Election Evolution from Preliminary to Final

This is the second post examining election turnout results. The first is here.

After a disappointing turnout of about 6,700 (about 12% of registered voters), a group called Double the Vote launched a campaign to increase turnout through multilingual signage and outreach. The turnout on November 5 was 11,581, so they were almost successful (about a 73% increase). Of course, the additional turnout can also be attributed to increased efforts of candidates, events such as the crime spike encouraging more to vote, and the higher profile of the final election.

Where did those additional voters come from? Here’s a map.

prelim

The white numbers represent number of additional voters in the final election, while the shade of color represents the % increase. So while much of the Lower Highlands did indeed “double the vote,” this only meant an additional 450 votes. Even though Precinct 1-2 only increased 70%, the turnout was already so high that this represented 426 more votes.

How did this play out for the candidates? Here’s a table:

Preliminary Final Difference % Increase
Elliott 2789 5301 2512 90%
Kennedy 2673 5076 2403 90%
Leahy 2385 4299 1914 80%
Lorrey 2322 4121 1799 77%
Martin 2777 4332 1555 56%
Mendonca 2020 3985 1965 97%
Mercier 3715 6343 2628 71%
Nuon 2001 3243 1242 62%
Belanger 1945 4381 2436 125%
F Doyle 1106 1584 478 43%
G Doyle 1220 1456 236 19%
Gitschier 1935 3913 1978 102%
Hargis 1789 3528 1739 97%
Millinazzo 2566 4607 2041 80%
Mitchell 1923 3949 2026 105%
Pech 1487 2271 784 53%
Rourke 2723 4644 1921 71%
Samaras 2509 4463 1954 78%
Viera 806
Darius M 575
Misitano 362
Navom 404

The increase candidates had may have been caused by new folks voting, folks switching their votes, or folks adding votes. It’s notable that several candidates increased their votes substantially (Mitchell, Gitschier, Hargis, Mendonca), but not enough to make up for a low preliminary result. The exception to this was Corey Belanger, who to his credit, ran a strong campaign.

Digging down a bit, some candidates improved their results a very large amount in a few precincts, sometimes tripling their preliminary result. Mr. Gitschier even quadrupled his result in 10-3. Here’s their percentage increases, with decreases or increases of more than 2 standard deviations highlighted in orange or green (in other words, falling well outside the bell curve for that precinct). Please excuse the poor formatting.

