1. 1 What were they thinking? Richard Johnston and Fred Cutler with Ken Carty ($), Mark Warren, Andre Blais, Patrick Fournier and When? The BC Referendum Survey, N=2661

2. 2 Interest and Attention No change in “interest” Early March: Media attention UP Discussion UP

3. 3.2.3.4.5.6 Jan17Feb1Mar1Apr1May1May16 Know Subject of Referendum STV know something CA Know Something[self] CA knowledge [self] STV knowledge Knowledge of CA & STV Gains in Awareness, Information, and Knowledge Critical take-off date looks like first week of March????? –Awareness & Information start to get to the less attentive

4. 4 Trust moves with Awareness (but not as much) and… Is there a last-weekend drop?.55.6.65.7.75.8 Jan17Feb1Mar1Apr1May1May16 CA good process Trust CA CA Satisfaction Opinions on CA Dynamics of Trust

5. 5 Dynamics of Decision

6. 6 Dynamics of The Vote

7. 7

8. 8 Attitudes about CA Attitudes about STV

9. 9 Knowledge and Trust The Story: 1.To the extent that a citizen paid attention to politics 2.She found out about the existence of CA 3.She found out that it was good 4.She found out about STV, pros and cons At minimum, some attention necessary to find out that CA were ordinary folks Little evidence of information-seeking in order to compensate for lack of trust / legitimacy of CA

10. 10 Structure of the Vote: Populists & Non-Populists They need to know, or find out, different things 63% Populists less educated, more risk averse social pessimists, alienated predisposed FOR CA, but to NO on normal referendums To get to YES: need to know CA is ordinary folksneed to know CA is ordinary folks need to know CA is fairneed to know CA is fair need to know CA independentneed to know CA independent need to think STV not too complexneed to think STV not too complex lements of STV not so importantlements of STV not so important so… vote NO if ignorant about CA 37% Non-Populists more educated, risk-acceptant social optimists, integrated predisposed AGAINST CA, but to YES on normal referendums To get to YES: need to know CA is expert and/orneed to know CA is expert and/or need to know about STVneed to know about STV need to support elements:need to support elements: –proportionality, coalition gov’ts, choice over accountability so… vote NO if: don’t know CA were experts or don’t like STV consequences

11. 11 Evidence only among those who said they knew something about the CA For the Grassroots folks, most of the work is done by the legitimacy of the CA and concern about complexity. For the Elitists, everything helped: CA legitimacy, CA expertise, and elements of STV

12. 12 The Bottom Line NO voters were: 1.Populists who didn’t know about the CA 2.Non-populists who were majoritarian and had genuine concerns about government instability & accountability YES voters were: 1.Populists who found out minimally: that the CA was ordinary citizens maximally: that it was representative, open, and independent 2.Non-populists who found out that the assembly was independent, open, and became expert and who genuinely preferred proportionality, preferential ballots, and weren’t much worried about gov’t instability More information would have helped the Yes

13. 13 What about those said they knew nothing? Half said they knew nothing about the CA Half of these (25% of BC) made a choice (in May) –clearly still lots on Voting Day –Same as outcome: 58% Yes, 42% No Determinants much weaker in this group Agreeing the CA were ordinary British Columbians makes a difference (12%) among populists –“Citizens” as cue So the know-nothings didn’t change the result And voted…. GOD FORBID!