Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: Rockville Schools

School overcrowding has recently become an issue in Rockville. Overcrowding at Beall Elementary school was described and denounced by a crowd of about 30 parents at a recent meeting of the Mayor and Council. In response to this and the recognition that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance prohibits the construction of new residential facilities when local schools have reached 110% of capacity, the Mayor and Council have been motivated to meet with County Board of Education officials and tour school facilities.

Relief of overcrowding is a real need but there are other problems that exist in the school system that should also be addressed. The following table is extracted from school data available on the Montgomery County Board of Education website in “Schools at a Glance 2009-2010″. It shows the great diversity that now exists in the elementary schools that serve Rockville.

Click for larger image

The first column shows the percentage of the student body below the poverty level and thus eligible for Free and Reduced Meals. The second shows the current population ratio to capacity, the third shows the projected ratio in 2015. The next column shows the composite grade 2 test score. The S/T is the student teacher ratio and the last is the teacher salary expense in $1000. per student.

A study of the table is helpful in understanding the geography of poverty in the city. Also note where poverty is high, the student teacher ratio is low. The county makes an effort to put more resources where it is needed.

On Friday, October 15, the Washington Post reported on a study of Montgomery County Schools done by Heather Schwartz of the Century Foundation. It showed how students from poverty backgrounds did better in school when they made up a minority of the student body. To quote from the article:

After seven years, the children in low poverty schools performed 8% higher on standardized math tests than their peers attending higher poverty schools - even though the county had targeted them with extra resources.

Other studies have shown the vital importance of good teachers. A poor teacher in one grade level can have a lingering negative effect for many years.

In summary, it is not the facilities or the resources that make for a successful school but the human environment - the teachers and the students with whom you go to school.

The future of Rockville is dependent on our future employee pool. Even though the county has direct control of Rockville schools, the city needs to exercise a continuing commitment to the education of our younger citizens. We are becoming increasingly dependent on high technology. Our future citizens must be adequately prepared to compete successfully for future jobs.

Roald Schrack

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: Growing Old In Rockville [Updated]

>Rockville was incorporated on March 10, 1860. The city will celebrate its 150th birthday with appropriate pride. The residents have been getting older too. In the 1950′s the population of Rockville was about 5000 people. The development of affordable housing attracted young families from Washington D.C. and Rockville grew at a rate of about 2000 people a year. This baby boom generation that led to the rapid growth of the city is now reaching retirement age. The graph below shows the expected increase in population of Rockville residents age 65 and over. This graph is based on a Task Force Report prepared by Senior Services Long Range Plan Task Force in 2006. The task force called attention to the “coming Tsunami” with numerous suggestions for city action in anticipation.

Graph mistakenly omited from original post.

These seniors are retiring in a very bad time economically. Most have seen their savings greatly reduced because of the stock market crash and the crash in housing values.. Over half of the retirees in the city depend on Social Security, 1/3 are “highly dependent” on Social Security. The average Social Security is about $1000/ month. There are a few affluent seniors who can afford the luxurious retirement community recently built in King Farm but the vast majority cannot. The city desperately needs affordable senior housing. It is thus especially tragic that the proposed 68 86 unit facility, Victory Court, that was to supply affordable senior housing has withdrawn its request for support from the city that would have enabled it to obtain tax credit funding from the state. With tax credit funding it would have been possible to set a rent of $1000 making the units affordable by the 1/3 of city seniors “highly dependent” on Social Security. Further development of Victory Court depends on finding alternative financing and completing site review by the Planning Commission.

The growing number of seniors in the city should have a political effect. The graph above shows a projection of the senior fraction of the total vote. This projection is based of past patterns of behavior and represents a best guess. It shows that in the next Rockville election in 2011 seniors will contribute between 35 and 40 % of the total vote. By 2020 seniors will contribute the majority of the vote. It is probable when seniors command a majority of the vote that their needs will receive greater support than they do now.

Roald Schrack

[UPDATED 2/9/10: The original post did not include the "Projected Senior Population in Rockville" Graph provided by R. Schrack, which has been added above.]

[UPDATED 2/9/10: The digits in the number of units were transposed. The figure has been corrected.]

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. 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!

