posted by Mike Madison at 11:22 AM /
I voted yesterday. Did you? Probably not.
For a community that professes to care passionately about its values, its schools, and its children, voter turnout in Mt. Lebanon in yesterday's primary election was pathetic. Given the issues now facing the School District -- planning for high school renovations, possible changes to the assessment system and corresponding school tax overhauls, and looming pension liabilities, not to mention the quality of the education provided to local children, which is no longer clearly providing some of the best in the Commonwealth -- this election may turn out to be the most important School Board election in memory and for years to come. Yet turnout yesterday was just less than 25% (5,341 ballots cast, by my count, out of 22,821 registered Democratic and Republican voters).
Here is the raw data, from Allegheny County. The County statistics report an overall turnout that's closer to 20% (5,341 out of 25,608 registered voters), but the County doesn't account for the roughly 3,000 registered independents and other non-Ds and non-Rs, none of whom were eligible to vote yesterday.
The difference between 20% and 25% isn't huge; in either case, the low turnout -- on a day when there was no weather, disaster, or traffic to impede access to the polls -- speaks volumes about Mt. Lebanon's true priorities and about people who aren't willing to put their votes where their mouths are.
It's true, of course, that yesterday's election was only a primary; the real fireworks come next Fall. As I understand the rules, the results yesterday lead only to the exclusion of one candidate (Electa Boyle) from the November ballot, because she did not finish among the top four candidates in either the Democratic primary or the Republican primary. (So much for re-using the "R Team" yard signs!)
Yet her failure to make it into the top four, especially among the Republicans, makes me wonder about party politics in a school board election -- especially in the primary. In other words, with so few people voting, I puzzle over the effort that goes into caring about what the Mt. Lebanon Republican Committee and the Mt. Lebanon Democratic Committee might do or say or who they might endorse in local races. I was a paid political operative (briefly) in a prior life, and I learned that the chief purpose and virtue of a party organization is getting people to the polls to vote for the party's candidate(s). Maybe the party Committees helped to bring turnout from an unbelievably disgraceful level up to the merely pathetic level that we saw yesterday. But that seems unlikely to me. I'm a registered party member; I got no GOTV contact leading up to yesterday's election. Did the Republican committee do GOTV for its endorsed candidates?
Maybe party affiliation is a label that helps voters identify who to vote for. But in a local race for a non-partisan office, that theory is full of holes, too. Four candidates ran as the "R" team, for example, but it's not clear that the "R" label, or the Republican endorsement, helped. Not only did one of the "R"s (Electa Boyle) not finish among the top four in the Republican primary, but a different "R" (Dale Ostergaard) finished fourth in the Democratic primary. Mary Birks, who I believe is an unendorsed candidate, finished second in the D primary and fourth in the R primary. (This is based on the unofficial results.)
The Fall election season promises to be interesting. I hope that more people show up at the polls in November.
For a community that professes to care passionately about its values, its schools, and its children, voter turnout in Mt. Lebanon in yesterday's primary election was pathetic. Given the issues now facing the School District -- planning for high school renovations, possible changes to the assessment system and corresponding school tax overhauls, and looming pension liabilities, not to mention the quality of the education provided to local children, which is no longer clearly providing some of the best in the Commonwealth -- this election may turn out to be the most important School Board election in memory and for years to come. Yet turnout yesterday was just less than 25% (5,341 ballots cast, by my count, out of 22,821 registered Democratic and Republican voters).
Here is the raw data, from Allegheny County. The County statistics report an overall turnout that's closer to 20% (5,341 out of 25,608 registered voters), but the County doesn't account for the roughly 3,000 registered independents and other non-Ds and non-Rs, none of whom were eligible to vote yesterday.
The difference between 20% and 25% isn't huge; in either case, the low turnout -- on a day when there was no weather, disaster, or traffic to impede access to the polls -- speaks volumes about Mt. Lebanon's true priorities and about people who aren't willing to put their votes where their mouths are.
It's true, of course, that yesterday's election was only a primary; the real fireworks come next Fall. As I understand the rules, the results yesterday lead only to the exclusion of one candidate (Electa Boyle) from the November ballot, because she did not finish among the top four candidates in either the Democratic primary or the Republican primary. (So much for re-using the "R Team" yard signs!)
Yet her failure to make it into the top four, especially among the Republicans, makes me wonder about party politics in a school board election -- especially in the primary. In other words, with so few people voting, I puzzle over the effort that goes into caring about what the Mt. Lebanon Republican Committee and the Mt. Lebanon Democratic Committee might do or say or who they might endorse in local races. I was a paid political operative (briefly) in a prior life, and I learned that the chief purpose and virtue of a party organization is getting people to the polls to vote for the party's candidate(s). Maybe the party Committees helped to bring turnout from an unbelievably disgraceful level up to the merely pathetic level that we saw yesterday. But that seems unlikely to me. I'm a registered party member; I got no GOTV contact leading up to yesterday's election. Did the Republican committee do GOTV for its endorsed candidates?
