Halifax 2014 - Canadian CG bid race

[joehowe1964]

Yikes!

Sorry GBM, you're now labeled an enemy by Out and JJ!

http://supportthehrmgames.com/2007/02/21/another-poll.aspx

Out, stop talking when you have no clue. "external validity", lol rotflmao!

Did you get that off Wikipedia?

Oh you did!

"The most common loss of external validity comes from the fact that experiments using human participants often employ small samples obtained from a single geographic location. Because of this, one can not be sure that any results obtained would apply to people in other geographic locations."

That means that you can't take the results from this poll and apply them to, say Toronto.

But you're too busy in front of committees to worry about being right!

[joehowe1964]

No worries WB: the study still does not have any external validity : 411 out of how many in NS? Not even a sample representation even if randam sampled.

Thanks for posting, good to see what tricks they have going on.

No worries Outraged, the study still has "oogie-boogie buzzz-word, cut and paste from Wiki" LOL, ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

[Outraged]

Just to comment on this since I have quite a bit of expertise in statistics...

If the poll was conducted among 400 people the margin of error would be 5% so the "real" results (if the entire population was surveyed) would be between 75% and 85%.

It just doesn't matter how many people are in N.S. - 1 million, 10 million or 100 million - this random sampling is sufficient and accurate within that margin of error. And that's a mathematical fact.

This sample is suspect to begin with and the company is questionable at best so this random sampling is not sufficient.

It DOES matter what the population size is as the higher you number the less margin of error, to point. Any reputable company will want a sample that is random and representative and would choose a higher percent for confidence. If you have 1000 people you will want to have how much of a confidence percent to be part of your sample? The higher the number of CP the greater confidence you have that there is EV and a lower MOE.

411 of 1000 is reasonable but not the same as the percent for 411 if the population number is 500,000 it just is not a reasonable sample number.

That is where we run into problems here in this study. I have done enough quantitative, qualitative and participatory research in my working life to know that. This lacks external validity and if any research or data result lacks EV then it has no significant meaning. Four factors are necessary for EV and this article/study is too vague to see if any of them are sound. Sample sizes determine the margin of error: the larger the number the least credible the results are preferring 90-95 not 75-85 -percent of confidence that results are predictable .

I would have to see the actual study itself to judge its merit but based on this article posted by WB it does not pass the smell test. 400 is not a representative sample. The quiry of this study satisfies the 2/3 criterion for Distortion Rule of observations/interpretations based on researcher bias with many confounded variables.

The more CV the less validity, accuracy on test results as they are not predictable and studies are about measuring predictability of repeating the same results over time in various locations with different populations.

411 x

------------=41.1%

1000 100

411 x

-------------= 8.22%

500000

According to WIKI NS has 934,405 people.

411

------------------------------=4.40% are in favour????? (I don't know how many of 934,405 are adults but you get the point.

934,405

GB et al.-size DOES matter LOL

[Outraged]

Sample sizes determine the margin of error: the larger the number the least credible the results are preferring 90-95 not 75-85 -percent of confidence that results are predictable .

I dont have edit so need to recopy my post....

when I say the larger the number the least credible the results I am referring to MOE numbers not sample size numbers...

conversely

the larger the sample size the more credibility/EV/ confidence percent is.

A quality study wants 90-95%....

sorry for any confusion.

[dmont]

"These results are part of the CRA Atlantic Quarterly, an independent survey of Atlantic Canadians, and are based on a sample of 411 adult Nova Scotians, conducted between November 9 and December 4, 2006. The results are considered accurate with + 4.8 percentage points, 95 out of 100 times."

In simple-talk, if you were to conduct this study 100 times, 95 of those times would produce a percentage of those in favour between 73% and 83%.

And I have no idea who taught you statistics, but they need to brush up.

I think we can safely put this line of comments to rest. The study has impeccable credentials, and until Anti-Games Land (population 2) can produce a legitimate study to the contrary, the results stand.

[jim jones]

Yikes!

Sorry GBM, you're now labeled an enemy by Out and JJ!

http://supportthehrmgames.com/2007/02/21/another-poll.aspx

Out, stop talking when you have no clue. "external validity", lol rotflmao!

Did you get that off Wikipedia?

Oh you did!