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: Voter Participation In Rockville For The Past 22 Elections

>The voter participation figures are usually given in terms of votes per number on registration list. The recent surge in Democratic registrations before the 2008 presidential elections increased the registration list so that even though there are more voters in the 2009 Rockville election than in the 2007 election, the relative participation numbers went from 20% in 2007 , down to 17% in 2009. It is probable that the county registration list may actually shrink from 2008 to 2010. The county Board of Elections website shows a net loss for November and a net gain for December in the number of registered voters.

In 1987 the city switched from maintaining its’ own registration list to using the somewhat larger County registration list. Before 1987 the city had participation rates of 60% and 70%. Going to the larger County registration list reduced participation rates to about 20%.

Comparison of participation rates in Rockville elections can be very confusing and misleading The following graph shows the voting history in Rockville from 1968 to 2009, with participation based on registration lists in the upper curve. The lower curve shows participation based on city population. Note that this curve is relatively flat, staying about 10% from 1968 to 2009. The major excursions are in 1985 when Van Grack spent more than $10. A vote and in 1993 when Coyle had no opposition.

The final curve shows the ratio of registration to total population. Ideally, the number of Rockville residents over 18 should be used but that data is not readily available.

The purpose of this study is to show that participation calculations based on registration lists can be greatly misleading. The fraction of the population that votes in City elections is not as high as might be desired but it is a relatively constant fraction of the population and has remained relatively constant for the past 22 elections.

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!

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: 2009 Election Finances Update

>In 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 December 3rd showed increases up to 30% in expenditures of some candidates. Most candidates had changes much smaller. The final line of the table comparing the last 4 elections needs modification The expenditures in 2009 are now much closer to the peak year of 2005.

The financial reports of the candidates can now be found on the city website.

A comparison of expenditures in 2009 to previous elections is presented in the table below.
The very low numbers shown for $/Vote occurred in years that the Mayor and Council ran as a slate, greatly reducing expenses for individual candidates. Since there was no opposition to Coyle and his slate, there was no significant expenditure of money.

The graph labeled Votes per Donor shows in graphic form the relative votes obtained per donor. Donors are a major outreach method for a candidate. Marcuccio was remarkably effective in getting 190 donors but not as effective as other candidates in turning these assets into votes. It is possible that some slating took place to augment her vote total.

The final graph shows the cost of a vote for the candidates. The highly competitive race between Marcuccio and Hoffmann made them pay more for a vote than would be the case for a less competitive race. In the table showing the cost per vote in other elections it can be seen that in weak or non- competitive races the cost per vote drops markedly. For the council races where the candidates were closely matched in relative ability, it is clear that there is a strong correlation between campaign expenditure and votes obtained. Consider the cases of Henn and Pierzchala. Pierzchala spent nearly twice as much as Henn and beat him by only 62 votes. It is probably true that the $6000 Pierzchala invested in his race was necessary for him to win.

The new modified tables that include the December data are shown for contributions and expenditures. The tables include an additional column showing the amounts added in the December 3rd reports.

The amounts added in the last report are quite large in some cases, but there is no indication that an attempt was made to conceal donations. Such a move might have negative consequences for it would be held against the candidate if they ran again and in addition the candidate would lose the appearance of strength before the election that could help them get votes. It is interesting to note that the largest increase in expenditures in the December report was by Marcuccio, who won.

New Cash Cont. - from the December 3 financial report
Total Cash Cont.- Total cash contribution to candidate including December 3 contributions.
# 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
Unpaid Loans - Value of loan, usually made by a candidate to their campaign. None of these has been repaid.

New Expenditures - from the December 3 financial report
Total Expenditures - All expenditures including December 3 expenditures
Balance - Amount left in campaign account. Loans have not been repaid.
Ave. Cont. - Average contribution, Cash Contributions divided by number of donors.
Votes - Votes received by candidate
$/vote - Expenditures divided by number of votes.
Votes/donor - Votes divided by number of donors.

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!

Contributor Opinion by R.A. Schrack: The 2009 Rockville Election Finances

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!

