Cross-tabulation percentages in 2012 Danville City Commission voting

I previously posted the correlational relationships between voting for pairs of Danville City Commission members. Here is the same information, but presenting percentages instead of correlation figures. This should hopefully be a little easier to intuitively interpret.

The graph should be interpreted like this: Find the candidate in the rows going down, then find another candidate in the columns going across. The percentage figure where those two candidate intersect can be interpreted: “x% of Danville voters who choose the candidate from the row also voted for the candidate from the candidate in the corresponding column.” For example, the row Smiley corresponds column Montgomery at 28%, which means that 28% of those who voted for Smiley also voted for Montgomery (but not vice-versa, as 44% of those who voted for Montgomery also voted for Smiley).

 
Smiley
Montgomery
Louis
Atkins
Caudill
Stevens
Hamner
Smiley
100%
28%
37%
58%
50%
66%
30%
Montgomery
44%
100%
52%
39%
40%
46%
37%
Louis
49%
45%
100%
39%
34%
57%
38%
Atkins
39%
17%
20%
100%
65%
74%
52%
Caudill
38%
19%
19%
73%
100%
76%
54%
Stevens
42%
19%
27%
69%
64%
100%
55%
Hamner
26%
27%
24%
66%
60%
73%
100%

We see the strongest relationship between Hamner and Stevens, as 73% who voted for Hamner also supported Stevens. The weakest relationship is between Atkins and Montgomery, as only 17% of Atkins voters also selected Montgomery.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s