HKU POP releases results on second survey of Legislative Council electionBack

 
Press Release on August 23, 2012

| Abstract | Latest Figures | Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (2012 Legislative Council Election Feature Page) |


Abstract

The Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong Kong interviewed 1,786 registered voters between 16 and 20 August, by means of random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey find that compared to figures registered in a similar survey in 2008, the basic structure of voters’ concern in terms of the 6 attributes prompted in the survey has remained basically unchanged. In terms of priority, they are people’s livelihood, economic development, political issues, candidates’ council experience, relationship with the Central Government, and fame. However, in terms of absolute importance, voters are giving more importance to political demands and people’s livelihood policies, and less importance to candidates’ relationship with Central government and council experience. This probably reflects changes in Hong Kong’s political ecology in the past 4 years, as well as the appearance of the ‘Super DC’ constituency. Regarding variations across different geographical constituencies, voters in all constituencies are giving less importance to candidates’ relationship with the Central Government. Voters in Hong Kong Island and New Territories East show significantly lower concern for candidates’ council experience, while voters in New Territories West are giving more importance placed to political demands and people’s livelihood policies. As for ‘Super DC’, since most voters interviewed belong to this constituency, findings for this constituency are almost the same as those for the overall sample. In other words, the appearance of ‘Super DC’ has somewhat changed voters’ selection criteria overall. The maximum sampling errors of the percentages is +/-6% at 95% confidence level, while the effective response rate of the survey is 69%.

Points to note:
[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.hku.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] The sample size of this survey is 1,786 successful interviews, not 1,786 x 68.6% effective response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-6 percentage points at 95% confidence level. "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. When quoting these figures, journalists can state "sampling error of percentages not more than +/-6% at 95% confidence level". 
[4] The data of this survey is collected by means of random telephone interviews conducted by real interviewers, not by any interactive voice system (IVS). If a research organization uses “computerized random telephone survey” to camouflage its IVS operation, it should be considered unprofessional.

 



Latest Figures

Whenever there are large-scale elections, POP would conduct regular surveys to track opinion changes. On election days, POP would also conduct exit polls to study voter behaviour and motivation. Sponsored surveys will be used exclusively by sponsors first, and then uploaded online for public consumption after the election. Unsponsored surveys will be released to the general public immediately after they are conducted. On August 14, POP made the first public release, today is the second one, with the following contact information. All figures have been weighted according to the distribution of age, gender and geographic constituency of registered voters in the 2012 electoral roll provided by the Registration and Electoral Office:


Date of survey

Overall sample size
(registered voters)

Effective response rate

Maximum sampling error of percentages[5]

16-20/8/12

1,786

68.6%

+/-2%

[5] Calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error.

 


Regarding the voters’ considerations in casting their votes, the surveys on August 16-20 showed that, 89% of the voters interviewed claimed they would consider the livelihood policies proposed by candidates, such as problems on housing, education, medical, environment and public order, etc., important. Besides, 75% and 64% said economy-related policies and political policies proposed by candidates, such as constitutional affairs, democratic development, etc., were important to their voting decision respectively. The corresponding figures for candidates’ experiences in the Council and relations with the Central Government were 45% and 38%, while that for candidates’ fame was 33%. Major findings are summarized below, together with parallel figures obtained in the previous Legislative Council elections of 2004 and 2008:

Territory-wide survey

 

Date of survey

10-14/8/04

18-23/8/08

16-20/8/12

Latest change

Sample base (registered voters)

1,817

1,996

1,786

--

Effective response rate

73.9%

69.9%

68.6%

--

Max. sampling error of percentages (at 95% conf. level)[6]

+/-2%

+/-2%

+/-2%

--

Latest finding/sampling error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Error

 

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies important[7]

85%

87%

89%

+/-1%

+2%[8]

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies not important[7]

4%

4%

4%

+/-1%

--

Regarded candidates’ economic policies important[7]

74%

77%

75%

+/-2%

-2%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies not important[7]

6%

6%

8%

+/-1%

+2%[8]

Regarded candidates’ political policies important[7]

65%

60%

64%

+/-2%

+4%[8]

Regarded candidates’ political policies not important[7]

12%

13%

14%

+/-2%

+1%

Regarded candidates’ experiences important[7]

55%

50%

45%

+/-2%

-5%[8]

Regarded candidates’ experiences not important[7]

20%

22%

28%

+/-2%

+6%[8]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important[7]

45%

48%

38%

+/-2%

-10%[8]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG not important[7]

23%

22%

32%

+/-2%

+10%[8]

Regarded candidates’ fame important[7]

35%

32%

33%

+/-2%

+1%

Regarded candidates’ fame not important[7]

35%

33%

36%

+/-2%

+3%[8]

[6] "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[7] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[8] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.

