Albuquerque Municipal Election, Tuesday, October 5, 2005

[WMS]

Anyways...
Who took second place behind Chavez in what district?

Here you go, at personal time and expense, from the Official Canvass of Returns. More details at a later date when I have time to crunch the numbers.

First the quick answer, then the long one:

D1 - Griego
D4 - Winter
D5 - Winter
D7 - Winter
D8 - Winter
D9 - Winter

District 1, 6460 (WTF? Where did these people disappear to?) Mayoral Votes - Chavez (i) 3641/56.36%; Griego 1754/27.15%; Winter 961/14.88% (ouch); Steele 104/1.61%. Note: Chavez won EVERY consolidated precinct.
For fun, the Council Race, 5920 votes: Sanchez 3630/61.32%, Gomez (i) 2290/38.68%. Note: Like Chavez, Sanchez won EVERY consoildated precinct.

*WMS pauses to bask in his glow of self-satisfaction over this district's results*

District 2, 9632 votes - Griego 3950/41.01%; Chavez 3801/39.46%; Winter 1681/17.44%; Steele 200/2.08%. Hmm...in a runoff, Chavez might have taken this district as well.

District 3, 7750 votes - Griego 3760/48.52%; Chavez 2975/38.39%; Winter 864/11.15%; Steele 151/1.95%.

District 4, 10765 votes - Chavez 4926/45.76% (including my vote ); Winter 4069/37.80%; Griego 1537/14.28% (ouch); Steele 233/2.17%.

District 5, 10744 Mayoral votes - Chavez 6501/60.51% (he's our homie ); Winter 2578/24.00%; Griego 1512/14.07% (ouch); Steele 153/1.42%. Yes, Chavez won EVERY consolidated precinct here as well.
For fun, Council, 9731 votes: Cadigan (i) 6786/69.74% (a Dem in a Rep district...now this is constituency service in action!); Valdez 2945/30.26% (ouch). Yes, Cadigan won EVERY consolidated precinct here.

District 6, 7769 votes - Griego 3395/43.70%; Chavez 2885/37.135%; Winter 1313/16.90%; Steele 176/2.265%.

District 7, 13019 votes - Chavez 5866/45.06%; Winter 3628/27.87%; Griego 3166/24.32%; Steele 359/2.76% (yes, .01% rounding error, deal with it).

District 8, 12049 votes - Chavez 6131/50.88%; Winter 3959/32.86%; Griego 1713/14.22% (ouch); Steele 246/2.04%.

District 9, 9102 votes - Chavez 4366/47.97%; Winter 2726/29.95%; Griego 1773/19.48%; Steele 237/2.60%

[minionofmidas]

Thanks, very nice work!
D1 people - maybe low turnout?

[WMS]

Thanks, very nice work!
D1 people - maybe low turnout?

You're welcome! More details whenever I get the time for it.
Maybe...it's really damn low. Perhaps the population of D1 has a lot of people in apartments? Because I've noticed that apartment-dwellers (and multi-unit dwellers in general) have atrocious turnout rates...

[minionofmidas]

D1
MIGUEL A. GOMEZ    2,110            87    99    2,296    38.74%
KEN SANCHEZ              3,226    228    176    3,630    61.26%
5,926 Total Votes

COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 - Candidate/Issue - Precinct - Absentee - Early - Total - Percentage
ISAAC BENTON                3,563    246    178    3,987       55.72%
DIANA DORN-JONES    2,853        163     134     3,150    44.03%
DECLARED WRITE-IN         10      6    2         18    0.25%
7,155 Total Votes
COUNCIL DISTRICT 5 - Candidate/Issue - Precinct - Absentee - Early - Total - Percentage
MICHAEL CADIGAN    5,931        574    275       6,780   69.72%
BETTY VALDEZ                2,676    124        144        2,944    30.28%
9,724 Total Votes
 COUNCIL DISTRICT 7 - Candidate/Issue - Precinct - Absentee - Early - Total - Percentage
MARIANNE DICKINSON       3,617      467    158       4,242    34.75%
WAYNE A. JOHNSON        1,947    199     67      2,213    18.13%
SALLY MAYER                       4,665      608    156       5,429    44.48%
EDWARD DOUGLAS GLENN      249         58      15     322      2.64%
12,206 Total Votes

COUNCIL DISTRICT 9 - Candidate/Issue - Precinct - Absentee - Early - Total - Percentage
TINA L. CUMMINS    1,924          249    78    2,251     26.73%
VIVIAN CORDOVA           1,024          65    26    1,115     13.24%
CHRIS CATECHIS            1,856         194    61    2,111     25.07%
DON F. HARRIS              2,625    261      57      2,943    34.95%
8,420 Total Votes

District 1, 6460 vs 5920
District 2, 9632
District 3, 7750 vs 7155
District 4, 10765
District 5, 10744 vs 9731
District 6, 7769
District 7, 13019 vs 12206
District 8, 12049
District 9, 9102 vs 8420

D1 is on the West Side, after all... I assume the districts were last regerrymandered in 2000? That's an awfully high difference in vote no.s to be due just to changes in residence patterns over 5 years, so I'm assuming there must be a turnout effect.
First thing I can think of is people staying at home who identify with the left on many issues but being Westsiders take your stance on the infrastructure thing, and therefore weren't inspired by either candidate (both for mayor and for council) - does that make sense?