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: 2009 Rockville Election Analysis

The following >contributor opinion by Roald Schrack is adapted and reformated from a longer report he wrote and sent as a pdf:

This election attracted a number of Council candidates because there were two open seats. One seat on the council was open because Councilmember Marcuccio decided to run for Mayor. The other seat became open because Councilmember Anne Robbins retired. Two of the incumbent Council members, Britton and Gajewski were running for reelection. In addition, there were eight new Council candidates running for the two open seats. The multitude of choices were more of a challenge than a help for the voter. The turnout was larger than in 2007, probably because the weather was pleasant all day. As in 2007, the heavy electioneering did not get started until labor day. The City televised 3 forums and there were an additional four not televised. All forums were well attended. The Gazette newspaper carried interviews with all the candidates, and the City Channel 11 ran four minute speeches by each candidate. The website Rockville Central carried a lively discussion on the campaign, so there were many avenues available for the voters to learn about the candidates.

Topics of discussion were related to the economic situation and budget pressures. The state had defaulted on $2.4 million, and the city manager rebalanced the budget by deferring some capital projects and freezing hiring. There was a deferral of some garage fees to make the Town Center more accessible to shoppers in the evening and on Saturdays after much pressure by Town Center merchants. There was some discussion of the need for civility on the Mayor and Council. A little humor was added when the question of chicken raising in the city was brought up. The garbage collection question of once or twice a week that had been a heavy topic in the previous election was no longer a hot topic. Once a week had been in operation in most of the city and accepted. Not discussed at forums but an underlying element in the election was a widespread feeling of insecurity. Home prices had dropped, people were losing jobs, businesses were closing. Rockville had previously been largely insulated from economic conditions in the rest of the country because of the heavy influence of government operations. Even though the impact on the city was far less than in many other communities, still what changes did occur caused insecurity, especially about home values. Most home prices had dropped since the last election. Protecting communities from developments that might endanger home values became a largely unspoken but potent element in the campaign. The Gazette attributed the unexpected victory of Bridget Newton, with the highest vote on the Council to her position on neighborhood protection.

The large number of candidates causes a modification of the votes needed to win. If there are only two candidates then a simple majority of over 50% of the total vote is needed to win. In this election there were 10 people running for four Council seats. Of course the candidates with the four highest vote counts win, but dependent on the way the votes are distributed, a candidate with as few as 40% of the total vote can win. This 40% is further reduced by the voters that “bullet balloted”, i.e., did not use all of the four votes they had. In some districts this additional factor reduced the percentage to win to 37%.

The following table compares participation in this election with the last three elections. “Previous voters” refers to people that have voted in at least one of the last four elections. “New Registrations” refers to those people that have been added since the 2007 election. The average probability of voting is strongly dependent on past voting history. New Registrants have an average probability of voting of about 10%. The number of ballots cast in an election divided by the total number of registered voters (B/R) is called the “participation” level in an election. The values shown here are typical for municipal elections.

Table Comparing Participation

In previous elections the number of requests for absentee ballots has been a good predictor of the number of voters appearing at the polls. The table below shows the results for the last four elections

Year: Requests/Ballots
2003: 192/.031
2005: 213/.033
2007: 213/.036
2009: 221/.034

The graph below shows a comparison of voter participation for the various districts has the same shape as in 2007 but is everywhere a little less. This characteristic shape is relatively constant over many years and reflects the average voting probabilities of residents of those districts. The relative participation may remain the same but it will be shown later that those same residents can markedly alter who they vote for from one election to the next.

The graph below shows the relative votes for Mayor in the different districts. Marcuccio beat Hoffmann by at least 10% in four districts that really determined the election. The relatively low participation rates of the districts that Hoffmann did well in meant that she could not overcome the losses elsewhere.

It is interesting to compare the 2007 and 2009 vote patterns for the two candidates in the graphs below. Note that the Hoffmann 2007 and 2009 are comparable in shape. Note that the 2007 and 2009 graphs for Marcuccio are completely different in shape. It is interesting to speculate on the source of this difference.

The graph below shows an attempt to fabricate a vote distribution for Marcuccio from her vote in 2007 and two other factors that contributed to her vote total in 2009. The factors used are:
1) We can see from the Hoffmann vote comparison for 2007 and 2009 that Hoffmann lost votes in districts 1-5. Lets assume 80% of them went to Marcuccio.
2) It was clear by election day from yard signs and endorsements that there was a lot support for voting for Newton and Marcuccio. It doesn’t count if a voter was already for Marcuccio before Newton entered the race so we subtracted from the Newton vote those that had voted for Marcuccio in 2007.
This new factor was then weighted by 80%. Factors 1) and 2) were then added to the 2007 Marcuccio vote (shown as M07 in the graph) . The sum of these 3 terms is then shown as NH in the graph and should be compared to the curve M09 which shows the actual 2009 Marcuccio vote.

