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

Precinct 1 Precinct 2 Precinct 3

Precinct 4 Precinct 5

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