[WMS]

D1
MIGUEL A. GOMEZ    2,110            87    99    2,296    38.74%
KEN SANCHEZ              3,226    228    176    3,630    61.26%
5,926 Total Votes

District 1, 6460 vs 5920
District 2, 9632
District 3, 7750 vs 7155
District 4, 10765
District 5, 10744 vs 9731
District 6, 7769
District 7, 13019 vs 12206
District 8, 12049
District 9, 9102 vs 8420

D1 is on the West Side, after all... I assume the districts were last regerrymandered in 2000? That's an awfully high difference in vote no.s to be due just to changes in residence patterns over 5 years, so I'm assuming there must be a turnout effect.
First thing I can think of is people staying at home who identify with the left on many issues but being Westsiders take your stance on the infrastructure thing, and therefore weren't inspired by either candidate (both for mayor and for council) - does that make sense?

Yes, Lewis, I did notice more people voted for Mayor than Councillor. Nothing new here - there are some voters who come out only to vote for the executive office, whether President or Mayor. F'in Weird.

Ah, did you compare 2001 vs 2005? Your numbers are pretty close for those two (2003 is, well, pointless since no Mayor and no Council race = low turnout, if you could even find those results anyway). And yes, that's a bit of a drop. I don't think anyone really knows why yet...although I agree that something odd happened to turnout (and not just in that district). I'll answer your second paragraph at the bottom of my post.

Actually, the City Council redistricting is the least gerrymandered of all 9 levels of political subdivision in Bernalillo County. That happened because of the fortuitous confluence of interests of the West Side and of minority interests which led them to back the same plan. The big shifts were caused by two factors: 1. Prior to 2001, the West Side was in one district, which was waaaaaaaaaay more than average in population...in fact, you ended up with two full districts and bits of a third once redistricting was over. 2. Consequently, a Northeast Heights district had to be dissolved to funnel over to the West Side - that was the old District 5.

Now, there was a little gerrymandering involved in getting the New District 7 in the Heights to strectch far enough east to encompass the home precinct of one Sally Mayer (which if you look at your own results above should be a familiar name ), but it could've been much worse. Factions of Reps and Dems wanted to do some bizarre scheme which would've given the West Side only one full district and stretch two of them across the river in order to, respectively, add another Rep district/protect certain Dem incumbents. However, other factions of Reps and Dems opposed it and ended up winning. It's actually a pretty good redistricting, especially compared to some of the others.

Now to answer your last paragraph, Lewis: that could well be. I know a definite leftist (Bush is a war criminal etc) who is a fellow student of mine who is even more hardcore than I am on infrastructure issues, and yes, he lives on the Westside (up in D5). He's also a major smartass, but that's a separate issue. But he voted, so the analogy falls a bit, although it does establish that leftist-but-pro-infrastructure is a real position on the West Side. That might be it...hmm, I need more data to check against (from 2001 as well by Consolidated Precinct) to check where the numbers fell. A long-term project for me, it appears...

[minionofmidas]

D1
MIGUEL A. GOMEZ    2,110            87    99    2,296    38.74%
KEN SANCHEZ              3,226    228    176    3,630    61.26%
5,926 Total Votes

District 1, 6460 vs 5920
District 2, 9632
District 3, 7750 vs 7155
District 4, 10765
District 5, 10744 vs 9731
District 6, 7769
District 7, 13019 vs 12206
District 8, 12049
District 9, 9102 vs 8420

D1 is on the West Side, after all... I assume the districts were last regerrymandered in 2000? That's an awfully high difference in vote no.s to be due just to changes in residence patterns over 5 years, so I'm assuming there must be a turnout effect.
First thing I can think of is people staying at home who identify with the left on many issues but being Westsiders take your stance on the infrastructure thing, and therefore weren't inspired by either candidate (both for mayor and for council) - does that make sense?

Yes, Lewis, I did notice more people voted for Mayor than Councillor. Nothing new here - there are some voters who come out only to vote for the executive office, whether President or Mayor. F'in Weird.

Ah, did you compare 2001 vs 2005? Your numbers are pretty close for those two (2003 is, well, pointless since no Mayor and no Council race = low turnout, if you could even find those results anyway). And yes, that's a bit of a drop. I don't think anyone really knows why yet...although I agree that something odd happened to turnout (and not just in that district). I'll answer your second paragraph at the bottom of my post.

No, that's 2005 mayoral vs council. I just took your numbers and edited all the info you put between them out, to be able to see them more clearly. You see I got a somewhat visual memory. (And I domn't remember why I didn't edit out the full D1 result - probably just an error. As is the last digit of "5920".)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, I know I've seen far worse districts in the US. I pretty much use regerrymander as a synonym for redistrict.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do that.