While the curve NH is closer to M09 than M07, it is still far from a good fit. What we could not do is change our 80% value as a function of district, which it clearly is the case in fact. It is interesting that Hoffmann got stronger support in district 6 in 2009 than she did in 2007. This increase in support for Hoffmann in district 6 is responsible for the drop in Marcuccio support shown in the curve M09 in that district.

Turning to the Council races, the graph below shows the vote fraction for the four winning council candidates as a function of district. There does not seem to be any evidence of “Slating”, e.g., to vote for two or more of the candidates together as the shapes of the curves are all different. Also below graphs are shown comparing the vote distributions in this and the previous election for the two council members that were reelected. Britton increased his average vote fraction in all but two districts. Gajewski has retained pretty much the same pattern, losing votes in four districts.

One of the graphs below shows the vote distribution for the losing council candidates. There is no apparent similarity in the shapes of the curves, their appeal varied widely in different sections of the city. Some candidates came close to winning. Of particular note is Carl Henn. In 2007 he lost by 113 votes, in 2009 he lost by 62 votes. Also shown below is a graph showing the missing vote fraction for the various districts. As mentioned earlier, not every voter uses the full four votes available. The graph shows the average loss of such votes. It is not possible to know whether a value of .5 means that half the voters only voted for three council members or whether it means that one voter out of eight didn’t vote for any council members - or something in between. In the past there were candidates that urged their supporters to only vote for them or some other strategy designed to give them an advantage. The missing ballot curve below does not resemble the vote pattern for any candidate but may represent some strategy in specific districts. In any case the missing ballots are not large enough to have had a large effect in the election.

Roald Schrack

Here is a link to the numerical results for the election as reported by the city of Rockville. The graphs in this report are based on this data. Here is a link to the City of Rockville website showing the voting districts.

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!

Rockville Central does not endorse candidates. We are encouraging towards all people who choose to run for office the city and try our best to make ourselves open to all. We actively encourage candidates to submit opinion pieces and other news. We don’t include every last bit, but we try to be fair to all and give useful information about what is happening.

State Board Approves New Court House On Old Library Site

>Rockville Central friend Roald Schrack attended an important Board of Public Works meeting yesterday and sent along the following report:

Yesterday, October 15, there was a meeting of the State Board of Public Works that I attended. The Board consists of Gov. Martin O’Malley, Treas. Nancy Kopp and Comptroller Peter Franchot. The Board must approve all public works in the state.

The board unanimously approved the construction of the planned courthouse in Rockville at its planned location on the old library site. The meeting was a public hearing with many items up for decision. Testimony in favor of the planned location was presented by former Mayor Rose Krasnow and [state senator] Jennie Forehand. Testimony against the courthouse construction was presented by Frank Anastasi. The members of the board spoke extensively about their decision and reviewed many points made by proponents and opponents. They consistently supported the construction of the courthouse in the library location. This hearing was the final step in approving the courthouse construction.

Thank you, Roald, for the update.

Daryl Davis In Rockville Town Square

>Rockville Central friend Roald Schrack was on hand to catch renowned blues and boogie-woogie artist Daryl Davis play a few days ago in Rockville Town Square and caught it all on video. He was kind enough to make some of it available:

(If you are getting this in email and can’t see the video, click here to come back to Rockville Central and see it.)

Thanks Roald!

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: Report On Court House Activities

>The following contributor opinion is by Roald Schrack. It is a report he wrote for the members of the Alliance of Rockville Citizens:

I have struggled about how to report the Mayor and Council activities about the Courthouse location. First let me disclose that I, personally, do not think there are adequate reasons to block the construction of the courthouse in the current location. In large measure I see this conflict in the same light that I see the way the trash issue developed as the work of a very vocal minority to impose its position on the city. But the real problem I have is the way that the Mayor and Council went about it. I am very sorry to say that people that I strongly backed for election to the M&C have acted in what I consider is a very unfortunate manner.

