Update on M66/67 Turnout: Lag increases in Multnomah and statewide
Paul Gronke
At the request of a number of posters and emailers, I am updating last week's posting on turnout trends for measures 66 and 67. Janice Thompson of Common Cause Oregon suggested that the Feb 2004 special election on a temporary income tax surcharge and change to the corporate minimum is another good comparison. There is, of course, questions about the over time comparability of these turnout numbers.
There are other Blue Oregon posters with far more experience than me on voter mobilization efforts in Oregon. I'm mainly a statistician and election reform specialist. But my political antenna tell me that these figures aren't encouraging. Turnout in Multnomah is lagging statewide, and the trends aren't upwards. I'm looking for a good reason why Multnomah County voters would be holding their ballots.
A few notes about the numbers. First, Multnomah's data for today was last updated at 4:30 and may be lagging true turnout over the weekend. Second, the state runs about one day behind Multnomah.
Sorry for the quality of the cut and paste; click on the graphics and you'll get far superior images.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:50 p.m.
Jan 19, '10
Hmm.... I am figuring out how to use TypePad apparently. The graphics look pretty good.
Jan 19, '10
This is brilliant!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/mcgrory_seduced.html?s_campaign=8315
Jan 20, '10
Paul, thanks for putting up these numbers. Although I don't identify much with the activist community supporting M66&M67 (which is not to say I don't support them, voted for both of them in fact), I have been the one trying to convince friends who identify more with those kind of folks these were going to pass. (Boy was I wrong.) I believe the sentiment expressed in the blog post Brilliant linked is alive and well in Oregon. And that we have a problem is a Democratic party leadership and hangers-on like who hang out there don't realize just how arrogant, incompetent, and out-of-touch with the values of most folks the voters perceive them to be.
These measures actually are relatively populist and progressive both in their structure and in the types of government expenditures they preserve. To the extent that is true, that means they lost because the Democratic establishment lacks the political leadership ability to communicate that to the voters who elected them. (Where have Kate Brown, Ben Westlund, and John Kroger, three Democrats elected statewide, been during this campaign?)
We lost a chance in MA to find out why voters voted the way they did because there was no exit polling that research confirms that if it's done even moderately well does captures the reasons people voted they way they did. We screwed ourselves in Oregon in this regard long ago with our childish VBM system that doesn't actually increase voter participation but just makes regular voters lazier. As a researcher, how much do you believe our inability to collect "first reaction" data why voters voted they way they did in this or any election contributes to how out of touch Democratic party leadership and hangers-on are? And do you have any suggestions how we can actually start to collect meaningful "first reaction" data in our dysfunctional system of VBM?
As one sign of this utter dysfunction of this system, I am always struck by the signs they post that politicking is illegal and criminally punishable within so many feet of official ballot drop-off locations that relatively few people use. This, even though it is perfectly legal to politick any voter for the entire two weeks they have a ballot in the VBM system so long as someone is not doing it within so many feet of those official ballot drop-off locations.
Jan 20, '10
What a depressing situation, but not surprising. Most of my friends (who stand to lose the most if these measures fail) just don't seen to give a ****.
Jan 20, '10
The people who will decide this election aren't the people posting on Blue O and other political blogs. It's going to be those with either a passing interest (and knowledge of) politics, or those more interested in American Idol than in the actual well-being of the state in which they reside.
Therefore, my proposal is for the campaigns heretofore to simply deploy the proper mascots and symbols of their respective ideologies:
For the YES campaign: I give you Lisa Simpson. For the NO campaign: It's Montgomery Burns.
Who's worldview do you prefer? Okay, now proceed to fill out your ballot accordingly.
Jan 20, '10
It will be interesting to see if the political earthquake that took place in Mass yesterday sends shock waves all the way to Ore and influences voting on these unfair tax proposals.
The movement that voted for real change and less lip service a year ago is still out there and waiting to see results. A large part of it demands government to spend less and when necessary tax in a fair, equitable manner.
Unfortunately those in power aren’t getting the message.
Jan 20, '10
I wonder if the holiday on Monday could have caused a "blip" in the data? Got my fingers crossed, we (Oregonians) need this to pass.
