Thoughts on the city governor's poll

I spent about four months collecting secondary and primary data and about a month carrying out the statistical analyses looking at the possible findings. The study reveals very interesting results. But this is not the focal point I want to mention here.
A couple of months or so ago, I received an open letter in the mail announcing a campaign for the governorship of the City of Angels. When I compared it with the findings that I had in hand, I learned that this candidate’s early leap might be on the wrong trail.
For a start, based on the discovered pattern or direction of thoughts and factors people used in picking their governors, issues such as background, characteristics or ability and the like play little role in how people cast their vote.
This means that the half page that landed in my mailbox could have been used for something else, and only a paragraph would have done.
But I must mention, as one of the sub-models illustrates, Bangkok voters will consider a few criteria when it comes to this. This particular candidate has all of them, but fails to emphasise them succinctly.
Second, when I turned the coloured A4 over to the other side, I spotted the theme of his campaign – “change”. Coincidentally, I happened to factor this theme into my conceptual framework for the study too, as this theme is often used to attract votes.
The findings reveal that Bangkok people only expect “second to third” levels of what is written in Maslow’s hierarchy, from our to-be-elected governor, although in various trends, characteristics and combinations, my study says.
I wonder then, why would a study say change, which is often associated with good, new and exciting policies, can have a negative impact on the voting equation? I sat down and analysed this.
After a few weeks of cross-referencing, an enlightening answer eagerly jumped out of many textbooks. As all organisational theorists know full well, change is the hardest thing for all organisations to implement, even if it means well, and resistance is repeatedly the initial reaction explained by these theories. Besides, if you come to think of it, change frequently has negative connotations, rarely positive ones.
Remarkable, how my statistical software can pick up this bewildering phenomenon easily.
Last, when I glanced at the top of the page, I saw the list of problems and issues he plans to tackle. Once more, these will not get people out of their chair to vote for him, although a few of them are importantly found in people’s processing pattern. Why? The main theme he wants to convey is never there or clear enough to let people decide why exactly they should jump on his bandwagon.
In conclusion, I write this to share my study. But perhaps, his campaign teams saw something different from my study – never mind, I humbly accept this.
Finally, I would like to entertain us with another interesting finding. My study has exposed once again an utmost paradox in the nature of mankind. Floods, the economy and traffic are all very valid issues to talk about all day amid the sandbags on Srinakarin Road. No kidding.
But my findings show that these have no place in or very minimal effect on the complex algorithm of the decision-making process. In other words, the model people use when making a decision.
A simple but very decent analogy to this may be, if you ask 1,024 or so samples whether they like to eat healthy food in a clean, hygienic and nice environment, definitely they will tick yes to all these questions, which is what all good polls will say.
But have you ever seen people go out and do this, in droves, somewhere?
Professor Nutty
Bangkok