[WMS]

Yes, Lewis, I did notice more people voted for Mayor than Councillor. Nothing new here - there are some voters who come out only to vote for the executive office, whether President or Mayor. F'in Weird.

Ah, did you compare 2001 vs 2005? Your numbers are pretty close for those two (2003 is, well, pointless since no Mayor and no Council race = low turnout, if you could even find those results anyway). And yes, that's a bit of a drop. I don't think anyone really knows why yet...although I agree that something odd happened to turnout (and not just in that district). I'll answer your second paragraph at the bottom of my post.

No, that's 2005 mayoral vs council. I just took your numbers and edited all the info you put between them out, to be able to see them more clearly. You see I got a somewhat visual memory. (And I domn't remember why I didn't edit out the full D1 result - probably just an error. As is the last digit of "5920".)

Ah, got it. I still claim that some of the difference is caused by the 'I only vote for one race' voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, I know I've seen far worse districts in the US. I pretty much use regerrymander as a synonym for redistrict. [/quote]

Heck, I've seen far worse districts in Bernalillo County (look at the County Commission districts for a good laugh). And your synonym is usually accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do that.
[/quote]

I need to get paid again so I can afford the copies for 2001 - of course the data isn't available for free! That would require things like 'vision' and 'foresight' and 'competence' and the like in local government (because the County is no better). I'll do it when I can, still.

P.S. Ya know, I remember a rumor I heard from the campaign manager for one of the losing candidates in 2001 (who was approached by all the other losing candidates in 2001) that the Left, ACORN in particular, had committed fraud in the 2001 election in favor of Miguel Gomez. You see, as the story goes, ACORN went around and asked the registered voters if they were going to vote in the 2001 Council race. For every voter who said 'No', ACORN and company then sent someone to 'vote in their place'. Maybe they weren't able to pull that off this time.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, got it. I still claim that some of the difference is caused by the 'I only vote for one race' voters.

No contest here, that is the reason. Hey - that's the race they been talking about on the local news on tv. Whoever heard of the candidates for that city council race? What's a city council?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you need to show to prove you're you to vote in Albuquerque? Wouldn`t this require a quite massive organization, well beyond the likely financial means of a city councillor? What exactly is ALCORN?

[WMS]

Ah, got it. I still claim that some of the difference is caused by the 'I only vote for one race' voters.

No contest here, that is the reason. Hey - that's the race they been talking about on the local news on tv. Whoever heard of the candidates for that city council race? What's a city council?

These are the people who will call up on election day and wonder why they're registered at their old address - 'Didn't you track us?'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you need to show to prove you're you to vote in Albuquerque? Wouldn`t this require a quite massive organization, well beyond the likely financial means of a city councillor? What exactly is ALCORN?
[/quote]
Up until recently, nothing at all. And the 'ethnic left' would scream 'racism' every time the issue came up. But now we're going to have some basic protections for 2006...unless I'm just imagining the voter reform bill from the last Legislature.
Not if the race is small enough...although if the councilor is allied to an organization, as was and is the case here, that would take care of the means. Association of Communities Organized for Reform Now, I think. Leftist interest group, very involved with voter registration and organization (for the poor, of course, or at least the names they can pull out of a phone book to register ), U.S.-wide (they popped up in other stories last year), and usually involved in controversy somewhere. I remember them from the 2000 campaign where they protested in the Clerk's Office because we restricted the number of registration forms they could get at any one time in order for the other registration groups to have a chance at getting some. Also from personal experience they do a crappy job of it - 1/4 to 1/3 of the returned forms were unprocessable because they would be missing necessary information or were illegible - although I think they worked at it and got the percentage down to 1/5 in 2004.

[WMS]

Update for the Council 9 runoff (a bit tardy, I know):

Unofficial Election Results for the City of Albuquerque
Municipal Run-Off Election - November 15, 2005
Absentee Vote with Hand Tally
17 of 17 Precincts as of Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:01 PM
 
COUNCIL DISTRICT 9
Candidate                Precinct    Absentee   Early     Total    Percentage
TINA L. CUMMINS        1,032             179       25    1,236    33.53%
DON F. HARRIS            1,828             552       70    2,450    66.47%
 
3,686 Total Votes

Yep, Cummins got crushed, as I expected. So a very pro-developer and pro-Chavez Republican got beaten by a somewhat pro-developer and neutral-chavez Republican. Whee. This is like a runoff election in Nebraska-3.

Compare:

COUNCIL DISTRICT 9
Candidate/Issue     Precinct     Absentee    Early     Total    Percentage
TINA L. CUMMINS       1,924              249        78     2,251         26.73%
VIVIAN CORDOVA       1,024               65         26    1,115          13.24%
CHRIS CATECHIS       1,856             194          61    2,111          25.07%
DON F. HARRIS          2,625             261          57    2,943           34.95%
 
8,420 Total Votes

Gee, turnout went down just a bit, eh?

Sorry Lewis, no time at all to get the 2001 C1 race and compare turnout.

[minionofmidas]

Nevermind that, not that important.