The meeting of the M&C on March 3 was a calculated effort to justify the desires of the West End Citizens Association (WECA). Known only to the activists in WECA and its allies a plan was made to pass a motion that night. There was nothing on the agenda to warn supporters of the library site location that there would be action taken. But WECA and its allies arranged that people supporting their position should be there to testify in behalf of moving the courthouse location. Meanwhile it was necessary to have a motion prepared in advance to vote on. To have any political effect in Annapolis, such a motion must have unanimous support. It took a number of emails back and forth to all the councilmembers to achieve a wording that was acceptable to all the members of the M&C. Finally, on the afternoon of March 3 the final version was crafted.

The following wording of the motion was read by John Britton at the M&C meeting:

“While the Mayor and Council are committed to the construction of a District Courthouse in the City of Rockville, the Mayor and City Council, and the City of Rockville oppose the location of the District Courthouse in its currently proposed configuration at the Southwest corner of East Jefferson Street and Maryland Ave. and desire to have it relocated. In furtherance of this position, the Mayor and Council authorize its representative to testify on behalf of the Mayor and Council before the State Legislative Committee to express its opposition to the current courthouse proposal.”

The motion was passed unanimously. The only problem was that the motion agreed to by email a few hours before did not include the words in boldface. Most members of the M&C did not notice the change in wording and no indication of the change was made. During the next two days some members found that they had voted for something other than what they thought. It should not be considered surprising then that at a “Town Hall” meeting of the M&C with WECA on March 13 , councilmember Marcuccio stood up at the end of the meeting and announced her opposition to any further city actions to move the courthouse and withdrew her support for city testimony that was to be given against the site.

The Mayor wanted to testify on Friday, March 14 at Annapolis but now a member of the council was no longer supporting the attempt to move the courthouse. Interestingly, the letter to the State was backdated to March 12, to a time when it still appeared that the full Mayor and Council supported the effort to move the courthouse. On Friday, the Senate Committee voted to allot $41 M for the first year of construction and then $30M for the second year. From comments at the House committee hearing, it looks like the House will also move ahead with construction at the library site.

In a parallel move to block the construction of the courthouse at the library site, there was an attempt to declare the old library a Historic Site and thus immune from destruction. The Planning Commission denied the request last week. Another move planned by opponents of the courthouse is to sue the State to stop it. Councilmember Marcuccio told the WECA meeting that she felt that: “there was plenty of documentation to suggest you don’t really have a case.” At this point there are no other moves known.

The back history of the activities of groups and individuals in the plan to block the courthouse construction is very disquieting. Rockville was known for its open and transparent government.

What now?

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: Voter Turnout In City Elections

>The following contributor opinion is by Roald Schrack, adapted from a longer report he wrote for the Alliance of Rockville Citizens:

The recently released updated voter list shows who voted in the November 2007 Rockville election and allows an investigation of the level of the voter turnout. Age distribution, partisan party affiliation, differences between Rockville districts, and previous voting history were examined. No patterns were seen that could have explained the level of turnout except previous voting history.

It is revealing to compare the results for the recent 2007 election with 20% participation and the 2001 election with 28% participation. The term “voters” means a person who has voted at least once during the previous 3 elections. The term “non-voters” means either someone that has been on the rolls and not voted or a person that has been added to the voter rolls since the last election.

The first difference to notice in the charts is the larger fraction of non-voters in the 2007 chart. This is due to a large influx of new voters in 2007. Note that the “voter” group has a slightly larger probability of voting in 2007 than 2001 but the opposite is true for the “non-voters” with over twice the probability of voting for “non-voters” in 2001 as in 2007. This difference is the source of the higher overall participation in 2001.

This great change in voting probability for the “non-voter” was due to a change in electioneering done in the two elections. In the 2001 election one candidate spent $32,000, over twice as much as any candidate in 2007. That large expenditure allowed the candidate to mail literature to a larger segment of the population. In 2007 no literature was sent to any “non-voters.” Mailing to all voters costs over four times as much as mailing only to the “voters” and the expected return of votes is only a third. It is a very inefficient use of limited campaign funds to mail to the entire voter list, but this is the only way to raise the number of votes in an election.

One of the virtues of running for office in Rockville is the relatively small amount of money needed to run for office. The lowest amount spent by a winner in 2007 was less than $5,000. This low level of expenditure means that candidates can receive sufficient funds to get elected from their friends and neighbors and need not accept money from interests that might then exercise influence over them after their election. Perhaps it would be desirable if the City Board of Elections had as one of its responsibilities a effort to get out the vote from all sectors of the electorate.

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.