Good point. Can't argue with it. The reason I didn't include that option to begin with was because I wanted to gauge each commissioner's 'approval rating' in relation to each other. But I admit that fairness requires a 'none of the above' option.
I'm reconfiguring the poll now, but here are the original results:
6 comments:
I do not see the reason for the second poll. The original question is plain as day. You asked, If a recall petition circulated through the city of Sandusky, who would you vote to recall/fire. You did not ask should we have a recall. I do not understand why you would include "None of the above". There should be no answer of None of the above. Since we only have the commissioners you listed, none of the above does not apply to the question you asked.
Since the question being asked is not whether or not you want a recall petition or who should you have a recall petition on, the inclusion of a none of the above answer should not have been done. If there was a recall petition out there you could not answer on the petition, none of the above.
The original poll answers precluded anyone from expressing the opinion that a recall is not desireable.
I hope all you armchair quarterbacks will be on the ballot next time around. The job seems to be a thankless one.
Then a new poll should ask the question, should a recall be started on these listed people. Since the original question made the assumption of a recall petition being already started, the answer of none of the above is irrelevant.
The answer "none of the above" is relevant. Its the question and first set of answers that failed to consider all options.
To not allow the possibility of some respondents not wanting to recall anyone is limiting the answers to only what you want to hear.
I'm surprised at how many people don't understand fundamental fairness. I tried to explain this in a really long post but realized that those who only hear what they want would disagree with me no matter what I say. So I discarded the post and the idea of trying to explain it. Can't say it any better than the commenter right above me:
"To not allow the possibility of some respondents not wanting to recall anyone is limiting the answers to only what you want to hear."
Post a Comment