![\"Net](\"http:\/\/www.olbert.com\/board\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/measure-s-net-yes-votes-tinted.jpg\")
<\/a>Net Yes votes for Measure S<\/p><\/div>\n
You can click on the image for a larger version (please note it’s a pretty large file). Areas tinted red produced Net Yes deficits, while those tinted green produced Net Yes surpluses. Color intensity corresponds to how big a deficit or surplus was produced. The more intense the color, the bigger the deficit or surplus. The golden borders are the approximate boundaries of the elementary school service areas.<\/p>\n
There are two striking things about this map. First, there are more intense red areas than intense green areas. While Measure S pulled ahead in a number of precincts, it didn’t do so by much. Conversely, there were a good number of areas where it lost pretty heavily.<\/p>\n
The other interesting thing I see is the way Measure S lost heavily in the hills behind Arundel. While both of my kids are now in high school, they both attended Arundel and Tierra Linda, and I know more people from that area of town. I thought I knew the area pretty well, and I thought it was a pretty strong supporter of the District. It was surprising to see it go so heavily against Measure S.<\/p>\n
I was less surprised to see what I might loosely call the southwest hill country of San Carlos go against Measure S. That’s because I believe there are relatively fewer households in that area with school age children, which would tend to reduce overall awareness of District issues.<\/p>\n
A takeaway from this analysis is that future campaigns ought to think about how to do a better job of outreach into the “hill country”. The density of kids attending District schools is probably lower in those areas, which means less “inherent” understanding of District issues. An organized effort to hold neighborhood outreach efforts might pay big dividends.<\/p>\n
It was also interesting to see that Measure S lost, although not heavily, some of the most “kid friendly” areas of the District, down on the “flats” (if someone would like to suggest a better term for that part of the District please email me at mark@arcabama.com<\/a>).<\/p>\n It’s also worth looking at how turnout varied across the District. Areas that generated large Net Yes vote surpluses but had low turnout could be targets for get-out-the-vote efforts the next time a tax initiative is put on the ballot. Here’s how turnout varied across the District:<\/p>\n Once again, you can click on the image for a larger version (it’s a pretty large file). The intensity of the tint corresponds to the relative turnout. The more intense the color, the higher the turnout.<\/p>\n What leaps out at me from this map is that the precinct that generated the most Net Yes votes also had one of the lower turnout rates. Assuming the campaign didn’t get every single Yes voter to go to the polls from that precinct, it could be an attractive place on which to focus. It also looks like we could do a better job of getting voters out from the eastern parts of the “flats”.<\/p>\n One last observation about turnout: precinct 3626 — the one on the leftmost edge, with the lightest tint — had the lowest turnout for Measure S. In fact, it was so low that if I hadn’t compressed the way the tints were calculated almost all the rest of the District would have been uniformly dark blue. There may be an interesting story in that precinct, which I’ll come back to in a later post.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While the election hasn’t been officially certified yet, it looks likely Measure S will end up failing. It didn’t miss by much — the latest count shows it getting 65.5% of the vote — but there are probably so few … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n