Jan 20, '10
That's brilliant Polly! Would you consider being our party strategist?
Five simple principles so far:
But we need the kind of probing banality that hits Americans where they live, and you clearly have an eye for that! We also have a bit of an image prob at the moment that the feline imagery doesn't go with the party song, Nazareth's Son of a Bitch . There's also the perception that "red hot mama" is a reference to "lady liberty". Yes, time has come to pay your dues...
12:21 p.m.
Jan 20, '10
Party breakdowns would be really helpful here ...
Jan 20, '10
What's next?:
Re: the silence of the statewides... two points.
Brown is the chief elections officer of Oregon, and it would look bad for her to be too visible on this. She'd be accused of corruptly using her office to influence the outcome. But, don't forget the recent cover of the Mercury, shortly before the voter reg deadline, that doubled as a legal registration form? That was brilliant, and I think somebody in the SOS's office deserves our thanks there.
Westlund is fighting cancer and recovering from pneumonia. I hear he's recovering well, but let's give him a break eh?
7:03 p.m.
Jan 20, '10
Sir Humphrey, the materials in the Mercury were prepared by the Bus Project. The SoS office had to approve the reg form as officially conforming to their requirements, but otherwise the office played no role.
Jan 20, '10
Sir Humphrey Appleby:
What tripe. Time to grow up and enter the adult world, where the implications of the failures of M66&M67 place significant moral responsibilities on the official you so lamely defend:
1) As important as these bills are to most everything we the people as the state government legitimately do to make our state livable, there is no moral, ethical, or legal argument why Brown shouldn't have been out there providing visible, principled leadership for these measures. She has been lazy, selfish, and irresponsible for not doing so.
2) I was in the audience in several public meetings during the campaigning for state health care reform when Westlund smugly criticized and even arrogantly sush'ed people who had personally dealt with or had family members who had health care issues every bit as serious as his current situation and who were not happy with his positions that we needed to further enrich private insurance companies in our state reforms.
So I make a clear moral and intellectual distinction between Westlund the public official and Westlund the individual. Having lost a family member and a friend to lung cancer, I have more sympathy for him and his family as he deals with this dire personal health challenge then you can possibly imagine. But that is quite independent of the obligations he has to 3.8mil+ people of Oregon as a Constitutional officer. If he can't make any statement of public support for these critical measures --- and you can bet in his situation it would have gotten tremendous publicity --- it's up to people like you who are offering his condition as the reason he can't to defend how he can carry out the much more demanding duties of the office in these times when we need officials who can. And I also note, to give him full credit where credit is due, I haven't heard him or any spokesperson for him offer this excuse, just people like you.
3) You didn't defend Kroger. Any reason for that? I note he paid $500 for a Voter's Pamphlet statement in support of each --- to hire more cops. Big whoop. Nice elitist, pandering, limousine-liberal gesture.
Jan 21, '10
Mr. Next,
Before telling others to grow up, maybe you should go back to kindergarten and learn some manners? Your tone is uncalled for, and I can assure you, regardless of your perhaps good intentions, our political discourse would be far better off without uncouth voices like yours.
Your long, rude comment failed to address my point about Brown's duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps you feel it is less important than the measures' passage. I happen to agree. I just think the appearance of impropriety could cause the measures to fail. Ever consider that?
Regarding Westlund, you obviously know more about him than I do. Good for you, and you may well be right about him. All I said was his health may have played a role. Your flippant suggestion that his health problems make him unfit for office may have some goulish truth to it.
About Kroger, I didn't mention him because I didn't have anything to say. What's your point?
In my comment I was only trying to give some context that I thought added to the discussion. I never claimed to know what's behind the choices of officials I have never met: you are the one doing that. My point is you are jumping to conclusions when you attribute the statewides' inaction to laziness. Maybe you're right. But for all either of us know, the statewides offered all kinds of assistance to the Yes campaign, and the campaign chose not to accept their offers.
I'll just end by offering my condolences to anyone unfortunate enough to venture into a discussion with you in the future.
Jan 21, '10
Michael B:
<h2>That's just what I was going to say! You sound as though you are speaking with my mouth. How did you do that? I'm confused.</h2>