"The most common loss of external validity comes from the fact that experiments using human participants often employ small samples obtained from a single geographic location. Because of this, one can not be sure that any results obtained would apply to people in other geographic locations."

That means that you can't take the results from this poll and apply them to, say Toronto.

But you're too busy in front of committees to worry about being right!

And why would Rob be an enemy of JJ or out???? He points out his knowledge from first had experience. I point to the fact that Don Mills and his company can have its creditbility taken to task by being games supporters so zealous that don Mills and his brother got on the air for the rick howe show and into a childish screeming rage when Bruce Devenne was on .

Like I said you can get a survey to say pretty much anything you want by micro targetting a group of people that would be supportive .

the only real way to know whether yuor results are true is to actually have a plebisite.

jim jones

[wishblade]

I noticed in the daily news today that somebody wrote in in regards to the poll. They said instead of asking if you want the games to come to Halifax in 2014, it should ask if you would want the games to come if it were to create a legacy of debt and so on. And I believe Jim brought this point up on another forum in the past.

In my opinion, this event is such large news in the province, and has so much media attention that almost everybody atleast knows the price situation at this moment. There probably arent enough who dont know it to sway the results very much at all. So in regards to the poll, the outcome would more than likely be nearly the same with either question.

And as for the sample size, most polls use a smaller sample size because it generally isnt worth having larger samples since it will not effect the outcome very much. There is a point where results become consistant no matter what the size is, and that number isnt very high. 400 is within a few percentage points.

[Outraged]

"These results are part of the CRA Atlantic Quarterly, an independent survey of Atlantic Canadians, and are based on a sample of 411 adult Nova Scotians, conducted between November 9 and December 4, 2006. The results are considered accurate with + 4.8 percentage points, 95 out of 100 times."

In simple-talk, if you were to conduct this study 100 times, 95 of those times would produce a percentage of those in favour between 73% and 83%.

And I have no idea who taught you statistics, but they need to brush up.

I think we can safely put this line of comments to rest. The study has impeccable credentials, and until Anti-Games Land (population 2) can produce a legitimate study to the contrary, the results stand.

Perhaps you missed one of my posts:

I over- generalized and I do apologize for any confusion.

As I said and lets round up lets make 4.4 % to 5% heck lets go to 10% of the total population was asked. Now lets assume that 100% of that 10% were in favour, you still only have 100% of 10% that were asked and are in favour. We don't know how the other 90% would have polled and we cannot predict as 10% is too low for to assume any results that can be repeated ( EV).

I have no idea what questions were asked and how the numbers were interpreted- two major areas of miscalculation, misinterpetation and error.

Given the total number (population) NS -10% of the total is too low and seeks only to insult the intelligence of NScotians throughout the province.

I had the misfortune of Petey's best pal Frankie Boy how he interpreted the 2005 CANADA STAT on crime to blame it on the youth...I already knew what he was going to say-- I am fully aware of the spinning that takes place with stats done by and for government.

Anyway as I said: too low to be significant percent to call it representative with confidence, it lacks external validity.

Does any one have the actual report they can link here? I prefer to read things for myself.Thanks

ps.Dmont- how about you worry about your panties and I will worry about mine..Unlike some others here I don't feel the urge to pull something out of my buttocks and call it a fact, or stat in this case.

4.4% is 4.4% no matter how you spin it. (This number on WIKI population count I could not find the year printed.) 411 will never be representative of a population this large regardless of the topic or question.

Where did the number 411 come from : are they the only ones that replied or were they only the ones that were selected, were 1000 asked to participate but only 411 showed up to poll etc.... Too many unknowns but based on what is in front of me THIS IS CRAP! (Excuse the Scottish.)

10% of a pie, of a circle or a field or a cheque is still ONLY 10% and in this case 4.4%.

IF HRM and BIDTEAM were at all sincere about the notions of the people a province wide referendum/plebiscite should have happened PRIOR to placing the bid.

[Outraged]

And why would Rob be an enemy of JJ or out???? He points out his knowledge from first had experience. I point to the fact that Don Mills and his company can have its creditbility taken to task by being games supporters so zealous that don Mills and his brother got on the air for the rick howe show and into a childish screeming rage when Bruce Devenne was on .