 

 

Regarding the voters’ considerations in casting their votes in individual geographical constituencies and the District Council (second) functional constituency, the relevant survey results from August 16 to 20 revealed that, out of the 6 items we put to test, the livelihood policies proposed by candidates was the most important consideration factor while their fame was the least. The figures in each constituency are summarized as follows:

Hong Kong Island

 

Date of survey

10-14/8/04

18-23/8/08

16-20/8/12

Latest change

Sample base (registered voters)

323

360

288

--

Max. sampling error of percentages (at 95% conf. level)[9]

+/- 6%

+/-5%

+/-6%

--

Latest finding/sampling error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Error

 

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies important[10]

86%

89%

91%

+/-3%

+2%

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies not important[10]

2%

4%

2%

+/-2%

-2%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies important[10]

75%

79%

74%

+/-5%

-5%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies not important[10]

7%

6%

10%

+/-4%

+4%

Regarded candidates’ political policies important[10]

71%

64%[11]

61%

+/-6%

-3%

Regarded candidates’ political policies not important[10]

7%

13%[11]

16%

+/-4%

+3%

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important[10]

48%

51%

43%[12]

+/-6%

-8%[11]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG not important[10]

22%

21%

29%

+/-5%

+8%[11]

Regarded candidates’ experiences important[10]

52%

50%

43%[12]

+/-6%

-7%[11]

Regarded candidates’ experiences not important[10]

23%

23%

29%

+/-5%

+6%[11]

Regarded candidates’ fame important[10]

39%

34%

33%

+/-6%

-1%

Regarded candidates’ fame not important[10]

33%

32%

35%

+/-6%

+3%

[9] "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[10] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[11] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[12] In two decimal places, the percentage of people that Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important is 43.04% and that of people that Regarded candidates’ experiences important is 42.66% .

 

 

Kowloon West

 

Date of survey

10-14/8/04

18-23/8/08

16-20/8/12

Latest change

Sample base (registered voters)

259

394

264

--

Max. sampling error of percentages (at 95% conf. level)[13]

+/-7%

+/-5%

+/-6%

--

Latest finding/sampling error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Error

 

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies important[14]

81%

87%[15]

91%

+/-4%

+4%

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies not important[14]

4%

5%

4%

+/-2%

-1%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies important[14]

74%

77%

78%

+/-5%

+1%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies not important[14]

6%

7%

7%

+/-3%

--

Regarded candidates’ political policies important[14]

66%

61%

63%

+/-6%

+2%

Regarded candidates’ political policies not important[14]

15%

14%

12%

+/-4%

-2%

Regarded candidates’ experiences important[14]

58%

48%[15]

45%

+/-6%

-3%

Regarded candidates’ experiences not important[14]

18%

25%[15]

29%

+/-6%

+4%

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important[14] 

50%

49%

39%

+/-6%

-10%[15]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG not important[14] 

19%

21%

30%

+/-6%

+9%[15]

Regarded candidates’ fame important[14]

30%

34%

34%

+/-6%

--

Regarded candidates’ fame not important[14]

37%

35%

36%

+/-6%

+1%

[13] "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[14] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[15] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.

 

 

Kowloon East

 

Date of survey

10-14/8/04

18-23/8/08

16-20/8/12

Latest change

Sample base (registered voters)

310

319

286

--

Max. sampling error of percentages (at 95% conf. level)[16]

+/-6%

+/-6%

+/-6%

--

Latest finding/sampling error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Error

 

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies important[17]

84%

87%

88%

+/-4%

+1%

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies not important[17]

4%

2%

3%

+/-2%

+1%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies important[17]

73%

77%

75%

+/-5%

-2%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies not important[17]

6%

5%

8%

+/-3%

+3%

Regarded candidates’ political policies important[17]

61%

59%

64%

+/-6%

+5%

Regarded candidates’ political policies not important[17]

11%

12%

13%

+/-4%

+1%

Regarded candidates’ experiences important[17]

49%

52%

52%

+/-6%

--

Regarded candidates’ experiences not important[17]

21%

20%

24%

+/-5%

+4%

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important[17] 

38%

46%[18]

38%

+/-6%

-8%[18]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG not important[17] 

25%

22%

32%

+/-6%

+10%[18]

Regarded candidates’ fame important[17]

37%

31%[18]

37%

+/-6%

+6%

Regarded candidates’ fame not important[17]

33%

29%

30%

+/-5%

+1%

[16] "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[17] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[18] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.

