Saltzman’s New Math
I’ve a few other comments about what I did manage to catch of today’s Council acceptance of the Charter Review Commissions report on that body’s recommendations. First, a point of historical context which is important when people like Tom Potter and Dan Saltzman try to fast-track the Commission’s recommendation onto the May ballot for an off-year election.
Saltzman especially somehow sees this as a way to involve everyone, but a look at turnout for off-year May-scheduled elections says he’s wrong.
Please note that these figures are turnout for the entirety of Multnomah County, but that’s as close as we’re going to get without, well, more time than I can afford to spend on the issue. But, that said, these numbers will still be a decent rule of thumb, and the following list provides off-year primary/special election turnout numbers.
- May 2005: 16.91%
- May 2003: 56.02%
- May 2001: 23.00%
- May 1999: 31.60 %
- May 1997: 36.60%
With the exception of 2003, we’re generally speaking of turnout that’s one-third of the electorate or less for off-year (meaning neither presidential nor mid-term) May-scheduled elections. How does this compare, for example, to general elections during mid-term or presidential years?
- November 2006: 69.06%
- November 2004: 84.87%
- November 2002: 67.45%
- November 2000: 78.08%
- November 1998: 54.76%
As opposed to an off-year May election, an on-year November election tends towards turnout that’s half of the electorate or more.
So if Saltzman’s goal is to potentially involve as large a portion of the electorate as possible, why is he pushing to refer Charter revision to the off-year election this May, and not (for example) to the “on-year” election in November 2008?
For that matter, why is Saltzman opening his mouth about involving as many people as possible without following to its logical conclusion his professed solution of a May referral? Is there no one in his office, if not Saltzman himself, who actually thinks these things through before letting him speak?