Contributor Opinion by R.A. Schrack: The 2009 Rockville Election Finances
Nov 23, 2009 7:53 - 15 Comments
UPDATE SINCE ORGINAL POSTING: An updated Contributions Table has been included below.>There were 12 candidates that filed financial reports during the 2009 election cycle. This report is based on the first 2 reports that were submitted to the city before the election. There is one more report due, but it would be very unusual for this last report to alter the conclusions of this report.
The table below compares the results of the last four elections.
The low participation rate of .17 probably is due to the large number of new voters registered for the 2008 presidential campaign. The values for individual candidates are given on the next page. Mailings usually went out to about 8000 voters who had been active in previous elections. Candidates made different levels of effort in soliciting funds. One candidate sent out stamped-self addressed- envelopes that seemed to be very effective in getting a large number of donors. Many candidates had large fractions of their donors live outside of Rockville. This can result from support from co-workers and/or relatives, and no negative intent is implied.
The data in this report can be found on the city website: /www.rockvillemd.gov/election09/ To see a financial report, click on the candidate. Then on the candidate page click on the report date desired.
The graph above shows the relationship of votes obtained to number of donors. The dashed line shows the average of 48 votes for every donor. Candidates to the left of the line did better than average. Below it is a graph of votes per dollar spent. Again the dashed line shows the average of 44 cents spent for every vote received. Note that John Britton only had to spend 11 cents for each vote If he were a truly independent first-time candidate like the candidates beneath him on the graph he probably would not have done this well. He probably profited by a combination of incumbency, slating and some bullet balloting.
Marcuccio spent the greatest amount, $16,286 for a cost of $4.92 per vote. It is interesting to note that in 2007 Marcuccio had 88 donors. Only 44 of those donors also contributed in 2009. In addition she got 12 new donors from Anne Robbins 2007 donor list and 8 new donors from Bridget Newton’s list. Most donor lists were composed of names unique to the candidate. For example, Marcuccio had over a hundred new unique donors in 2009. Of the 608 donors listed for all candidates, only about a dozen appeared on several donor lists.
Contributions
Originally Posted Table:
Cash Cont.- Total cash contribution to candidate
# Donors – Total contributions list. There may be duplications
# N-R Donors – number of contributors with non-Rockville addresses
% N-R Donors – % of Donors with non-Rockville addresses
In-Kind Cont. – Value of listed in-kind contributions.
Total Cont. – sum of cash and in-kind contributions
Loans – Value of loan, usually made by a candidate to their campaign. None of these has been repaid.
Updated Table: Drew Powell used GIS to analyze the addresses of donors resulting in the following:
Expenditures
Expenditures – total expenditures
Balance – Amount left in campaign account. Loans have not been repaid.
Ave. Cont. – Average contribution, Cash Contributions divided by number of donors.
$/vote – Expenditures divided by number of votes.
Votes/donor – Votes divided by number of donors.
This report was based on the financial reports submitted October 1, 2009 and October 29,2009.
There is a report due on December 3, if it makes any major changes a supplemental report will be made.
Roald Schrack
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!
Follow on Twitter
Does anyone remember how much the two City of Rockville mayoral candidates spend on their campaign in 2005?The answer is: Larry Giammo spent a total of $38,301 and loaned himself $15,822. Brigitta Mullican’s total expenditure was $15,644. It is refreshing to see that the City of Rockville mayoral candidates did not need to spend over $20,000 to manage their campaigns this year. Receiving contribution is a major factor in a successful campaign.
Roald,In a comment within another article posted on this website, I drew the following conclusion (a refined version presented here)…I graphed non-incumbant candidates expenditures versus their vote totals and the best fit line (R-squared = 0.94!!!) of this data tells an interesting story. Basically, a $1000 “buy in” got a candidate 650 votes and the vote total increased by one for each $1.53 spent above that.What might explain these data? I have developed an idea that was inspired by something I read on Max Van Balgooy’s campaign website. Basically, his major expense was paying for the recent voter mailing list and I think this cost nearly $1000. So perhaps it is the access to the mailing list is the source of most non-incumbents basic impact and that the rest of the vote tally comes from purchased “exposure” .Candidates Onley and Pierzchala were not included in the above analysis as they represented outliers to the trend having spent significantly less and more than the others, respectively. However, the trend is essentially the same when they are added to the analysis (only the r-squared value is degraded). The source of Onley’s “efficiency” and Pierzchala’s “saturation” are matters for discussion.Regarding the candidacy of John Britton it seems clear that incumbency, indivdual voter-initiated slating and voter-initiated bulleting contributed to his relative vote total. However, this does not speak to the source of his low expenditure per vote received. Instead, I suggest that Councilmember Britton frugally decided to reuse the voter mailing list he had purchased during his initial candidacy. Therein lies what I suspect is the true genius of his candidacy.
