Contributor Opinion By John Britton: Post-Election Comments
Nov 17, 2009 7:00 - 5 Comments
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone’s contributions, presented in numerous opinion articles and comments on this blog and in other sources, to the analyses of the election results and speculation on voting influences and patterns in our recent election. I think we are fortunate to have seasoned issues- and election-watchers such as Roald Shrack to offer perspectives and analyses within the context of elections and voting trends over a period of time. I appreciate Roald’s excellent work in compiling election data and information and presenting his compilation and analysis to the community at large. We will soon inaugurate the members of our new mayor and council (including yours truly) who will immediately set to rolling up the sleeves for a new term of work (well, if you view tapes of the M&C meetings, you rarely see rolled-up sleeves, but you know what I mean!). Post-election analyses will quickly fade in favor of old and new issues that will demand the M&C’s and the community’s attention. So I offer a few comments here to cap my own review of the election results.
It has been fun to review Roald’s analysis and the raw election data to find some quirky items or an event/trend that may warrant further analysis. For example, with respect to quirky, the stats show that in both 2007 and 2009, I led the pack in the number of absentee ballots received. Interesting. Now what does that say about me that voters may cast their votes for me only when comfortably out of town?! (Memo to self: develop new campaign strategy to encourage more voters to vacation out of town the first week of November.)
A different example and an item of peculiar interest is the chart shown in Roald’s report titled “Comparison of Council Missing Ballot Fraction.” This illustrates, I believe, the so-called “bullet voting” syndrome, allegations of which have surfaced, as Roald suggests, in past elections. In concert with such allegations, the chart reflects in both 2007 and 2009 certain levels of presumed “bullet voting” in perennially suspect districts, relative constants in the two elections. One statistic that leaps from the page, however, is the disconnect between the level of missing ballots in District 2 for 2007 and that in 2009. District 2 has the most significant increase of all the districts in missing ballots (“bullet voting”?) from the last election to our recent election. As Roald suggests, the missing ballot curve does not so much resemble the vote pattern for any one candidate but may represent a certain strategy in specific districts. And I don’t know if the aberrant year is 2007 or 2009. But what could have caused such a rise in missing ballots in one election cycle in District 2, a district that prides itself on civic knowledge, awareness and involvement? In philosophical terms, “bullet voting” begs certain questions whether in District 2 or elsewhere. Is such voting practice, usually encouraged only discretely, illegal? Well, of course not. Is it unethical? I suspect there are varying answer to this based on one’s emotional attachment to a certain candidate or contentious issue. Is it disruptive? Herein lies the dilemma for the civics education and involvement purists. It certainly does not affect the mayor’s race since you only have one vote anyway. On a personal level, it’s obvious that it was not a negative factor as my vote counts increased since the last election in most districts and remained fairly constant in District 2. Nay, I fear the impact may be on other candidates whose substantive positions and proposals may have been given short thrift in deference to the one note vote instruction. In addition, on a systemic level, others may fear some kind of insidious impact as we push the edges of the envelope further to encourage, and for all practical purposes make it de rigueur, ever more strategic tricks and maneuverings to the detriment of a full public dialogue on the issues.
Following on this and relevant to the numerous comments of the past week, I read with interest everyone’s take on the influential factors for the successful candidates. These ranged from home district advantage to civic association activism to incumbency to spin-off impact in association with another candidate. I suspect a look at successful candidates will reveal a combination of such factors. What was striking to me was the absence in the dialogue and in the public expressed analysis of such factors as a candidate’s level of knowledge of facts and issues, analytical skills, ability to respond to tough questions extemporaneously, yada, yada, yada. Maybe these attributes were all assumed in the identification of the other factors. Of course, they should be. Maybe we won’t know this to be true until that day when we have a successful candidate who hails from District 6 (small voting population; weak civic association), is new to elected politics (non-incumbent) and is not on a slate, formal or otherwise, but is really, really smart. Yeah, you’re right, probably never happen. Too bad, that recurrent Adlai Stevenson syndrome that seems to permeate American and, alas, Rockville politics.
John Britton
City Councilmember
This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!
