Tuesday, August 16, 2011

More Election Stats

So how much of the vote went against the incumbents in each race?  Interesting numbers.  In three races, the majority of the vote went against the incumbent.  In the other race, the vote was just under 50%.

Position 1 - 48.24% of the vote was for challengers.  Peter Maier received 50.97%

Position 2 - 59.02% of the vote was for challengers.  Sherry Carr received 40.15%

Position 3 - 57.99 % of the vote was for challengers.  Harium Martin-Morris received 41.34%

Position 6 - 56.39% of the vote was for challengers.  Steve Sundquist received 42.85%

Does it follow that all those who voted for the lowest vote-count challengers will automatically switch to the highest vote-count challenger?  Odds are yes (unless they really believe only in the person they voted for and/or don't believe in the qualifications of the highest vote getter). 

Well-run campaigns on the part of the winning challengers may translate to a win for them in the general election.


mirmac1 said...

Sharon, my check's in the mail.

dan dempsey said...

Time to sign up for Wed 8/17/2011 Board Meeting.
There are 10 slots open.

Pick your topic and let the public know what you think.

It is time to inform the public at large about what the best school directors $500,000 could buy have been doing (class of 2007).

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

i commented with this on another post, but it's good here, too re dan dempsey's insinuations about fundraising;

i always wonder what people think "war chests" buy in these down-ballot elections - votes?

in my opinion, it makes the candidates feel as if they're doing something and it also is some indication of the number of supporters - but really - without the commercials of the big campaigns, is a yard sign or a robo-call really going to influence a vote? or get someone to mail his ballot who wasn't going to, anyway? on any meaningful scale?

it's volunteers (not paid), candidates' appearances (not paid), candidates' networks and reputations (not paid) and candidates' doorbelling that gets out the vote in their favor.

seems like a lot of drama over nothing, and/or something some challengers raise a fuss about to cast aspersions on the incumbents - and in these races - a nothing-burger.

mom of 4 in sps

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EmeraldCityLifer said...

You would be surprised how many people vote for candidates they know nothing about other than having heard/seen the name before. That's why incumbents have an advantage and why yard signs are also effective.

This is particularly true in a school board election where a large percentage of voters have no idea about the candidates, nor do they care.

It is important for the informed individuals on message boards like this to educate their friends and neighbors about the school board election (and in my humble opinion to express the need to replace some incumbents.)

Some voters feel like they need to turn in a complete ballot even if they are not informed on all measures/positions. The challengers need all the exposure they can get, so yard signs and brochures are effective in getting their name out there.

LaCrese Green said...

I'm sick that we must deal with the incumbents for 2 more months. With their propoganda, it such a lopsided discussion and having to challenge their bull.

For instance, in West Seattle, if only Nick or Joy Anderson was in the run-off, they at least had something worth while to offer in the debate.

But as the Times, write them off without any evaluation -- Incumbent blah! Blah! Blah!

God help us all and may those who use no more judgment in who they advise others to support get out of the business.
God help us all.

dan dempsey said...

Dear Mom of 4 in SPS,

When a large number of people vote without being particularly informed about the issues and candidates spending on slick brochures has a major election impact.

The lack of in depth education reporting in the Seattle Times of school district and school board issues makes the slick brochures even more effective for incumbents.

It is particularly important that those with knowledge of the last four years inform others.

dan dempsey said...

Dear Mom of 4 in SPS,

You used the phrase "dan dempsey's insinuations about fundraising;"

The word insinuation is defined as:
"an unpleasant hint or suggestion of something bad"

Keep in mind the fact that only school director has no campaign limitations on individual donors. Some individuals donated more than 10 times the amount allowed for mayor.

Look at the failure of the four incumbents seeking re-election to make evidence based decisions.

Why MAP testing? Why TfA? Why the huge ed reform push? Why the selection of New Tech Network for $800,000? Why the disregard for RCW 28A 645.020? Why the failure to supervise MGJ? Why the continual rubber-stamping and failure to analyze the evidence?

When a huge amount of money is spent on a school board election and the decisions are this bad .... I do think that the use of the term "insinuations" is unjustified.

Anonymous said...

dan - i used "insinuation" to distinguish from "charges" and because you put forth the unsupported supposition that the directors were "bought" without directly connecting the campaign contributions (either by specific people or in total) to their actions on the board - and you still haven't, actually.

if you want to work on campaign finance reform, you should, but in the meantime, it's legal and to suggest that directors are being influenced or bought by campgain contributions, without providing evidence of actual and directly-connected malfeasance, is sort of lazy and really just a smear.

mom of 4 in sps

Bird said...

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the general. There is the added detail that the general goes city wide.

The folks in the local districts may know their incumbents well (and in these cases, apparently dislike them), but city wide in the general, more voters may be less informed about the particulars so may be more swayed by endorsements, name recognition, rather than the actual nitty gritty details of the incumbents' records.

Still, doesn't look good for the incumbents.

voter said...

...and these are just preliminary results. Updates will be at 4:30 today.


Chris S. said...

Happy to see John C. and Joy had good showing since those were, I assume, campaigns little tainted by money - run on sweat and words. Good Job! Keep sweatin' and talkin'!

none1111 said...

to suggest that directors are being influenced or bought by campgain contributions, without providing evidence of actual and directly-connected malfeasance, is sort of lazy and really just a smear

Dan's posts may be over-the-top sometimes (okay, more than sometimes, sorry Dan! ;-) ), but to ignore the reality of the past 4 years because there is no "evidence of actual and directly-connected malfeasance" is ridiculous.

If a quarterback take a big roll of money from a stranger outside the stadium right before a game, then proceeds to fumble the ball 10 times and throw 10 passes into the turf, no one needs to have "evidence of actual and directly-connected malfeasance" to understand those actions are linked.

Whether the large contributions make a difference in the directors' behavior or the contributions are a result of knowing that these are passive directors that will provide little-to-no oversight, either way, the money is contributed for political influence, and for the past 4 years it's been working. It's time to put an end to that.

Carol Simmons said...

I have never found Dan's comments to be "over the top." Rather, his insights and comments have always been honest and refreshing. Dan has the courage of his convictions and says what so often so many of us are thinking.
Thank you Dan.


Melissa Westbrook said...

I would agree that suggesting that any candidate could be bought is wrong.

However, if you think money doesn't buy influence, you're new to American politics. To think that candidates can receive large sums of money from a few people they don't know (as Sherry Carr has said) and then just chalk it up to having a winning smile is a little naive.

Po3 said...

Ironic discussion about campaign financing. NPR had story today about the Super Committee; it has been suggested that members NOT accept any campaign contributions as they may need to bite the hand that feeds them.

Example was Patty Murray gets lots of $$$ from Boeing and Boeing may end up big loosers as defense contracts may be cut.

Anonymous said...

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the general. There is the added detail that the general goes city wide.

I bet the incumbents are probably better liked in their own districts than in the at-large scenario. If so, they are all likely to go down. I think most people are pretty down on the district and want to "vote the bums out." Most of the district publicity has been negative, especially if you aren't following it closely. Top on the list is: firing of MGJ after she lost millions, and that was after she was only hired a couple years before. Sure, the real story is much more nuanced. But, if you aren't paying attention, that is the attention getter, and it doesn't bode well for incumbents.