Elliott Kennedy Leahy Lorrey Martin Mendonca Mercier Nuon Belanger F Doyle G Doyle Gitschier Hargis Millinazzo Mitchell Pech Rourke Samaras
1-1 105% 84% 92% 81% 58% 78% 71% 73% 130% 52% 19% 98% 118% 72% 114% 163% 65% 133%
1-2 68% 77% 64% 56% 49% 87% 58% 30% 109% 26% 49% 54% 105% 74% 85% 20% 60% 59%
1-3 66% 72% 57% 53% 39% 69% 51% 22% 86% 3% -13% 51% 51% 57% 48% 7% 53% 58%
2-1 125% 56% 106% 44% 68% 160% 41% 105% 157% -31% 69% 200% 91% 48% 142% 85% 120% 168%
2-2 135% 116% 83% 65% 20% 117% 52% 56% 100% 13% 11% 56% 16% 53% 78% 28% 82% 18%
2-3 78% 91% 135% 48% 32% 69% 75% 41% 118% 81% 49% 329% 91% 66% 88% 45% 118% 82%
3-1 75% 107% 74% 85% 53% 104% 49% 79% 75% -6% 43% 70% 114% 95% 137% 90% 78% 98%
3-2 169% 154% 120% 100% 65% 97% 119% 91% 162% 61% 69% 182% 132% 100% 163% 102% 123% 74%
3-3 117% 62% 80% 114% 85% 68% 55% 72% 106% 77% -20% 131% 133% 56% 90% 36% 93% 41%
4-1 101% 64% 76% 163% 70% 122% 65% 42% 161% 26% 13% 82% 102% 86% 114% 71% 95% 72%
4-2 119% 106% 61% 109% 71% 126% 52% 121% 140% 32% -27% 122% 81% 194% 95% 78% 105% 143%
4-3 103% 148% 150% 132% 43% 173% 62% 76% 120% 138% 47% 240% 85% 89% 140% 43% 76% 77%
5-1 84% 101% 105% 84% 56% 77% 61% 57% 130% 100% 28% 145% 102% 100% 134% 84% 62% 63%
5-2 127% 153% 110% 141% 128% 168% 106% 157% 184% 75% 39% 112% 176% 225% 188% 59% 102% 119%
5-3 102% 78% 78% 89% 50% 82% 92% 97% 150% 58% 26% 153% 83% 100% 100% 52% 97% 108%
6-1 72% 130% 85% 78% 52% 80% 95% 56% 172% 74% 23% 142% 169% 108% 172% 76% 65% 75%
6-2 89% 96% 70% 52% 69% 105% 81% 48% 91% 28% 6% 93% 130% 84% 178% 49% 58% 73%
6-3 74% 77% 94% 85% 58% 69% 47% 50% 161% 27% 31% 81% 71% 74% 181% 7% 54% 88%
7-1 79% 98% 86% 63% 56% 150% 72% 85% 112% 7% 28% 121% 225% 64% 244% 74% 65% 128%
7-2 186% 103% 141% 125% 153% 158% 142% 98% 82% 183% 23% 222% 85% 85% 70% 96% 46% 178%
7-3 157% 68% 82% 150% 60% 154% 103% 79% 260% 69% 64% 208% 100% 138% 57% 70% 119% 160%
8-1 76% 92% 82% 76% 68% 156% 76% 85% 68% 13% 21% 117% 124% 71% 93% 60% 42% 106%
8-2 107% 83% 121% 96% 38% 116% 86% 51% 122% 77% 13% 119% 98% 98% 58% 23% 85% 77%
8-3 91% 101% 64% 64% 55% 98% 56% 26% 97% 42% -17% 104% 87% 56% 97% 27% 62% 53%
9-1 88% 71% 80% 42% 49% 156% 54% 54% 117% 14% -22% 85% 79% 111% 81% 57% 41% 63%
9-2 76% 77% 81% 70% 68% 96% 79% 83% 149% 36% 34% 117% 169% 102% 207% 56% 59% 104%
9-3 77% 101% 97% 85% 62% 128% 101% 72% 191% 139% 38% 54% 90% 83% 86% 39% 70% 93%
10-1 97% 107% 96% 105% 55% 80% 71% 39% 107% 66% 26% 153% 114% 49% 121% 74% 154% 62%
10-2 230% 152% 162% 109% 114% 145% 142% 121% 165% 255% 63% 126% 138% 125% 112% 50% 121% 126%
10-3 125% 65% 61% 165% 21% 81% 76% 70% 227% -13% -16% 371% 85% 82% 96% 95% 136% 144%
11-1 121% 92% 79% 80% 63% 117% 76% 115% 127% 71% 0% 132% 64% 93% 149% 62% 74% 87%
11-2 86% 85% 89% 93% 57% 78% 72% 64% 172% 40% 18% 145% 73% 78% 100% 25% 82% 78%
11-3 100% 104% 69% 94% 73% 112% 105% 95% 236% 40% 67% 200% 154% 80% 169% 140% 97% 81%

For a future post, I hope to map this, along with comparing results to demographics of precincts and crime rates. Until then, panhandling, historic preservation, cultural events, and so much more to write about!

Please note I’m using “cards cast” rather than “votes counted” to describe turnout, and I typed many of the numbers into excel, so there may be minor errors. Let me know if you want any of the underlying spreadsheets.

Advertisements

One thought on “Election Evolution from Preliminary to Final

  1. Chris,

    This is interesting data. Our campaign ran short on funding maybe because we started so late. In a world where funds were no object I believe the results could have been different for some of the first time Council candidates (not knowing how much each candidate spent on the election). In the last couple of weeks we had to make some decisions based on funds for mailings or advertising. I chose advertising over mailing to all areas of the city. The thought behind the decision was we walked in these areas of the city and hopefully voters read the material we left behind (not everyone opens the door for the candidates) we didn’t have the funds to do a city wide mailing. This data implies we should have spent the funds on mailings because the largest gains were in the areas of selected mailings. I wonder how much each candidate spent in relations to their final position in the election? Maybe a cost per vote analysis would be telling?

    Thanks again,

    Erik Gitschier

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s