Maybe party affiliation is a label that helps voters identify who to vote for. But in a local race for a non-partisan office, that theory is full of holes, too. Four candidates ran as the "R" team, for example, but it's not clear that the "R" label, or the Republican endorsement, helped. Not only did one of the "R"s (Electa Boyle) not finish among the top four in the Republican primary, but a different "R" (Dale Ostergaard) finished fourth in the Democratic primary. Mary Birks, who I believe is an unendorsed candidate, finished second in the D primary and fourth in the R primary. (This is based on the unofficial results.)
The Fall election season promises to be interesting. I hope that more people show up at the polls in November.
12 Comments:
In the primaries, it's important for the voters to follow the party lead. The primaries don't pick the winner; only weed out the losers.
Republicans are still reeling from the Obama election.
Republican voters let down Boyle. The party picked
Boyle, but the voters picked Birks. It's unfair,
because now the other six school board candidates have a chance to
get into office, but Boyle is out. The other six candidates get 5 more months to campaign than Boyle.
If Republican voters
picked Boyle over Birks, all seven candidates would
be on the ballot in November.
I think Boyle is out simply because she doesn't have
any kids.
And that's a shame when you need kids to pass the litmus test.
Well said Mike. I think the low voter turnout is even more disturbing when you consider that 2 of the 5 Wards are electing new Commissioners this year, and those primaries DID mean something!
The R and D voter turnout in those Wards (2 and 4) was around 25% on average. So, if you voted yesterday in one of those Wards, chances are that your next door neighbors and the guy across the street did not. Doesn't that irritate you?
I also chuckled about the turnout in Ward 5, District 8. These are the folks that live in the Mapleton/Marietta area, and who have received a lot of government attention and our tax dollars to address traffic calming issues that solely benefit their neighborhood. Admittedly, I've been pretty hard on these folks lately, suggesting that those funds and efforts would be better spent on other problems and issues in our community. This voting district responded by sending just 11.74% of its registered Rs and Ds to the polls yesterday. That's right - just 40 people from the neighborhood that has received countless hours and well over $100,000 worth of attention felt compelled to cast a ballot yesterday.
One of my college professors used to say, "If you don't care to vote, then please don't expect me to care when you complain."
Mike,
I agree--yesterday was very disappointing in terms of voter turnout. On too many occasions, the volunteers at the polls outnumbered the voters.
I worked at multiple locations throughout the borough and saw roughly the same trend, which was a very slow day.
The truly sad part, is that the issues and leaders that ought to have been weighed by all voters yesterday, will have considerably more direct impact on residents' lives than those during a national election. Yet the latter always has the larger draw.
If you don't vote, don't complain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
More Post-Election Stuff...(I deleted and am reposting my previous post - I am having a awful time with paragraph breaks - I hope this is better.)
Jo Posti’s thoughtful note of appreciation on her website from very early this morning:THANK YOU
Posted Wed, 05/20/2009 - 05:14 by Josephine Posti
Rob and I are both very proud to have received the Democratic nomination last night and are looking forward to November! We appreciate your support and your efforts in getting out the vote. Thank you!Another note of thanks - Mary Birks’ e-mailed note of appreciation to her supporters:Good morning!
The results above are from the Allegheny County Board of Elections site as of 12:06am. They are not reported, for some weird reason in the PG this morning. Perhaps the Republicans are asking for a re-count since Electa Boyle missed by 38 votes. I don't know--I'm not privy to what goes on there. If anyone can find out, that would be helpful.
WE DID IT! You all made this possible! We are going to have to work even harder in the Fall election to get our message out to the populace and we need to mobilize our young families with children to be certain they get to the polls and vote!
Thank you for your time, your yards, your word of mouth, your monetary support, and your total dedication to our cause. I am humbled by the experience and am blessed to have so many wonderful people believing in my experience and my district knowledge.
With a short break, we will then get back to work, with a big push in September.
Have a great day and enjoy the sunshine.
Best,
Mary(NOTE: Mary's e-mail included the ballot results due to an mistake at the PG. Those results are not reprinted here.)
I disagree with Mr. Huston's assessment that "It's unfair" that Birks was picked over Boyle. Who knows what the precise reasons for that were, but saying that election results are unfair hints at some sort of election fraud (which I believe everyone would agree did not happen on Tuesday).