Like I said you can get a survey to say pretty much anything you want by micro targetting a group of people that would be supportive .

the only real way to know whether yuor results are true is to actually have a plebisite.

jim jones

LOL I just posted that..sortta.....exactly Jim -you find what you are looking for with these polls. -a plebiscite is what shoulda happened. It is not just our habour that 'stanks.'

It is sad that there are so many gullible people....oh my... gotta love 'em.

Good thing we are on the job!!!!!

Screaming match??? -who won the gold ....OMG I wish I heard it!!!! dang is there weblink to the interview Jim? TIA

I have no enemies here.... okay I lied LMAO..but Rob/GB aint one of them...LOL....

[Outraged]

I noticed in the daily news today that somebody wrote in in regards to the poll. They said instead of asking if you want the games to come to Halifax in 2014, it should ask if you would want the games to come if it were to create a legacy of debt and so on. And I believe Jim brought this point up on another forum in the past.

In my opinion, this event is such large news in the province, and has so much media attention that almost everybody atleast knows the price situation at this moment. There probably arent enough who dont know it to sway the results very much at all. So in regards to the poll, the outcome would more than likely be nearly the same with either question.

And as for the sample size, most polls use a smaller sample size because it generally isnt worth having larger samples since it will not effect the outcome very much. There is a point where results become consistant no matter what the size is, and that number isnt very high. 400 is within a few percentage points.

Thanks for keeping us updated WB- my posts remain solid- - 4.4 % is not a representative sample of 934,405 to make predictions or assumptions with.

You bring up a critical point: the questions and how they are framed are so important to the interpetation by the participants and the interpretation of data results.

I dont think anyone can assume that everyone knows the price of 'things' at all. I do realize that is your opinion.

Samples are just that WB-samples but they, despite what scientific methodology you use, still must be an ethical and logical and measurable and representative sample ( random was supposedly chosen in this type of poll), and 4.4% aint it.

This should have been a referendum-it would have solidified public support or not BEFORE submitting a bid. It would have saved alot of embarrassment too.

As I posted before I doubt they asked the people suffering the most in this province for their input. There is over 60,00 in poverty in NS ... 60,000 versus 411...yeah right....real representative....

more like REEL or SPIEL but not REAL respresentative....

[Outraged]

Poor and Middle Income Nova Scotians Lose Most – NS Poor are Poorest in Canada

Since 1990, middle income Nova Scotians have lost the most in absolute terms (average $3,600) and the poor have lost the most in percentage terms (29% of their disposable income). The poorest 20% of Nova Scotian households are the poorest in the country and the poorest 40% of Nova Scotian households have lost more income in both absolute and percentage terms since 1990 than the bottom 40% in any other province. The bottom 60% of Nova Scotian households have an average income lower than that in any other province in Canada.

http://www.gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_incdist.shtml

http://www.nsliberalcaucus.com/news.asp?nid=118

The statistics the committee would face are staggering, he says. “One in five children in our province live in poverty, over 52,000 individuals are on social assistance and over 25,000 Nova Scotians used food banks last year.”

Please note the number of 52,000 and mine of 60,000 are not representative (real) poverty numbers. They are much higher. These numbers ONLY are those using Community Services on a regular basis. This excludes those living in communities of feast/famine/seasonal/ transient labourers that use EI or other supplemental incomes other that CS ESIA programs. Hard to measure the exact numbers.

POINT BEING- I wonder how many support the tax/provincial monies being spent on GAMES? 60,000 versus 411.....unless they mean 411 calling information to get a clue or two....LOL...someone needs 911.

This link is just to show you where the information came from, I am in no way, shape or form endorsing the LIBERAL caucus here. I have presented to McNeil/Whalen and know they have the most recent numbers on assitance.

Again the actual number of those in poverty is much higher.

I have asked around and not one nor did anyone know any one that knew any one that was part of the 411. No suprises there.

Much like SCopps' CDN flags. I know no one who knows anyone who knew anyone who got one flag in NS and ONT, I had others check it too. Yet 23 million dollars went POOF. Wait that was 7m on bid then a sneaky 23 m at the end of the day...history repeating itself ?

[GBModerator]

This sample is suspect to begin with and the company is questionable at best so this random sampling is not sufficient.