 

 

New Territories West

 

Date of survey

10-14/8/04

18-23/8/08

16-20/8/12

Latest change

Sample base (registered voters)

447

461

491

--

Max. sampling error of percentages (at 95% conf. level)[19]

+/-5%

+/-5%

+/-5%

--

Latest finding/sampling error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Error

 

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies important[20]

87%

83%

87%

+/-3%

+4%[21]

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies not important[20]

3%

5%

5%

+/-2%

--

Regarded candidates’ economic policies important[20]  

76%

75%

75%

+/-4%

--

Regarded candidates’ economic policies not important[20]

5%

6%

5%

+/-2%

-1%

Regarded candidates’ political policies important[20]

63%

56%[21]

66%

+/-4%

+10%[21]

Regarded candidates’ political policies not important[20] 

12%

13%

13%

+/-3%

--

Regarded candidates’ experiences important[20]

60%

52%[21]

47%

+/-5%

-5%

Regarded candidates’ experiences not important[20]

17%

21%

27%

+/-4%

+6%[21]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important[20]   

43%

44%

38%

+/-4%

-6%[21]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG not important[20]  

26%

22%

32%

+/-4%

+10%[21]

Regarded candidates’ fame important[20] 

34%

33%

32%

+/-4%

-1%

Regarded candidates’ fame not important[20]

34%

34%

35%

+/-4%

+1%

[19] "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[20] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[21] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.

 

 

New Territories East

 

Date of survey

10-14/8/04

18-23/8/08

16-20/8/12

Latest change

Sample base (registered voters)

477

462

457

--

Max. sampling error of percentages (at 95% conf. level)[22]

+/-5%

+/-5%

+/-5%

--

Latest finding/sampling error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Error

 

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies important[23]

85%

89%[24]

91%

+/-3%

+2%

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies not important[23]

6%

2%[24]

4%

+/-2%

+2%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies important[23]  

74%

77%

76%

+/-4%

-1%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies not important[23]

7%

6%

10%

+/-3%

+4%[24]

Regarded candidates’ political policies important[23]

64%

62%

66%

+/-4%

+4%

Regarded candidates’ political policies not important[23] 

12%

14%

14%

+/-3%

--

Regarded candidates’ experiences important[23]

55%

50%

41%

+/-5%

-9%[24]

Regarded candidates’ experiences not important[23]

19%

23%

32%

+/-4%

+9%[24]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important[23]   

46%

49%

35%

+/-4%

-14%[24]

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG not important[23]  

22%

23%

35%

+/-4%

+12%[24]

Regarded candidates’ fame important[23] 

34%

30%

32%

+/-4%

+2%

Regarded candidates’ fame not important[23]

36%

35%

41%

+/-5%

+6%[24]

[22] "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[23] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[24] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.

 

 

District Council (second) functional constituency

 

Date of survey

16-20/8/12

Sample base (registered voters)

1,623

Max. sampling error of percentages (at 95% conf. level)[25]

+/-2%

Latest finding/sampling error

Finding

Error

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies important[26]

89%

+/-1%

Regarded candidates’ livelihood policies not important[26]

4%

+/-1%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies important[26] 

75%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ economic policies not important[26]

7%

+/-1%

Regarded candidates’ political policies important[26] 

64%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ political policies not important[26] 

14%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ experiences important[26] 

45%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ experiences not important[26]

29%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG important[26]  

38%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ relations with the CPG not important[26]   

32%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ fame important[26]

33%

+/-2%

Regarded candidates’ fame not important[26]  

36%

+/-2%

[25] "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[26] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.

 

 

 


Commentary

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed: “Compared to figures registered in a similar survey in 2008, the basic structure of voters’ concern in terms of the 6 attributes prompted in the survey has remained basically unchanged. In terms of priority, they are people’s livelihood, economic development, political issues, candidates’ council experience, relationship with the Central Government, and fame. However, in terms of absolute importance, voters are giving more importance to political demands and people’s livelihood policies, and less importance to candidates’ relationship with Central government and council experience. This probably reflects changes in Hong Kong’s political ecology in the past 4 years, as well as the appearance of the ‘Super DC’ constituency. Regarding variations across different geographical constituencies, voters in all constituencies are giving less importance to candidates’ relationship with the Central Government. Voters in Hong Kong Island and New Territories East show significantly lower concern for candidates’ council experience, while voters in New Territories West are giving more importance placed to political demands and people’s livelihood policies. As for ‘Super DC’, since most voters interviewed belong to this constituency, findings for this constituency are almost the same as those for the overall sample. In other words, the appearance of ‘Super DC’ has somewhat changed voters’ selection criteria overall.”


Future Release (Tentative)
  • August 28, 2012 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and SAR Government, as well as latest PSI figures


| Abstract | Latest Figures | Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (2012 Legislative Council Election Feature Page) |