Notes from Tuesday’s School Board election when Prof. Kelly Kent (1888 votes) and Anne Burke (1461) won two open seats:
- I was just looking at Precinct 1 when I noticed that it had 100 ballots cast — and 61 votes not cast. It dawned on me that since there were only two votes to cast per ballot, and since 61 votes were not cast, that means that there were 61 ballots with only one vote — or 61 percent of the ballots cast were bulleted. A ballot with no votes (or three) would not be valid. So 45% of the ballots had only one vote. There was much more bullet voting this time, 45.2 percent.
- Dr. Kent drew 427 more votes than second-place Ms. Burke. If you look at Precincts 1 and 3, Dr. Kent received votes on more than three-quarters of the ballots cast. This is the highest percentage I can remember in the 15 years I have been doing this. Ms. Burke and Scott McVarish received votes on just one-third of the ballots cast.
- Dr. Kent won 10 of 12 precincts. But what makes Precincts 1 and 3 stand out is that Dr. Kent received 191 more votes than her other two rivals combined. It is hard to deny that bullet voting had an effect on the results from these two east Culver City precincts.
- This means that from these two precincts alone, Dr. Kent received 45 percent of her margin (427) over Ms. Burke.
- The accompanying spreadsheet (see pdf above) is not as much a tribute to Dr. Kent’s campaign as showed the power of the bullet vote to sway a precinct one way or the other and influence an election overall when voter turnout is low.
- Not that Dr. Kent would not have won a seat on the School Board since she won10 of 12 precincts. But without the (ab)use of bullet voting, it probably would have been a much closer race.
- Our spreadsheet also shows, for those of us who do not like the systematic use of bullet voting, that consolidating elections should be an idea we should seriously reconsider. With fewer than 10 percent of the registered voters participating in this election, bullet voting had a greater influence in the results. If consolidating our elections would bring more voters to the polls, expansion of voter participation would tend to dilute the influence of those who choose to bullet vote.
Mr. Laase may be contacted at GMLaase@aol.com
“But without the (ab)use of bullet voting, it probably would have been a much closer race… Our spreadsheet also shows, for those of us who do not like the systematic use of bullet voting…”
One thing I haven’t heard mentioned here among the bullet voting discussion– despite words like “abuse” and “systematic”– is any sort of evidence that the Kent campaign ever organized anything of the sort. This was a citywide election! To effectively execute the “systematic” strategy currently alleged, the Kent campaign would’ve had to print thousands of mailers, make thousands of calls, knock on countless doors, and each time deliver the same message: “be sure not to use your second vote on Tuesday!” Did any of you receive any such mailers? Receive any such calls? Get any such door-knocks? *I* sure didn’t.
I can tell you that I personally phone-banked and precinct-walked for the Kent campaign, and in each case my patter was to hew to a campaign-composed script (of course), but nowhere in said script was there instruction that voters should withhold their second votes from McVarish or Burke (to the contrary, we were instructed not to mention them at all, especially not derisively). Did all of the other Kent volunteers receive the bullet voting script, but just not me for some reason?
It’s understandable, but sad, to invent a mysterious conspiracy (like “systematic” bullet voting) when one would prefer not to confront a harder truth: like the fact that the values and priorities of Culver City voters don’t happen to be in sync with one’s own.
The results shown in the spreadsheet are just the facts and any reasonable person would understand that facts do not necessarily show the truth. The facts are not the truth, facts are just facts.
Patrick, you seem to be having some kind of post-election, conniption fit over my interpretation of my spreadsheet based on the official returns.
The fact is Ms Kent won 10 out of the 12 precincts.
You seem to think I am accusing Ms Kent’s campaign of “dirty tricks.” No one can really say what caused the different voting pattern in the 1st and 3rd precincts.
All I know are the facts and they show that voters in precinct 1A & 3A, in east Culver City, withheld votes at a rate 20% higher than in the other 10 precincts. Did these voters come to the same conclusion, independently of each other? Do you really believe that’s what happened?
You mention phone-banking, mailers; these, as you know, are almost outdated election tools, like the kissing of babies. Precinct walking is still thought to be necessary to convey the candidate’s personal touch. But, you left out the use of social media: Facebook… etc. The city-wide use of withholding votes does suggest a crucial role that social media may have played in Ms Kent and Ms Burke winning seats on the board.