It DOES matter what the population size is as the higher you number the less margin of error, to point. Any reputable company will want a sample that is random and representative and would choose a higher percent for confidence. If you have 1000 people you will want to have how much of a confidence percent to be part of your sample? The higher the number of CP the greater confidence you have that there is EV and a lower MOE.

411 of 1000 is reasonable but not the same as the percent for 411 if the population number is 500,000 it just is not a reasonable sample number.

That is where we run into problems here in this study. I have done enough quantitative, qualitative and participatory research in my working life to know that. This lacks external validity and if any research or data result lacks EV then it has no significant meaning. Four factors are necessary for EV and this article/study is too vague to see if any of them are sound. Sample sizes determine the margin of error: the larger the number the least credible the results are preferring 90-95 not 75-85 -percent of confidence that results are predictable .

I would have to see the actual study itself to judge its merit but based on this article posted by WB it does not pass the smell test. 400 is not a representative sample. The quiry of this study satisfies the 2/3 criterion for Distortion Rule of observations/interpretations based on researcher bias with many confounded variables.

The more CV the less validity, accuracy on test results as they are not predictable and studies are about measuring predictability of repeating the same results over time in various locations with different populations.

411 x

------------=41.1%

1000 100

411 x

-------------= 8.22%

500000

According to WIKI NS has 934,405 people.

411

------------------------------=4.40% are in favour????? (I don't know how many of 934,405 are adults but you get the point.

934,405

GB et al.-size DOES matter LOL

Your math is incorrect.

Quite simply once again - a sample of 400 out of 500,000 has a error margin of plus or minus 5%. It just does not matter if the sample is 50,000, 500,000 or 5 million. Only when the total population size is very low, such as 400 out of, say, 1000 or 2000, would the margin of error be significantly different (better). But as the total population increases the margin of error increase diminishes exponentially until it just levels off.

If the sample size was increased to say 1600 then the margin of error would be plus or minus 2.5%. If the sample size was 2500 it would be about plus or minus 2%. So while a larger sample size improves the margin of error, it is still perfectly correct and typical to publish with the sample size of 400 as long as the sample size is disclosed.

In national elections, parties often pay big bucks for a sample of 1000 out of millions to get an indication of popularity. General elections often prove these results as accurate.

I hope thats clear enough to understand.

[wishblade]

Outraged,

If the results of this poll were in favour of the no side, lets say for ease that it came out to be 72% against the games in HRM, Neither you or Jim would have anything negative to say, I guarentee it. You would be saying things like "this is a completely accurate poll, and shows that support is down!". And you know what.... I wouldnt argue the point, because I believe that this poll is a fairly accurate depiction of what the opinion of the public truely is. I know you know a lot of naysayers against the games and can't imagine how it could come out in favour of the games. But myself, I actually don't know a single person against the idea of having the games in Halifax.

[Outraged]

Your math is incorrect.

snipped for reading and space

I hope thats clear enough to understand.

No actually my math nor my stance is incorrect. But thanks. If I were you I would try to make a point with something more credible than ELECTIONS CANADA.

[Outraged]

Outraged,

If the results of this poll were in favour of the no side, lets say for ease that it came out to be 72% against the games in HRM, Neither you or Jim would have anything negative to say, I guarentee it. You would be saying things like "this is a completely accurate poll, and shows that support is down!". And you know what.... I wouldnt argue the point, because I believe that this poll is a fairly accurate depiction of what the opinion of the public truely is. I know you know a lot of naysayers against the games and can't imagine how it could come out in favour of the games. But myself, I actually don't know a single person against the idea of having the games in Halifax.

WB your post tells me that I have given you way too much credit. If you got from any of my post that I support unethical practices or inaccurate/misrepresented information then you must go back and read them all again.

Jim is his own person , this thing that some of you do by lumping us together is tired.

Slowing it down for some: If these results were for ANTIGAME I would still have these same observations. It is too bad you misunderstood me all this and to even imply that I would be as pathetic as CITY COUNCIL/BIDTEAM or NS GOVT is highly offensive. I actually do not use stats at all for many reasons. I can refer to them but do not use them in the work that I do so NO I do not speak out both sides of my mouth and I distrust those who do.

The study remains unrepresented of the population. 4.4 % is not and should not be valid.

