Meghan Sahli-Wells says she wants to combine local elections with state and federal elections to increase local participation in our City Council and School Board elections. Has she forgotten that, with the increase of voter participation, the ta
ctic of bullet voting would be less effective due to the dilution of the small but very partisan bullet voters? Wouldn’t this doom future progressive candidates who need bullet voting and low voter turnout to be elected?
Treble the Cost of Running
City Councilmember Ms. Sahli-Wells may want to rethink her push to energize voter participation. Not only would it increase the cost of campaigning for local office three- or four-fold, is there a big enough progressive base in Culver City to elect a more liberal point of view to our Council and School Board without extensive bullet voting?
A Case In Point
In 2009, Karlo Silbiger, ran for School Board along with six other candidates for the three seats up for grabs. Only four candidates were considered serious contenders.
Mr. Silbiger finished as the top vote-getter. He appeared on nearly 60 percent of the ballots, receiving almost 40 percent of the vote. He won 12 of the 19 precincts and finished second in the other seven. With only 19.3 percent of the registered voters turning out, almost as many votes were withheld (49.8 percent, 7,085) as were cast (7,153).
A Not-So-Sure Thing
Mr. Silbiger ran for re-election four years later when his supporters and critics thought he was a shoo-in. Something unexpected happened. He finished a distant fourth in the three-seat race.
In 2013 there was a 17.6 percent turnout—a drop of 1.7 percent in voter participation from 2009. This time Mr. Silbiger won only two precincts, finished second in two more, and placed fourth in the remaining eight precincts. He was on just 41.6 percent of the ballots and received only 16.3 percent of the vote.
Registration Up, Participation Down
Although there were over 1800 more potential voters registered in 2013 (26,378) than in 2009 (24,559), 568 fewer voters participated in 2013. In 2009, 4085 votes were left uncast, but, in 2013 that number dropped dramatically to 2105, almost 2,000 less than four years previously. Even though fewer voters participated in the 2013 election, votes cast were up over 2250 from 2009 results.
It seems Mr. Silbiger lost his re-election bid because his previous supporters stayed away from the polls and didn’t bullet vote at the rate they had done in 2009 when he finished first.
A Perfect Scenario
Having only three candidates running in our latest election for two open seats gave us the perfect scenario to clearly observe the benefits of a bullet voting strategy. Prof. Kelly Kent was voted for on over 75 percent of the ballots cast in precincts 1 and 3. She averaged 63.8 percent citywide. This, a rate unseen before locally, was over 5 percent more than Mr. Silbiger’s 58.7 percent in 2009.
Dr. Kent won 10 out of 12 precincts. She placed second and third in the other two precincts. Clearly, as in Mr. Silbiger’s election in 2009, there was a whole lot of bullet voting going on in this latest election.
Careful What You Wish for
If Ms. Sahli-Wells does get her wish to combine elections, will she be shooting herself in the foot by changing the dynamics of the electorate and decreasing the likelihood of any future liberal/progressive, even herself, of getting (re)elected?
More Expensive Campaigns
What about the increase in the costs in printing and paying for mailing of thousands more pieces of campaign literature to the newly engaged voters? Will campaign fundraising become a year-round cycle? Wouldn’t that give incumbents an edge over newer candidates?
I started by asking the question: Can any liberal/progressive candidate win election in Culver City without the use of bullet voting? The answer looks to be—
No, not yet, any ways.
Mr. Laase may be contacted at GMLaase@aol.com