Erik – Not sure you can exclude Mark and Virginia in your analysis… otherwise it is super easy to get the MultiR2 you want.Sounds like we need a Rockville Statistics Club!
As I tried to indicate, including Pierzchala and Onley doesn’t change the slope of the best fit much at all which indicates that their influence basically cancels as far as the trend is concerned. However, as outliers they do reduce the R-squared value.Personally, I suspect their may be some influence underlying their divergence from the rest of the non-incumbent pack. For example, I went back and looked at my data and I realized that Onley’s total is missing the October 28th reporting to the Gazette. I suspect the December 3rd reporting Roald was referring will bring Onley’s spending in line with other candidates expenditure per vote.Now as to Pierzchala’s value, a Dixon’s test for outliers gives a Q=0.41 (n=8) which is less than the 0.468 required for Q90%. So you are correct in suggesting that Pierzchala does not formally meet a rigorous statistical criteria for omission as an outlier. Still the r-squared value is 0.7 with votes now “costing” $1.88. The same question still arises, “Why did Pierzchala spend more per vote obtained”?PS I think every municipality needs a statistics club, if for no other reason than to promote math literacy
Erik, Not to burst the bubble of your analysis (or detract from my Council colleague’s “genius” label) but the voter list is free (except, if I recall correctly, a tiny charge for the CD).
I am glad to see the interest in the minutia of the campaign. It certainly is a lot of fun to play around with the data. 1) the voter list is supplied free to any resident. Just contact the city clerk’s office and they will send it to you by email.2) I have played fitting games and have given it up as it does not really tell you about how the campaign was run. There have been campaigns in which there was an inverse relationship between expenditures and votes! I do like to look at plots of data however and think they can be quite revealing.I personally helped many of the candidates in this election and for the past many years those that have asked for it. I am interested in seeing greater candidate and voter participation. There is a point at which you can have too many candidates. In this election you really had 8 people running for 2 available slots. That is way too many.3) networks not visible to the financial reports are probably more important than the reported data What is really revealing is to plot a candidate’s vote percentage as a function of the 10 districts and how it changes (if it does) from one election to the next. Analysis is made possible because we have 10 very different districts (demography, wealth, and civic association strength) I look forward to continuing interest of people with statistical discipline but I think that understanding of the mechanics of elections rests on a deeper understanding of what goes on than what can be discerned from the statistical analysis of data.
Councilmember Gajewski, Go ahead burst my bubble! Seriously, as I am a scientist by nature and training, I am not wedded to the hypothesis and I am glad to be corrected on any flawed assumptions under which I am laboring.In rejecting this hypothesis, I must conclude that the power of John Britton’s incumbency seems to be the wellspring of his low cost success.For the non-incumbent candidates there seems to have been a threshold level of expenditure somewhere around $1000 (though in fact, the best fit line I describe can be extrapolated below that amount at the cost of 1 vote per $1.50 spent). The lion’s share of expenditure seems to be listed as non-itemized “campaign materials” which I presume are direct mail and yard signs.Thus I wonder if this correlation I discern suggests Rockville elections can be skewed by the purchase additional exposure above that enjoyed by all candidates (e.g. community fora and news outlets)?If total exposure is a significant factor, on a scale comparable to the weight of ones record and positions, then your quarterly town halls are a good electoral investment in time (as well as being a boon to civic engagement and informed governance).NOTE: As Roald Shrack pointed out, the December 3rd reporting may very well change things.
Roald,Given the low percentage of voters who participate, I have no doubt “unseen” social networks have significant effects and I appreciate your efforts to discern such, or its absence, in the donor reporting data.Still, as I am relatively new at Rockville electoral analysis, I have yet to arrive at the conclusion that such unseen mechanisms confound analysis beyond value.As for candidate variation by district over time, I agree this is the most revealing comparison.This year it is hard to miss Marcuccio’s recent surge in district 2 popularity as the major factor in her electoral success. I can find but one reason for such a dramatic change in fortunes…Beall’s Grant II.
Piotr, the voter database is not free if you get it from the Montgomery County Board of Election. It might be free from the City of Rockville. I have purchased many lists from the MCBOE, especially after having found that voter history was missing from the 2005 voter database.For the 2007 City of Rockville Election neither the City Clerk nor the MC BOE could tell me how many sample ballots were returned for its mailing. That number would tell me how many bad addresses I used when mailing my 2007 campaign literature. My concern is that each candidate receives the best up-to-date registered voter list. I was not aware that in October 2007 the City had a more up-to-date listing for registered voters. Roald never told me about a later list. I used a July list. Many of my mailings were returned to the post office and went in the trash. Only first class mail is returned to the sender.I want to know how many sample ballots were returned in this Rockville Election. Not all candidates can send to all registered voters because of the availability of funds. I take more interest in accurate voter registration data and how much it costs to reach the voters than what the analysis is after the election. Statistic is fun, but doesn’t mean much to the winners or losers. You either WON or LOST. After the election all types of analysis can be made and argued. I must say I find the discussions amusing. Maybe more can be discussed with the City of Rockville Board of Supervisors of Elections.