So there ends this lesson until I get copy of the actual study.)

[jim jones]

Outraged,

If the results of this poll were in favour of the no side, lets say for ease that it came out to be 72% against the games in HRM, Neither you or Jim would have anything negative to say, I guarentee it. You would be saying things like "this is a completely accurate poll, and shows that support is down!". And you know what.... I wouldnt argue the point, because I believe that this poll is a fairly accurate depiction of what the opinion of the public truely is. I know you know a lot of naysayers against the games and can't imagine how it could come out in favour of the games. But myself, I actually don't know a single person against the idea of having the games in Halifax.

Well again I am an Independant person from Out but I really dont care if 95 percent were against the games I would still be very vocal on this issue. Becasue it is an idiotic idea for Halifax to be engaged in . I may be a ordinary citizen but today in the Halifax daily news we have Paul Calda the former city manager coming out with this gem

Another prominent voice speaking out against the Games is former Halifax city manager Paul Calda. In an e-mail to all members of council, Calda chastised the mayor and council for not standing up to defend the interests of HRM's taxpayers.

"It is becoming clearer every day that we, both the province and HRM, cannot afford this extravaganza. It's a puzzle why HRM Council continues with it, " he wrote.

Calda also takes issue with the bureaucrats who seem to be running this show.

"None of them have been elected, and all of them have a vested interest in perpetuating this fraud because of their inflated salaries and egos," he said. "All of them should be fired for incompetence. An amateur came up with an estimate of $2 billion several months ago, based on historical costs and published figures from other cities. He has now been vindicated."

To me if you can find 280 uninformed citizens to micro target to forward your proposal the Don Mills coprorate research are doing as good a job as the communist chinese with Mao posed inform of a bounty of wheat while his Country starved with the Great Leap Forwards reforms.

I think it was probably micro targeted and the sample could have been cut back to schew the results. When the behavoir of these mills brothers get to the point it did on the radio the other day then you really have to question the maturity. GEE is their that much to be made in Office furniture and creating propaganda for a games committee.

jim jones

[GBModerator]

No actually my math nor my stance is incorrect. But thanks. If I were you I would try to make a point with something more credible than ELECTIONS CANADA.

Now I'm beginning to understand why some of the readers say you twist their words. I did not mention Elections Canada.

Perhaps you are not aware but statistics is a science. I, as well as many others, have an extensive education in it. If you're interested I can direct you to several textbooks and papers written by authors and statisticians from around the world.

Granted, if they are ALL wrong, I wasted four years studying it. If you can convince us of that - I'll be impressed. May I ask where your statistical training comes from?

The only reason I've become involved in this topic is to clarify an obvious distortion of fact.

[dmont]

I dunno who this Paul Calda guy is, but here's something i found when i searched him:

Reply to Paul Calda's Letter of 16 June 1998

In his criticism of the article "Green Target Can't be Hit", Paul Calda's letter of 16 June contains a number of statements that are both confusing and misleading.

First, Mr. Calda states that "Somebody has the math or probably the metric system, wrong. A litre of gasoline weighs about three quarters of a kilogram. It cannot therefore produce 2.64 kilograms of carbon dioxide."

From this statement it is clear that Mr. Calda is in desperate need of a course in basic chemistry. Gasoline, made up of hydrocarbons such as pentane and octane, produces about 3 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every kilogram of gasoline combusted. Using Mr. Calda's weight of a litre of gasoline (three quarters of a kilogram), means that about 2.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide is produced for every litre of gasoline burnt.

Second, Mr. Calda claims that "throwing figures at readers does not make an article credible."

Supplying (not "throwing") figures such as one litre of gasoline produces 2.64 kilograms of carbon dioxide is a means whereby interested readers can:

1. measure their own contributions to the greenhouse effect, abating when and where possible, and

2. critically examine claims made by people such as Mr. Calda.

Sent: 18 June 1998. Published (Daily News, 20 June 1998)

I guess Paul Calda, kinda like Outraged, enjoys inventing scientific methods.

[jim jones]

I noticed in the daily news today that somebody wrote in in regards to the poll. They said instead of asking if you want the games to come to Halifax in 2014, it should ask if you would want the games to come if it were to create a legacy of debt and so on. And I believe Jim brought this point up on another forum in the past.

