses. Instead, it discounted voters' opinion, saying that "most people's knee-jerk response" to paying more taxes for any purpose is "no."
On top of this, the editorial called it "remarkable" that 29 percent supported a higher gas tax, since, it said, my question had "advised respondents that some Minnesota legislators say existing taxes are sufficient to do the transportation job."
This is simply not accurate. The question wording made no mention at all that Minnesota legislators say existing taxes are sufficient and made no value judgments about either option, merely asking for a choice between two extant options.
The editorial also trumpeted that three out of five respondents favor expansion of light-rail transit in the Twin Cities, "even as they also favor better roads and bus service." This conclusion proves how taking one question out of context can misread an overall result.
Yes, 61 percent of voters support expanding light-rail projects (35 percent oppose). But 65 percent of voters say they support prioritizing funding for updating roads and bridges over funding for mass transit like light rail.
It's not surprising to see voters support "expanding" this or "building" when no cost or trade-off is required. However, that's not the world in which our elected officials operate. So when we asked voters if they had to make a choice, their response was very clear — prioritize updating roads and bridges over light rail. Even a majority (67 percent) of those who support expanding light-rail projects still support prioritizing funding for roads and bridges over light rail.