Brigitta, I got the list I used from the Board of Elections. I only remember that the cost was trivial.
Birgitta,I suspect a returned sample ballot is not deemed sufficient cause for removing a voter from the list of registered voters. Isn’t a returned registered letter usually consider the basic standard by which to begin a legal challenge to a particular person’s voter status?As a matter curiousity, how were you able to determine that your mailings were being returned to the post office trash?As for statistics, you are free to judge their utility as you see fit, but you do not speak for any other candidate in this regard. Personally, I am not content with just-so stories about how things came to be and I endeavor to tease out those insights that might be supported by the available data. Feel free to ignore, contest or even possibly accept the formulated hypotheses.The data suggests, again, that for Rockville elections, campaign expenditure –> X –> votes. In an example dear to your heart, in 2005 Larry Giammo spent $8.50 per vote received ($38301/4502votes) versus your expenditure of $8.41 per vote received ($15664/1861votes). The unavoidable hypothesis from such a statistic is that Giammo purchased more exposure than you and this translated into more votes.
Brigitta mentions correctly that I got a voter list from the city in October. The list was given to me as it was received from the county. I found that there were no data given in the list for those that voted in 2005. Being defective and only having 425 more voters, mostly new voters who have a probability of voting of less than 10%. Most candidates do not have enough money to send out mailings to 33,000 people so most mailings are restricted to a group that has about 60% probability of voting, about 7500 people.The July mailing list for those with at least 60% voting probability was 7693 voters. The October list ( with the same 2005 data as the July list ) had 7492. Indicating 221 people were dropped because they moved or died. It is true that a candidate using the July list would have lost 2.8% of their investment but by the time I got the October list most people had done most of their mailings. The question was raised by Erik Read about Marcuccio’s increase in District 2 possibly being due to Ball’s Grant II. Yes, but perhaps indirectly. Newton was the main protagonist against Beall’s Grant II. She and her supporters made it clear that they were supporting the election of Marcuccio. I don’t recall any direct position taken by Marcuccio herself.
Roald, I watched the West End Civic Association fourm available on the Rockville City website.Hoffman attempted to thread the needle. She supported affordable housing, even though sited within her own West End community. Then Hoffman highlighted the nature of the compromise solution formed through negotiation amongst the interested parties.Marcuccio bluntly stated her opposition to Beall’s Grant II as being, “Density, density, density to the max” (paraphrased from memory).As a side note, both candidates touched on the proposed Victory Courtyard elderly housing development as well. Hoffman in favor, Marcuccio opposed. This development lies along my commute route not so far from my home, so it is a concrete interest for me.Since I think centrally located affordable housing adds value to a community and appreciate a spirit of compromise in good faith, I found Hoffman’s position more appealing on this issue. I was left wondering how Marcuccio could assert support for affordable housing but on the other hand oppose “increased density”?
I am sorry that I missed the West End Citizen’s Association Forum. I am also sorry to hear, but not surprised, that Marcuccio so clearly supported the West End position on Beall’s Grant II. It is clear that Marcuccio has developed a straight forward populist position. I am sure it won her many adherants but I think her outreach for financial support early in the campaign was an important factor in her victory. She raised her donor level from 88 in 2007 to over 170 in 2009. I believe the 84 donor increase led easily to her 900 new votes. That’s 11 votes for each new donor, easy to do when you consider that the average in the election was 48 votes per donor. It was a mistake for Hoffmann to decide not to have an aggressive donor drive. She easily got enough money from her friends and coworkers, many living outside the city. They gave money but they could not give their vote. Money is not that important in Rockville elections. There is only so much you can do with it. Donors that live in the city bring not only money but their vote and the ability to influence other voters. It is easy to be in favor of affordable housing and against increased density.It’s like being for motherhood and apple pie – the problem is developing affordable housing without increased density in some practical way. Of course increased density is right across the street from Beall’s Grant in the new town center but it is not affordable. The problem is the threat to home values. Remember that West End bitterly fought the new district courthouse and they lost. The desire to compromise on Beall”s Grant II is very weak. Stay tuned.
[...] the original report on November 18 the final candidate financial report had not been made. I stated that if the final report made any major changes that I would issue an update. The final report on [...]