In my opinion, this event is such large news in the province, and has so much media attention that almost everybody atleast knows the price situation at this moment. There probably arent enough who dont know it to sway the results very much at all. So in regards to the poll, the outcome would more than likely be nearly the same with either question.

And as for the sample size, most polls use a smaller sample size because it generally isnt worth having larger samples since it will not effect the outcome very much. There is a point where results become consistant no matter what the size is, and that number isnt very high. 400 is within a few percentage points.

No Wishblade I Believe you are mistaken there in regards to what I have said in regards to push polls. Gloria Mac Cluskey said that on Rick Howe and other media outlets in november. The problem is both micro targeting and the question that is asked can total change the result. You throw in the opposite statement to a legacy of debt and candy coat the games bid with a question like. "If the commonwealth games was to make a profit , or not effect your tax rates would you be in favour of the games." You get your 72 percent in a hurry.

You might as well say "are you in favour of having a billion dollar worth of public housing being built not costing anyone a dime."

I have said anyone engaging in polling and expressing a bias towards a proposal should excuse themselves from their business because it no longer has creditiblity on the issue .

Polling to me is what a person says to get the other person off the phone the fastest.

Jim jones

[jim jones]

Now I'm beginning to understand why some of the readers say you twist their words. I did not mention Elections Canada.

Perhaps you are not aware but statistics is a science. I, as well as many others, have an extensive education in it. If you're interested I can direct you to several textbooks and papers written by authors and statisticians from around the world.

Granted, if they are ALL wrong, I wasted four years studying it. If you can convince us of that - I'll be impressed. May I ask where your statistical training comes from?

The only reason I've become involved in this topic is to clarify an obvious distortion of fact.

Don t get me wrong on the issue Rob I value your valued knowledge and opinion on it. The problem we have here is probably a micro targeted push poll.

Anyway you look at this the poll result is down for the pro games movement and yet a new poster here has said that the results could make it 84 percent in favor ????

Wait a second it is 72 percent in favour with a plus or MINUS 4.5 percent ???? that means it could be 67.5 percent in favor not 81 percent. Then there is the opening that the poll could be totally off either way. The only accurate poll is a public plebisite for the issue yes or no. Or can be handled for the result the author wants.

jim jones

[GBModerator]

Don t get me wrong on the issue Rob I value your valued knowledge and opinion on it. The problem we have here is probably a micro targeted push poll.

Anyway you look at this the poll result is down for the pro games movement and yet a new poster here has said that the results could make it 84 percent in favor ????

Wait a second it is 72 percent in favour with a plus or MINUS 4.5 percent ???? that means it could be 67.5 percent in favor not 81 percent. Then there is the opening that the poll could be totally off either way. The only accurate poll is a public plebisite for the issue yes or no. Or can be handled for the result the author wants.

jim jones

I'm not disagreeing with your above point - I'm just backing up the math.

However, I do disagree with your thoughts on Plebicites. They are notoriously not an accurate representation of public opinion. Why? In Western society those who speak out against the issues are typically more active (just look at this forum!) and will turn out in greater numbers to an organized vote. Thus, the vote is usually skewed one way. These types of vote are not random and thus not an accurate representation of the entire population.

These numbers are often skewed towards the cause that campaigns to get the most voters to the poll.

[dmont]

Don t get me wrong on the issue Rob I value your valued knowledge and opinion on it. The problem we have here is probably a micro targeted push poll.

Anyway you look at this the poll result is down for the pro games movement and yet a new poster here has said that the results could make it 84 percent in favor ????

Wait a second it is 72 percent in favour with a plus or MINUS 4.5 percent ???? that means it could be 67.5 percent in favor not 81 percent. Then there is the opening that the poll could be totally off either way. The only accurate poll is a public plebisite for the issue yes or no. Or can be handled for the result the author wants.

jim jones

Micro-targeting is a pretty common accusation whenever someone doesn't like the outcome of a poll. I don't give that kind of accusation the least amount of credibility. The CRA is a reputable company, a bunch of anti-games people have referenced the integrity of their polls in the past. They don't like the result, so they cry foul.

Here's my opinion of your push poll hypothesis:

CRA POLL BREAKDOWN

As you may know, Halifax is the Canadian entry in the bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games. All things considered, do you completely support, mostly support, mostly oppose or completely oppose Halifax hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2014?

