The question of change is part of your business. You ask questions about change, when changes are proposed. From my perspective, dealing with voters through five elections now, there generally seems to be an inherent resistance to change, particularly if it is complex change. If this is your cup of coffee, but there is this great store down the way with better coffee, but I can't explain it to you, really, because it would take too long—but it is better—most voters would say, “Even if it is better, even if the price is better”, or whatever, “I am going to stay with what I know, because you can't explain what is coming.” Is that not inherent to this? When we get into the questions about referenda and about straight polling—do you want to keep what you have, or do you want something new—the ability to explain the “new” is as critical as whatever the new happens to be. Is that fair to say?
On August 31st, 2016. See this statement in context.