It’s official: By a slim margin, Vermonters believe that Vermont Yankee should be relicensed in 2012. That’s the key finding from this year’s annual Doyle Survey, an unscientific snapshot of opinions collected on Town Meeting Day.
State Sen. Bill Doyle (R-Washington) — for whom the survey is named — collected roughly 15,000 surveys from 142 towns and cities.
“The results on the Vermont Yankee question this year was probably the closest of of any question,” Doyle told Seven Days. It is also a sharp turnaround from preliminary results issued earlier this month. At that time, about 47 percent of respondents said they wanted VY closed in 2012, 40 percent wanted it relicensed and 12 percent weren’t sure.
Now, with the results finalized VY supporters top opponents. Of those who filled out the survey, 45 percent wanted VY relicensed, 41 percent do not and 14 percent are unsure.
Last year, only 31 percent of respondents wanted VY relicensed. Perhaps the news coverage of those tritium leaks had something to do with public sentiment?
Illustration credit: Tim Newcomb
Doyle has conducted this unscientific survey of residents across Vermont for more than 40 years.
As was evident in the early returns, the survey found big support for expanding the bottle bill, keeping the state’s motorcycle helmet law intact and banning the use of cellphones will driving. Those who filled out the survey also said there should be tougher penalties for repeat DUI offenders.
Respondents also said they’d be willing to pay more for local food and renewable energy.
Of those who filled out surveys, 43 percent “have confidence” in Gov. Peter Shumlin while 30 percent do not and 27 percent aren’t sure.
Here are the full results:
1. Should Vermont Yankee’s license be renewed in 2012?
Yes: 45%
No: 41%
Unsure: 14%
2. Should drivers be prohibited from using cellphones while driving?
Yes: 75%
No: 19%
Unsure: 6%
3. Should Vermont legalize physician-assisted suicide?
Yes: 50%
No: 37%
Unsure: 13%
4. Should Vermont have a four-year term for governor?
Yes: 61%
No: 28%
Unsure: 11%
5. Should there be a mandatory minimum sentence for repeat DUI offenders?
Yes: 79%
No: 12%
Unsure: 9%
6. Should Vermonters be required to buy health insurance?
Yes: 31%
No: 50%
Unsure: 19%
7. Do you have confidence in Governor Shumlin?
Yes: 43%
No: 30%
Unsure: 27%
8. Should Vermont continue to require the use of motorcycle helmets?
Yes: 90%
No: 8%
Unsure: 2%
9. Should law enforcement personnel be permitted to use Tasers?
Yes: 56%
No: 24%
Unsure: 20%
10. Should Vermont’s legislature encourage bicycling and walking?
Yes: 71%
No: 18%
Unsure: 11%
11. Should Vermont’s bottle deposit law be expanded to include all bottled beverages?
Yes: 79%
No: 14%
Unsure: 7%
12. Are you willing to pay more for locally grown food?
Yes: 63%
No: 26%
Unsure: 11%
13. In order to encourage wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, are you willing to pay higher prices?
Yes: 45%
No: 39%
Unsure: 16%
This article appears in Mar 23-29, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I agree with several of the previous posters–reporting the results of a shoddy survey is shoddy journalism. unfortunately, 7 days doesn’t seem to understand this, as they often report results from improperly conducted surveys. as has been pointed out, we don’t know if the sample in the town hall survey is representative of adult vermonters. no effort was made to get a representative sample, or assess non-response bias. the survey is the caliber of the silly sex survey done by 7 days. i really enjoy 7 days and i think they mostly do a great job bringing information to their readers, but if they want to do a survey, they should hire someone that knows how to conduct one. else, they should not report results of shoddy surveys, as the results are meaningless at best, and often mis-leading.
Keep it online. We need cheap juice.
Point of clarification: Murphy says, “If the results had shown an anti-relicensing majority, would he have taken pains to point out — immediately after stating the results — the “unscientific-ness” of the survey?”To answer your question, Murphy, yes, Shay would have pointed out the “unscientific-ness” of the survey. Check out the March 10 Doyle Survey posting, when only 34 towns had reported thus far. At that point, 47% of the voters said VY should NOT have its license renewed (40% said it should), and in the post, Shay said, “Doyle has conducted this unscientific survey of residents across Vermont for more than 40 years.”
“assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, [etc] could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor.” C’mon, that is totally a push-poll. First of all, nobody is suggesting that “increased energy efficiency and clean energy” can, in fact, suddenly replace the 300+ MW we now get annually from VY. Second, what exactly does “clean” energy mean?”the sample only consists of those who voluntarily take the time to participate in this Republican Senator’s unscientific survey.”As opposed to what, the much smaller number of people who take the time to take a phone survey?I agree with you: the Doyle survey is not representative: if anything, it probably overstates the percentage of people who oppose relicensure, because people who go to town meetings are activists.
Calling Doyle’s campaign literature a survey is an insult to surveys. That’s why Barre will be banning them from future polls. Wonder if there are plans to see how Doyle’s questions matched up to ultimate reality. Have his results ever been fact-checked?In fairness to Shay, he put Vermont Yankee on the map when running the Vermont Guardian. Before the rest of us knew that Vermont Yankee wasn’t a new Ben & Jerry’s flavor, Shay was reporting on their skulduggery and regular nose-thumbing at regulators and the PSB.
Ah, yes. Shay’s piece was posted at 12:33. It took all of one hour for all the anti-VY whiners to start protesting against the survey because they don’t like what it says.The language cited by Campbell from the ORC poll certainly sounds like a push-poll to me. An unbiased poll simply asks the question of whether VY should be relicensed and does not suggest the desired answer by adding “assumptions.”I’ll approach it from the opposite direction: In the very second sentence, Shay calls the survey “an unscientific snapshot.” My opinion? If the results had shown an anti-relicensing majority, would he have taken pains to point out — immediately after stating the results — the “unscientific-ness” of the survey?
You mention that this poll is unscientific, but fail to provide any in-depth analysis of the issue. For one, you should mention the results of polls that ARE scientific. I know of two such polls last year: one by Research 2000 that found only 24 percent of Vermonters believe VY should be relicensed, and one by ORC that found 68 percent of Vermont residents would support closure of VY in 2012 “assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, [etc] could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor.” I don’t believe popular opinion has swayed so drastically in the past year as the Doyle Poll results suggest. Perhaps 7 Days could commission a scientific study to find out the truth! You should also mention the demographic considerations of Doyle’s poll. It is generally completed by people who attend Town Meeting (which unfortunately many younger people don’t) and the sample only consists of those who voluntarily take the time to participate in this Republican Senator’s unscientific survey. I believe these are all very important considerations, and would expect 7 Days to provide better in-depth reporting that considered these things instead of just briefly mentioning it’s “unscientific”.
I agree with CB…Come on Shay; I thought you were a better journalist than this! You can’t say “It’s official [that] Vermonters believe…” when you’re also admitting that the survey is unscientific. The only thing that’s official is that this is the result of the survey, not that “Vermonters believe…”.
Why does 7 Days continue to give ink to “surveys” that are not surveys and thus provide them with a degree of credibility? This is all nonsense at best. Sort of like, “Who is the most crooked politician?” Get some smarts!!
How do “It’s official” and “an unscientific snapshot of opinions” end up in the same paragraph, describing the same phenomenon?Official, according to whom? Issued by what office or organization?Sheesh.