I only used these special elections (first round only):
1. July 14, 2009, US House 32, turnout 10.68%
2. Sep. 1, 2009, Asm 51, turnout 7.90%
3. Sep. 1, 2009 US House 10, turnout 29.39%
4. Nov. 17, 2009 Asm 72, 18.28%
5. Apr. 13, 2010, St Sen 37, 20.39%
6. Apr. 13, 2010, Asm 43, 18.58%
7. June 22, 2010, St Sen 15, 31.78%
So, my original post did not include any special elections that were combined with a bigger election, although my original post didn't describe (and should have described) exactly which special elections I was including.
11, Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com> wrote:
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
Subject: RE: [EL] looking at California's first Prop. 14 elections
To: richardwinger@yahoo.com, election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Date: Saturday, February 19, 2011, 9:38 AM"None of the 2009 and 2010 special elections (first round) were held in conjunction with any additional elections. They were all “stand-alone” elections, so the comparison of turnout is fair."
Given how much I've come to rely on Richard's data regarding 3rd-parties over the years, I am surprised to see such an factually incorrect statement in his message.
The 2010 special election for the 1st State Senate district (the only 2010 special election listed on the Secretary of State's website) was consolidated with the 2010 November General election. (And, as a result, turnout was 65.8%).
In 2009 one special election was May 19 the special election for Congressional District 32. After Hilda Solis resigned, Judy Chu and Gil Cedillo waged a hot campaign for the seat. Both waged very well-funded campaigns with full organizations and high-profile campaign events. Turnout was 24.79%.
The other 2009 special election was also on May 19. This was the election for State Senate District 26, where Democrat Curren Price took 71% of the vote in the primary over totally unknown Republican and Peace & Freedom candidates. Turnout was 15.47%.
Why both on May 19th? Because that was the date of the statewide special election on then-Gov. Schwarzenegger's tax increases (measures 1A - 1F). Millions and millions were spent on the campaigns for those measures.
So the actual turnout comparison is as follows:
- uncompetitive special election consolidated with November general election: 65.8%
- extremely competitive, well-funded campaigns special election consolidated with statewide special election on tax proposals: 24.79%
- uncompetitive special election consolidated with statewide special election on tax proposals: 15.47%
- uncompetitive special elections on the ballot alone in February 2011: 10.5% and 12.6% (figures from Richard -- these figures are likely to increase once all mail ballots are counted and final results announced)
I don't see any impact of "top two" in those numbers. In fact, consolidation and a competitive election seem to be the two factors driving turnout -- so if "top two" generates more competitive elections (which it is certain to do, especially in the primary) then "top two" will increase turnout.
[Insert standard Rose Institute quote about the impact of gerrymandered districts here.]
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
Fellow
Rose Institute of State and Local Government
m 310-200-2058
o 909-621-8159
douglas.johnson@cmc.edu
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Winger
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 8:33 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: [EL] looking at California's first Prop. 14 elections