• Completely support: 33%

• Mostly support: 39%

• Mostly oppose: 11%

• Completely oppose: 11%

• Depends on cost to HRM: 1%

• Don’t know/no answer: 4%

That's a completely neutral question. No push there.

Finally, you don't seem to know much about statistics either. First, the poll for NOVA SCOTIA showed 78% in favour. The HRM showed 72% in favour. A 5% margin of error can go either way. The percentage of favour could be just as easily underreported as overreported. That's why, for all NOVA SCOTIA, with 95% confidence, support for the games is between 73% and 83%. If you apply the 5% margin to the HRM (I'm not sure if you can do this), with 95% confince, between 67% and 77% support the games. The 72%, while still significantly high to show clear majority support, could actually be as much as 77%. There might not have been any change in support whatsoever.

[jim jones]

Micro-targeting is a pretty common accusation whenever someone doesn't like the outcome of a poll. I don't give that kind of accusation the least amount of credibility. The CRA is a reputable company, a bunch of anti-games people have referenced the integrity of their polls in the past. They don't like the result, so they cry foul.

Here's my opinion of your push poll hypothesis:

CRA POLL BREAKDOWN

As you may know, Halifax is the Canadian entry in the bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games. All things considered, do you completely support, mostly support, mostly oppose or completely oppose Halifax hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2014?

• Completely support: 33%

• Mostly support: 39%

• Mostly oppose: 11%

• Completely oppose: 11%

• Depends on cost to HRM: 1%

• Don’t know/no answer: 4%

That's a completely neutral question. No push there.

Finally, you don't seem to know much about statistics either. First, the poll for NOVA SCOTIA showed 78% in favour. The HRM showed 72% in favour. A 5% margin of error can go either way. The percentage of favour could be just as easily underreported as overreported. That's why, for all NOVA SCOTIA, with 95% confidence, support for the games is between 73% and 83%. If you apply the 5% margin to the HRM (I'm not sure if you can do this), with 95% confince, between 67% and 77% support the games. The 72%, while still significantly high to show clear majority support, could actually be as much as 77%. There might not have been any change in support whatsoever.

Sorry to see that they actually have internet access from the Nova Scotia Hospital in Dartmouth .

Please spare me about Corporate research having any Creditbility. That left the building with their raw raw speech to the chamber for commerce in the spring of 2006 with Don Mills stating that they had to get the polls up from 76 percent at that time. No one supports the commonwealth games but an very small elitist clique in Bedford.

Don Mills is the owner and his product is tainted by his quest. Mirco Targeting and shaping the question is likely at play. The Sample of 411 could be from the 500 people the mills claim to employ. Yeah I suppose they would qualify as nova scotians between the ages of 18 and 65 .

As to Robs response on plebisites yes opposing something can can bring out more against then are for but a very vocal group in Vancouver against the 2010 games

was soundly defeated by the silent majority. The question is whether those results would happen again in light of the cost overruns. Considering a government position is funding a sport festival drive you are looking at a unlimited amount of resources against the opposition forces.

I would roll the dice on a plebiscite fr the commonwealth gaems and would be fine if a majority of 1 percent over 50 voted in favour. The politicans however know that they need about 70 percent to be comfortable with a games efford.

Again turn out of course can not show the most accurate percentage in favor by it is the one that is most representative and the largest sample.

jim jones

[sport1]

To me the biggest question is how much HRM taxpayers will pay for the facility legacies left by the 2014 Games. Of course the price is high when you want to advance the building of 30 years of infrastructure over the next 7 years. If the city own the facilities an we are only paying 50 cent dollars, its a great deal for the city.

To have a stadium, aquatics centre, field house, numerous outdoor field, upgrades to many existing buildings as well as other transportation upgrades, would change our city completely. We need to ensure that the final number is affordable but it is our only chance for infrastructure of this magnitude in the upcoming years.

There is a clear divide in the community for people under 55 who vastly support the bid and those over that age who may have a more reseerved perspective. I believe that we need to claim the city for tommorow's population. I respect the perpectives of our older population but our city must move forward and maintain the characteristics that make our community unique.

