A full analysis and spreadsheet will come in the next post. The leader columns of the eight county wide races defied block/party voting patterns. What do the high-lead pairs (McCauley/Knutzen- both winning by greater than 7.56%), mid-lead pairs (Walker/Mann- both winning by greater than 4.00%) and low- lead pairs ( Weimer/Kershner -both winning only by greater than 0 .58 %) have in common politically? Not much, this blogger will guess. If the vote was intentionally rigged to create a political gridlock so as to weaken government power and oversight,then that objective may well see dividends in the coming year. If such were the true decision of the electorate....
The fifth round of ballot counting continued a pattern of conservative advance paired with increased voter 'fall off' for the eight county races. The respective 'fall off' percentage for the sum of all votes as the five rounds of ballot counting progressed became: 90.90%, 90.80%, 90.58%, 89.92%, 89.63%. The 'fall off' percentages for the races as measured per each round are much more dramatic. Some races lost almost 11% in voter participation rates due to 'fall off' (preliminary figure) as measured between the first and last rounds of ballot counting. It appears that 'fall off' rates of almost 6% (between the first and last rounds of Council 1A ballot counting) may have been responsible for McShane's loss and Kershner's victory (preliminary figures) . This victory was demarcated by less than 400 votes.
Only 71 and 1033 gathered more than 50% of total registered voter participation. 1033 had the largest margin of victory (10.6%). In reality, it most probably should be considered exceptional that 1033 gathered 26,023 votes in favor, despite being opposed by some members of both parties.
These are 'unofficial' final tally results. Final certification will not take place till the last week of November. The 2009 General Election Voter History will not be available until December 1st at the earliest I have been told by the Auditor's office. With 61,027 counted...by leader...by participation.
| Race | % of Total Reg. | Lead 5 Count | Leader | |||||
| 1033 | 50.93% | 10.60% | No | |||||
| Port 2 | 43.08% | 8.66% | McCauley | |||||
| Co. Cncl At-Large | 48.49% | 7.56% | Knutzen | |||||
| 71 | 51.69% | 6.92% | Yes | |||||
| Port 1 | 44.98% | 5.08% | Walker | |||||
| Co. Cncl 2A | 48.19% | 4.00% | Mann | |||||
| Co. Cncl 3A | 47.64% | 1.54% | Weimer | |||||
| Co. Cncl 1A | 47.84% | 0.58% | Kershner |
| 71 | 51.69% | 6.92% | Yes |
| 1033 | 50.93% | 10.60% | No |
| Co. Cncl At-Large | 48.49% | 7.56% | Knutzen |
| Co. Cncl 2A | 48.19% | 4.00% | Mann |
| Co. Cncl 1A | 47.84% | 0.58% | Kershner |
| Co. Cncl 3A | 47.64% | 1.54% | Weimer |
| Port 1 | 44.98% | 5.08% | Walker |
| Port 2 | 43.08% | 8.66% | McCauley |
No comments:
Post a Comment