Archive for February 2010

Tri County Measure 66 Results by Precinct

image010

In general, Portland and neighboring areas were the most supportive of Measure 66 and the more suburban and rural areas of the Tri-County region were the most opposed.

For a more detailed view: large-tri-county-m661

image012

In general, central Portland was the most supportive of Measure 66, but the support was not consistent throughout the area.

For a more detailed view: large-tri-county-portland-m66

Source of precinct geography: Metro. Source of election results: Clackamas County Elections, Multnomah County Elections, and Washington County Elections.

Oregon Statewide by County: Measures 66 and 67 Election Results

image0022

As has been noted in earlier posts, the strongest support for Measure 66 came from the northwest part of the state.

For a more detailed map: large-statewide-m66

image0042

The support for Measure 67 was highly correlated with the support for Measure 66. As has been noted in earlier posts, the strongest support for Measure 67 came from the northwest part of the state.

For a more detailed map: large-statewide-m67

Source of election return data: Oregon Secretary of State.

Jan. 2010 Special Election Turnout by Party

image0021

The Republican turnout rate was five points (4.86%) better than the Democratic turnout rate. This is about as good a turnout as Republicans could reasonably expect.

For comparison, during the past twenty years, the best general election year was when Republicans had a 4.4% edge in 1994; the year Republicans took back Congress after 40 years. Going further back in time gets complicated because of the growth of independent voters and the changing demographics of the two parties on a national and state level act to guarantee a Republican edge.

Given the healthy Republican turnout advantage, there are several inferences one can make:

1. The Republican grass roots Get-out-the-vote (GOTV) is, if not equal to or better than, at least reasonably comparable to the Democratic grass roots GOTV. The Republicans certainly did not lose this round of GOTV.

2. The victory of the two tax measures would have been much greater at almost any other time in the past decade or more assume that the measures and the campaigns were the same. However, one can reject the measures being the cause. The temporary income tax increases in 2003 and 2004 both failed. Therefore, these measures were won by the campaign: either the money advantage or a messaging advantage, or both.

3. This kind of turnout advantage reflects the size of the Republican advantage the national polls are observing. This is likely to translate into Republican votes later in the year because support and opposition to measures is much more malleable than partisan support.

This research is based on an analysis of the voted list and the eligible voter list for the January 2010 Special Election.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

An Early Look at Pennsylvania Redistricting (2008 Census Estimates)

image012

This map provides a preliminary look, based on 2008 data, of how state legislative seats will be shifted due to the 2011 redistricting. The more red the county the greater (hotter) the percentage increase or the more blue the smaller (cooler) the percentage increase in estimated population between the 2000 Census and the July 1, 2008 population estimate. Please keep in mind, first, that the map presents are only relative changes and, second, that geographic size does not always correlate to population size.

The counties expected to gain the most representation in the state legislature are (in house seats):
Chester  85%
York  61%
Lancaster 41%
Berks  41%
Monroe  40%
Northampton 39%
Lehigh  39%
Montgomery 29%
Bucks  26%
Cumberland 21%
Pike  21%
Franklin 20%

The counties expected to lose the most representation in the state legislature are (in house seats):
Philadelphia -148%
Allegheny -137%

The senate’s gains and losses would be proportionate, only smaller.

Pennsylvania is expected to lose one congressional district.
Despite the loss statewide, there would be some counties that would actually gain congressional representation.
The counties with the greatest gain would be:
Chester 4%
Monroe 2%
York 2%

The counties with the greatest loss would be:
Philadelphia -25%
Allegheny -23%
Essentially, the big cities would lose the most representation.

Please remember that redistricting can be a quirky process and that these estimates are population weights only, not measurements of actual political power after the redistricting process. Future posts are planned that will provide updated information and analysis as the 2011 reapportionment approaches.

Source of data: U. S. Census
Estimates of congressional seat gains and losses: Polidata, 12/23/09 press release.

An Early Look at California Redistricting (2008 Census Estimates)

image002

This map provides a preliminary look, based on 2008 data, of how state legislative seats will be shifted due to the 2011 redistricting. The more red the county the greater (hotter) the percentage increase or the more blue the smaller (cooler) the percentage increase in estimated population between the 2000 Census and the July 1, 2008 population estimate. Please keep in mind, first, that the map presents are only relative changes and, second, that geographic size does not always correlate to population size.