This was not a simple voting anomaly. I’m sure even you don’t really believe that.
If you want people to believe that the voters in these two precincts withheld their second vote at a rate 20% higher than the rest of Culver City, then, try giving us something better, a more plausible reason—like, it must have been something in the water that caused this unique voting pattern.
Like I said before, facts are not the truth, facts are just facts.
“Patrick, you seem to be having some kind of post-election, conniption fit over my interpretation of my spreadsheet based on the official returns.”
Nope, no conniption fit here, George. But when you use a phrase like “systematic use of bullet voting”, you assume a fact not currently in evidence. What precisely was the “system”? How was this system executed? And by whom, exactly?
“All I know are the facts and they show that voters in precinct 1A & 3A, in east Culver City, withheld votes at a rate 20% higher than in the other 10 precincts. Did these voters come to the same conclusion, independently of each other? Do you really believe that’s what happened?”
What I believe is that Precincts 1A and 3A (Kent’s home turf) contained Kent’s most passionate supporters, and that Burke and McVarish– in merging their campaigns and messaging– left passionate Kent supporters with no way to select a second choice. Unless a rock-solid Kent supporter (like the ones in 1A or 3A) happened to be personally-familiar with one of Kent’s two merged opponents, there was literally no way for him or her to distinguish between McVarish and Burke and then to cast his or her second vote accordingly.
Basically, by marrying their campaigns and messages, McVarish and Burke forced dedicated Kent voters to either a) flip a coin in the voting booth, or b) leave their second votes unspent. Clearly many Kent voters simply chose the latter… a choice made all the easier by the McVarish/Burke campaign’s personal negativity toward Kent down the stretch.
But if you have evidence that there was something more “systematic” at play here, George– something that rises to the level of “(ab)use”– please do provide it!
“But, you left out the use of social media: Facebook… etc. The city-wide use of withholding votes does suggest a crucial role that social media may have played in Ms Kent and Ms Burke winning seats on the board.”
Not to be a broken record here but, um, you got any evidence for the above? Perhaps a record of posts (“Facebook… etc.”) that demonstrate social media’s “crucial role” in this alleged “systemic use of bullet voting”? Again, please do provide.
Add to the analysis that one of the polling places was a mile or so outside the city limits and very difficult to get to in the morning, at least. Also, in at least precinct 1, if I remember the precinct numbers correctly, Prof. Kent had a presence – walking, dropping and signs – whereas Burke and McVarish not so much.
The general thinking used to be that regular voters (those not wrapped up in the campaigns) want to vote all of their votes. So, a very large number/percentage of unused votes would be unusual and suggest something is going on. Even if regular voters find it difficult to distinguish between two candidates, when has that ever stopped someone from voting at all? People vote all the time for candidates they really don’t know anything about — water boards, LA Comm College Bd, etc. So, I don’t think people didn’t vote because of lack of info. I think most regular voters would feel they have one vote left to “spend” and would cast it for either Burke or McVarish, even if based on less than a desirable amount of information.
To the extent bullet voting was going on, I would not expect it to be an official position of any campaign. Instead, I expect it would have been organized quietly and not publicly.
It would be interesting to see what the turnout was compared to previous elections. The lower it drops, the easier it is to organize an effective bullet voting system.
“To the extent bullet voting was going on, I would not expect it to be an official position of any campaign. Instead, I expect it would have been organized quietly and not publicly.”
But why, though? If, indeed, the Kent campaign had identified systematic bullet voting as its strategic ticket to victory, why wouldn’t it execute that strategy as broadly and officially as possible? Why wouldn’t they make sure that every single identified Kent supporter (like me) received calls, mailers, emails and/or door-knocks in the week before the election, urging us to withhold our second vote from McVarish or Burke? Why not post it on your campaign’s FB page? What’s the presumed upside to identifying a supposedly-successful (and legal) strategy like bullet voting and then pursuing it only a tiny little bit?
See the response below where the poster says her bullet voting advocacy got about 200 views (“less than 200 views,” to be exact)and many people questioned its legality or morality.