Well built facilities that cater to community use following the Games with an operational endowment, are a winning formula.

I wonder whether any of the people against the Games on this site have been to Manchester in the last 3 years. If you want to see the potential for regeneration of a city and the attitude of its citizens, ask about their experience with the 2002 Games. I have recently done this. The same is true for Victoria and Edmonton. The media needs to talk to regular citizens from these communities to understand the value that these Games can have for our city.

[jim jones]

To me the biggest question is how much HRM taxpayers will pay for the facility legacies left by the 2014 Games. Of course the price is high when you want to advance the building of 30 years of infrastructure over the next 7 years. If the city own the facilities an we are only paying 50 cent dollars, its a great deal for the city.

To have a stadium, aquatics centre, field house, numerous outdoor field, upgrades to many existing buildings as well as other transportation upgrades, would change our city completely. We need to ensure that the final number is affordable but it is our only chance for infrastructure of this magnitude in the upcoming years.

There is a clear divide in the community for people under 55 who vastly support the bid and those over that age who may have a more reseerved perspective. I believe that we need to claim the city for tommorow's population. I respect the perpectives of our older population but our city must move forward and maintain the characteristics that make our community unique.

Well built facilities that cater to community use following the Games with an operational endowment, are a winning formula.

I wonder whether any of the people against the Games on this site have been to Manchester in the last 3 years. If you want to see the potential for regeneration of a city and the attitude of its citizens, ask about their experience with the 2002 Games. I have recently done this. The same is true for Victoria and Edmonton. The media needs to talk to regular citizens from these communities to understand the value that these Games can have for our city.

But the construction according to Fred Mac Gillivray does not start until 2010 with the venues completed in 2013 one year before the games . this adds 20.5 percent in construction cost at the beginning of the project and another 20.5 percent at the end with normal construction inflation costs at present. 40 percent increase if you are lucky and don't have labour strikes, storages or the price of building materials don't go into the stratosphere. Compounding the capital expense is the fact that only some many construction workers have such little time and opportunities else where. Construction work for stadiums is not an ordinary thing. The legacy case is very questionable considering the 1994 games Velodrome Venue in Victoria is slated to be torn down to be replaced by soccer fields. Then there is the high performance institute of sports that is being lobbied for in the greater victoria area to the tune of 27 million dollars. This is a mere 13 years after the 1994 commonwealth games in Victoria.

The share on the facilities is from one source the TAXPAYER. 33 percent of cost is all the feds put in out of the same pocket. the province and city will have to hash out the rest.

Facilities are great but considering the short fall of 15 million of operational debt for sports facilities existing in the HRM on the books a stadium for the commonwealth games is going to add about 5 to 7 million a year in maintainence costs. 7 million us is what Abuja's National Stadium cost for maintenance and that is in equatorial africa let alone a stadium in canada. This is why a nigerian nation government is trying to privatize the national stadium complex and why closer to home the Skydome went from a 650 million dollar building to a asset of Ted Rogers for a mere 25 million dollars . Toronto needed to unload the stadium because the maintenance costs. A south african brewery bought the toronto blue jays and the stadium for 125 million , Ted rogers became the last person to take ownership of a state of the art stadium for about 4 percent of the original cost. Is that a wise investment of taxpayer dollars ????

250 million in operations expenses for a stadium , aquatics centre and field house is a huge amount of wasted money for a mere ten days. then you have broadcast and logo rights that cost the host 80 million us dollars. Just on operations alone and the fees to the federation you are looking at what it would have cost Manchester to build their stadium .

A realistic approach for a sports park development is to seperate it from a sports festival and construct the Facilities on an Accessable Greenfield site.

A brownfield site at shannon park is inviting huge cost overruns. If Halifax had chosen to pursue a realistic plan of development from the time it was first rejected for the commonwealth games domestically it might actually have a stadium and the debate would be much more muted. It is a total shame that the money spent on bids could have actually gone towards a stadium that would have Halifax hosting games of the Fifa U20 world cup held in Canada this year. Along the way you host other events like the IAAF Juniors that moncton is hosting LOL. The problem for the HRM has been always thinking too big for its place in the world. From a 5000 seat stadium on st marys campus to a 55,000 seat stadium and the commonwealth games is a leap too far.

Jim Jones