The May 5 Special School District election had striking similarities and wildly different results. All contests on the ballot were sponsored by school districts. All three school districts chose to conduct their election by mail. All three school districts were seeking approval for a parcel tax to support their schools. And, because of that, all three ballot measures required a 2/3rds vote for passage.
Two-thirds is a hurdle for any ballot measure; that’s why contests that ask voters to tax themselves voluntarily have such a high threshold. Ordinarily a simple majority is all that’s required for passage.
All three school districts received well over the 50 percent voter threshold. According to the semi-official election results posted election night, two districts, San Carlos and Woodside, were successful in passing their parcel tax measures. Only Jefferson Elementary School District’s Measure A did not meet the 2/3rd requirement for passage; yet Measure A did receive 57.89 percent voter support. So take a look at the results for each measure:
Measure A, the Jefferson Elementary School District measure received 57.89 percent voter support.
Measure B, the Woodside Elementary School District measure received 74.76 percent voter support.
Measure C, the San Carlos School District measure received 71.20 percent voter support.
What was the difference? The difference was the turnout.
Turnout for Measure A 21.25 percent
Turnout for Measure B 46.69 percent
Turnout for Measure C 47.46 percent
Turns out…turnout matters.
Finally some much needed proof that turnout matters. I for one has always said that turnout matters, but for some reason no one wants to listen, maybe this is a way for people to finally wake up and vote.
Turnout matters, but not in the way you imply.
In November 2008, the San Carlos school tax got 9,423 votes, –and failed.
In May 2009, the San Carlos school tax got only 5,746 votes, –yet succeeded.
The primary difference was that November 2008 was a more representative General Election; less vulnerable to manipulation.
For polling place elections, there are anti-electioneering laws that prohibit talking to a voter within some distance (100 feet?) of a polling place. Unfortunately, the law has not been updated to prohibit contacting voters in possession of absentee ballots, and I am aware that some proponents did so fervently.
It’s absurd to write that Measure C “received 71.20 percent voter support” when 5,746 votes is only 34% of the registered voters (or 27% of the voting age population).
But San Carlos looks like a vibrant democracy, compared to Burlingame:
In a city of 28,000, of whom 16,000 are registered voters, it took only only 2,706 ‘yes’ votes (to 1,561 ‘no’ votes) to pass a $39 million bond. Do the ‘yes’ votes of less than 10% of the population really constitute “consent of the governed”?
There should be a quorum for elections.
Or perhaps they should happen only once per year.
These election would be considered more legit if more people actually voted. Unfortunately many don’t care enough to vote and therefore don’t.