It may be unfortunate from your point of view, but I believe the results of the election are fair and valid. The voters have spoken; just not in the way that you would like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
(I still can't get my paragraphs right so I will try again - and I deleted something that was totally unnecessary)Mystery SolvedThis morning the PG reprinted the election results and acknowledged their mistake. "... the errors published were due to mistakes by Post-Gazette, not the county. The Post-Gazette apologizes to our readers and to the candidates in races in which incorrect results were listed."
So it wasn't the Republicans or the Democrats - just an honest and corrected mistake of the free press.
Mr. Houston, when everyone cross files, the Primary most certainly does pick the winners, along with sorting out the losers. Also, I think you wrongly assume that the Rs in Lebo are blindly guided by the endorsement of our party.
First, I've always said that party politics and endorsements have little value in local government. This is especially true in a race in which the candidates cross file. Just think of the absurdity of a party endorsing a candidate that is running on the other party's ticket. It makes no sense!
Second, perhaps the voters (rather than the party) got it right. I'm think the local Republican Committee may have underestimated the value that many voters (including myself) place on prior service. In selecting Boyle over Birks, the local GOP asked me to reject Birks' long history of service to our schools (in a variety of capacities) in favor of someone who (to my knowledge) has never served the school district in any capacity. That's not a knock on Boyle, nor am I saying that prior service is an absolute prerequisite. However, I do think it was short sighted of the GOP to overlook Birks' long track record when handing out their endorsements. Just my 2 cents . . .
Lastly, to assume that party endorsements are always correct or free from outside/improper influence is just foolish. Take for example the race for Common Pleas judge. The Democratic Party endorsed 5 candidates, only one of which received the Bar Association's highest rating. The Dems even endorsed one candidate who was not recommended by the Bar at all. In doing so, they ignored 3 Democrats (Alex Bicket, Phil Ignelzi and Hugh McGough) who all received the Bar's highest rating and who were all endorsed by the Post-Gazette. I'm inclined to believe that these excellent lawyers did not receive their party's endorsement because they were unwilling to play the political "game" that is required to garner such an endorsement. Nor should they in my opinion since justice should be administered without regard to party affiliation. Now, only one of these fine candidates (Ignelzi) will likely win a seat on the Court having received the nomination of both the Rs and Ds. Alex Bicket received the nomination on the Republican party, so he has an uphill battle in November.
Mr. Houston, the results of this race tracked the Democrats' endorsement with the exception of one candidate. Unfortunately, therefore, our County will likely elect at least one judge who was deemed unqualified for a seat on the bench by his own colleagues in the Bar. We will also likely elect 3 more who did not receive the Bar's highest endorsement instead of others who did. So in this instance, Mr. Houston, when voters blindly follow their party's endorsement, the real losers just might be the residents of Allegheny County.
I don't get it. What's unfair about voters making a decision? Should party office holders do my thinking for me? (I used to be a party office holder.)
The parties aren't made up of the committee people and the ward chairs. The parties are made up everyone who is registered for that party. In other words, the Republican Party did not pick Boyle. They picked four others.
Greg Daubner
I was one of the voters and one of the poll workers (for McGough for Common Pleas) who outnumbered the voters. The day was beautiful and the turnout was miserable.
I'm in agreement with some of the comments above...I sure don't want to hear any mass complaints over the school project when only a small percentage of us voted.
As lawyer who works mostly in family division where being in court 1 to 2 times a week is a slow week for my firm I can attest to everything Dave Franklin said. (McGough by the way was also endorsed by the Trib). The bar assoc. ratings are a way to help give voters relevant information on candidates they probably know very little about. Maybe move the voter away from who had the most eye catching or voluminously displayed signs or a name they recognize off of advertising (political or law practice). Yet the party endorsements obviously have very little connection to the efforts of the local bar to provide this information. It was frustrating, to say the least, to be at the polls with a board in hand of the ACBA Judiciary Committee's ratings for all judicial candidates. We were ready and able to discuss the ratings only to have a party person (from both parties) meet the person at the door to stuff the slate card in their hands. No surprise the results reflect the slate(s)including one "not recommended at this time" garnering a lot of votes.
Oh well, it's only the individuals who will be in a position to decide things like who gets custody of your child, how your business contract dispute is resolved and other non-important matters like the multi-million dollar high school renovation project.
Marjie Crist
I agree that voter turnout was low - but I think a lot of people in this country sort of got overexposed to politics from last year's presidential election.
There's a large dedicated group of people here that care about local politics, and that's great. But there's also a large group that don't care about local politics. I think a lot of it has to do with marketing - in a national election, you can't avoid hearing about candidates, but in a local primary, it can be hard for people to find out much about candidates.
I wouldn't be surprised if turnout rebounded a bit in the fall.
Post a Comment
<< Home