The Body Politic this week included some quick data analysis to point out the strength of certain candidates who didn’t win their ranked choice races. Caleb Kleppner of the Center for Voting and Democracy was gracious enough to provide a more detailed analysis of Nov. 10 unofficial DOE tallies based on a few Examiner questions. …
Did ranked slates such as the Guardian in D5 and the DCCC in D1 and D5 carry many ballots?
D1: Jake had 11,461 valid 1st choices. 1,149 (10%) followed the DCCC slate (McGoldrick, Sing, Tuchow)
D5: Mirkarimi had 9,778 valid 1st choices. 2,594 (26.5%) followed the Bay Guardian slate (Mirkarimi, Haaland, Feldstein). Haaland had 5,035 valid 1st choices. 630 (12.5%) followed the DCCC slate (Haaland, Kalb, Barnes)
How many of the second-place (and in D5, third-place) candidate ballots had the frontrunner placed? That would show whether the winner actually had a greater majority of support than just the 50 percent-plus-one we get from the Elections Dept. results. Another one is who had the strongest second place support overall — like, did Matt Tuchow, as it appears, have a lot of support from Jake and Lillian voters, and did Robert indeed get second or third on Ross’ ballots (or ballots where Ross was second and Robert was third)?
D1: 26,822 voters ranked McGoldrick, Sing or Tuchow at least once on their ballot. 13,681 ballots listed Tuchow. Of those 3,979 ranked Tuchow ahead of McGoldrick and Sing, meaning that 9,702 voters who ranked McGoldrick or Sing ahead of Tuchow. That is an impressive level of support for Tuchow by voters who supported the two front runners.
In D5, a similar analysis shows that Haaland had a lot of support from Mirkarimi ballots. Of Mirkarimi’s 9,778 valid 1st choices, 4,847 (49.6%) of also ranked Haaland as a 2nd or 3rd choice, including obviously the 2,594 who followed the Bay Guardian slate.
D1: 28,011 valid RCV votes; 25,253 votes for top two; 16,908 ballots counting the winner; 67 percent of “top two” voters ranking winner; 28.3 percent of runner-up voters backing winner.
D5: 34,413 valid RCV votes; 25,681 votes for top three; 16,224 ballots counting the winner; 63.3 percent of “top three” voters ranking winner; 25.6 percent of runner-up voters backing winner. (On Nov. 10 Lisa Feldstein surpassed Nick Waugh for third place in all tallies. We’ll see if that holds up.)
D7: 30,838 valid RCV votes; 23,768 votes for top two; 16,331 ballots counting the winner; 68.7 percent of “top two” voters ranking winner; 27.3 percent of runner-up voters backing winner.
D11: 22,789 valid RCV votes; 18,039 votes for top two; 12,184 ballots counting the winner; 67.5 percent of “top two” voters ranking winner; 22.2 percent of runner-up voters backing winner.
Interpretation: In District 1, 28,011 voters cast a valid vote for supervisor. After whittling the field down to the top 2 candidates (McGoldrick and Sing), there were 25,253 valid ballots. Of those ballots, 16,908 (67.0%) listed McGoldrick. Of the 11,638 votes for the runner up, 28.3% of them listed McGoldrick as well.