5 Comments
Leave a Reply
Read our comment policy. Please be civil. Don't write something you would not say to someone's face. COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. We reject comments with vulgarities, obscenities, or that personally attack other commenters. We also reject comments that do not use full names. We MAY BAN ip addresses where we detect multiple aliases posting.
Subscribe in a reader
John, obviously speaking only for myself and only in reference to the mayoral race, I was, as were you, a firm supporter of Mayor Hoffmann.
By every possible objective measure-and subjective ones as well-there is absolutely no way that Phyllis Marcuccio was the better candidate. That she was the victor gives rise to all the other factors.
I believe that’s why, as you write, this is true:
“What was striking to me was the absence in the dialogue and in the public expressed analysis of such factors as a candidate’s level of knowledge of facts and issues, analytical skills, ability to respond to tough questions extemporaneously, yada, yada, yada.”
Bullet voting is built in to our voting system. We have a set up wherein your fourth choice can defeat your first choice. If you feel strongly enough that one candidate is better than another, your bullet vote makes it less likely that your fourth choice will defeat your first choice. Bullet voting is self punishing, in that you give up your ability to select a full council when you choose to support only one candidate.
If we wanted to be rid of bullet voting we could do so by voting in rank order. Rather than voting for four candidates with no priority stated, we could have a system where you vote you 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4rth choice. Your first choice gets 4 votes, 2nd gets three votes, 3rd gets two votes, and 4rth gets one vote. This ‘weighted ballot’ would reduce bullet voting, and perhaps ensure an outcome more in keeping with the electorates desires.
The increased bullet voting in District 1 reflected the fact that Hungerford learned in 2007 that a fourth choice could defeat a first choice. I didn’t push bullet voting. I would prefer people vote a full ticket. Some of my neighbors chose to bullet vote for me. I appreciate their support.
Note that I make no claims about how such a voting system would have effected the outcome in this election.
Councilmember-elect Britton,
Maybe expected results, such as knowledgeable incumbents being re-elected, are not so discussed because they are seen as validations of what is subjectively assumed to be a rational process. The merits seems obvious. In contrast, unexpected results cry out for analysis and hypothesis.
On another note, I went back and calculated the correlation coefficients for this election seasons bullet balloting percentages [(100*max. votes*4-dropped votes)/max. votes] versus each candidates vote percentage across the districts.
Surprisingly, my analysis indicates that your candidacy, and to a slightly lesser extent Newton’s, most positively correlated with dropped vote percentage. Conversely, Mark Van Balgooy had a <strongnegative correlation of nearly equal magnitude while Onley and Ovase experienced negative correlations to a lesser degree.
The genesis of such relationships is a matter of speculation. It should be noted that your vote percentages are negatively correlated with those of Van Balgooy. Were some voters split between Britton and Van Balgooy, choosing one or the other? Or were “Britton” voters somehow choosing nothing over Van Balgooy? Or is it all just statistical noise? I haven’t found an easy angle to hypothesize about this one, maybe because it is contrary to my own reasoning, as you’ll see below.
Based upon the legislative record, community record and candidate stated positions in various fora, I voted for you (John Britton), Piotr Gajewski, Susan Hoffman and Carl Henn. I also voted for Max Van Balgooy because I felt the East side needed a representative and in the end it came down to his honorable answer regarding COLA and step raises for city employees.
In hindsight this response feels like a stream of conscience (sic) amble around this seasons bullet voting.
“By every possible objective measure–and subjective ones as well–there is absolutely no way that Phyllis Marcuccio was the better candidate. That she was the victor gives rise to all the other factors.”
—Other factors, you mean like the fact that people voted and chose her? That’s the nature of the business. Two people can look at the exact same issue or data and just see things differently.
But a great thing about our City is we hold this group accountable every 2 years.
Andrew, the question regarding other factors is, “Why did some voters choose Marcuccio over Hoffman”?
Most of Marcuccio’s success can be attributed to a neutralized Hoffman incumbency advantage, east of the pike loyalty to their sole representative and retribution over Beall’s Grant II.
I also think that Hoffman and many voters didn’t take Marcuccio’s quixotic candidacy as seriously as they should have.