It’s controversial for some/many people. What campaign wants to get caught up in that kind of a controversy, where people question the morality or legality of its advocated voting strategy? That’s a ticket on the express bus to loser town, in my opinion.
Instead, as I suspected it would occur, it was advocated by a big supporter, but not official campaign person. I am a bit surprised that it was so public, though. What would be interesting is whether the post was done in a forum more friendly to Kent because that would mean even presumed Kent supporters were questioning the tactic.
Ms. Vizcarro is well-known in school board political circles, so I think she’s being extremely modest when she suggests her post couldn’t have had much of an effect because only 200 people viewed it.
I happen to be FB friends with Claudia Vizcarro and she advocated bullet voting for Kelly many times. I believe she was part of the campaign group for Kelly. She didn’t call it that, she called it “conscience voting.”
Her FB page stated to vote for Kelly Kent only. This is only information that I have proof of. Hope she doesn’t go and erase it now.
Jim Clarke , City Council member, pleaded several times during the campaign and also at the Democratic Club meeting not to bullet vote but that fell on deaf ears. It was clear from the vote count at the Demo Club that they did bullet vote to endorse Kelly and it was strongly advocated by some members to do just that.
It is over. Lets move on.
“I happen to be FB friends with Claudia Vizcarro and she advocated bullet voting for Kelly many times… Her FB page stated to vote for Kelly Kent only. This is only information that I have proof of. Hope she doesn’t go and erase it now.”
I’m not on FB myself, so I personally never saw that, but one single supporter– on her own personal FB page, advocating a bullet vote to her own FB friends– does not (in my opinion) rise to the level of any sort of “systematic” endeavor, as George initially alleged.
If, indeed, the above is the only information that anyone has proof of, then maybe there was genuinely no systematic (ab)use of bullet voting… which, again, is what George alleged. Kelly Kent won this election by hundreds of votes, and as nice as Claudia seems, I can’t imagine anyone believes her personal FB posts carry *that* much power.
Ms. Ehrlich-
As Patrick Meighan noted, as well as others on different blog posts, is that the B/McV campaign created a Slate vs. Kelly Kent approach that backfired and encouraged independent thinking Kent voters to vote singularly.
Patrick’s below statement sums it up well…
“Basically, by marrying their campaigns and messages, McVarish and Burke forced dedicated Kent voters to either a) flip a coin in the voting booth, or b) leave their second votes unspent. Clearly many Kent voters simply chose the latter… a choice made all the easier by the McVarish/Burke campaign’s personal negativity toward Kent down the stretch.”
I agree with your statement… “It is over. Lets move on.” And with this, I hope that honesty and integrity, in your and your husband’s representation of all candidates, are at the forefront of your future efforts.
Madeline,
My name is Claudia Vizcarra, with an a.
I was not in Kelly Kent’s campaign team, although I was a big supporter.
It is true that I wrote a blog post stating my reasons for bullet voting.
Many people asked me if bullet voting was illegal, or immoral and I wanted to make a point that it was neither. As far as I know, this is a free country, and one can express their opinions freely.
I should also let you know that despite some arguments that this had a huge effect on the campaign, I can tell you that it had less than 200 views, of which I am sure many were people that did not agree with me.
The election will be a week old tomorrow. I think it’s time to move on.
I know this is an old thread but wanted to set the record straight.
I WAS on the Kelly Kent campaign and I can tell you honestly and on my life that the mention of bullet voting was never brought up. I didn’t even know what that meant until after the election and everyone is talking about it. I can tell you that many of us discussed how we would use our second vote. We were genuinely interested in learning about the other two candidates so we can decide how to cast our second vote. Some even wondered if they could get yard signs with just one of the names (they were told no.)
But as many have stated, it was difficult to decipher between the two. My email asking what differentiates the two was ignored. Talking to them in person was not met with anything of substance to help me decide. The forums I attended, they answered the same or for each other. The message was clear, vote for us both or not at all.
I just hope future campaigns learn from this one when deciding to slate or not to slate. This was my first election like this and I didn’t know what to expect. Bullet voting happened as a defense against the slate. Deal with it.
Live and learn and now we move on.