The counties expected to gain the most representation in the state legislature are (in assembly seats):
Riverside 92%
San Bernardino 35%
Kern  18%
Placer  16%
Sacramento 14%
San Joaquin 13%

The counties expected to lose the most representation in the state legislature are (in assembly seats):
Los Angeles -102%
Alameda   -20%
Orange   -17%
Santa Clara  -13%
San Mateo  -12%
San Diego  -11%

Essentially, an assembly seat will move from Los Angeles County a bit south to Riverside County.
The senate’s gains and losses would be proportionate, only smaller.

No change is expected in the number of California congressional districts.

Please remember that redistricting can be a quirky process and that these estimates are population weights only, not measurements of actual political power after the redistricting process. Future posts are planned that will provide updated information and analysis as the 2011 reapportionment approaches.

Source of data: U. S. Census
Estimates of congressional seat gains and losses: Polidata, 12/23/09 press release.

2002 Oregon Democratic Gubernatorial Primary: Kulongoski Relative Vote

image015

Kulongoski won the Primary. Kulongoski was a former statewide elected official. Decades earlier, Kulongoski was a state legislator from Lane County.

The critical importance for Democrats of winning the Portland media market is evident in this map. The Portland media market covers all of Oregon except from Lane County (Eugene) south in western Oregon, the northeast corner of the state, and the southern tier of counties in central and eastern Oregon.

The adage of “dominate the dominant media market” held true for Democrats. Kulongoski was the candidate of the Democratic establishment. Kulongoski did best in the Portland media market.

Oregon 2002 Democratic Primary Statewide Results
Kulongoski 48.21%
Hill  26.05%
Stein  21.60%
Other   4.14%

Map range consists of shades of green with more intense green indicating more intense support.

For a general discussion of this contest, the statewide percentages for each of the three major candidates. and a map of which counties were won by which candidate please see this post: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=1789

Source of election returns: Oregon Secretary of State.

Jan. 2010 Election: Turnout Pct. by Party and Voter Category

image010

This graph represents turnout by party and by voter category.

Turnout generally increases as vote propensity increases. High propensity voters turned out in high percentages. New voters, though, turned out more than low propensity voters.

Also, except for “new voters,” Republican turned out in higher percentages than Democrats in every past-participation category.

Finally, Democratic turnout was relatively low. For given categories based on past participation, they generally turned out at lower rates, and except for “new voters” never at higher rates, than non-major-party voters.

In general, one should be careful of perceptual biases of three-dimensional graphs. However, since the lessons of this one are so clear, the importance of those caveats are minimized.

New voters are those who registered since March 2009 and were not previously registered somewhere else in Oregon.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.

Ballot Return Demographics for Jan. 2010 Oregon Election: Voter Category

image008

Voters are grouped by their vote propensity. How many of the past four primaries and generals (2006 and 2008) they voted in or if they were new voters.

Very high propensity voters, who voted in 4 of the past 4 primaries and generals, voted the  earliest. All other categories lagged significantly. Interestingly, new voters, 0/4, and 3/4 voters were clustered together above 1/4 and 2/4 voters. This is unusual. Usually there is a relatively consistent rank ordering from, earlier to later, 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 1/4, 0/4, and, latest, new voters.

This graph represents the share of those who eventually voted who had returned their ballots by the date indicated. All ballots were returned by Jan. 26.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.

Ballot Return Demographics for Jan. 2010 Oregon Election: Party

image006

The major party members voted earliest. Minor party and non-affiliated voters, “Other Party,” voted later.

This graph represents the share of those who eventually voted who had returned their ballots by the date indicated. All ballots were returned by Jan. 26.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.

Ballot Return Demographics for Jan. 2010 Oregon Election: Age

image004

Voters can be divided into three groups. Those aged 60 plus voted earliest, those aged 45 through 59 voted next earliest, and those voted 44 and younger voted latest.

This graph represents the share of those who eventually voted who had returned their ballots by the date indicated. All ballots were returned by Jan. 26.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.