Update on Super Poll #4

We are pleased to announce that the analytics – namely how the numbers, statistics and graphs were derived – have been validated and proven correct by an independent source. The source is an academic economist who was provided with the entire database and has no ties to us or the island.

By virtue of the fact that the poll was made available on the internet without restrictions, it was truly an open, fair and balanced poll. Efforts were made to reach out to as many potentially interested people as possible. Emails were sent to varying email lists, including several times to lists containing city supporters, members of the now defunct local neo-nazi hate group, and people that have made personal attacks against anyone who dares even to question the present governance.

Despite these extraordinary efforts, if those that are anti-city (by virtue of their personal anonymous attacks on those of us that have an opinion), opted not to vote, that was their choice. Their refusal to participate in an open community service was their decision apparently driven by their own questionable motives, but by the same token their repudiation of anything positive does not invalidate the openness and the effort of the poll.

But unlike closed, special interest polls, like those of the chamber of commerce (you have to be a member to vote), and MICA (you have to be a member of their mindset to vote), our poll was open to everyone, anyone and from anywhere.

Which raised a curious albeit ignorant objection from an anonymous member of the Hate Slate (An aside: we have been informed that the term Hate Slate is being used in postings. This blog will shortly pursue copyright infringement venues given that we were the first to use it quite some time ago to depict those that participated in the supremacists’ rally that fortunately was captured on video by a resident who was later verbally accosted by one the supremacist with a hoary racial trope). This anonymous person argued, not well, that a vote could be from someone not related with, interested in, nor have anything to do with Marco Island since the vote is via the internet and that voter could be anywhere. True. But why would anyone take the time to answer questions about Marco Island – and leave their computer address and often time their name – if they were not interested in the issues of Marco? Also, unlike the present governance, we don’t discount temporary residents or tourists – which are more than likely not on Marco Island.

We reached out to a city supporter and asked for input on formulating the questions. That person provided some suggestions which were used. Other suggestions did not apply to this poll, but will be used in future polls.

We used sophisticated algorithms to minimize, if not eliminate in its entirety, the chance that the final results included the same person voting several times. We are quite confident that these rubrics were successful, especially given the number of emails we received from voters complaining that they were locked out. In all of these cases, we were able to prove that they had voted before!

Invariably, many that don’t fare well in polls or in articles act out the worst of the zeitgeist – demean, besmirch, and threaten the messenger. As has happened here. Good news, isn’t it?!