Ericka Ellis-Stewart and Mary McCray spent less than $15,000 each to win countywide seats on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board, final campaign finance reports show.
That's a sharp contrast with the previous at-large election in 2007, when the three winners spent $21,000 (Joe White) to $58,650 (Kaye McGarry). The 2007 crew also pulled larger vote totals, with first-place McGarry logging 59,392 votes to Ellis-Stewart's 35,341, the top tally in 2011.
A lot changed in those four years. A lingering economic slump made fund-raising harder. The field of candidates doubled, from seven in 2007 to 14 in 2011. Voter turnout slumped, from 24 percent to 16 percent. The most recent race had no incumbents, while all three 2007 winners already held the seats. And the local Democratic party broke with tradition this year by endorsing candidates (Ellis-Stewart, McCray and Aaron Pomis) and mobilizing voters for the school board race.
Ellis-Stewart, who ran her own campaign, apparently spent $13,900 on her campaign. She didn't fill in the column for the running tally, but that's the total from her three individual reports. That comes to about 39 cents a vote, compared with 45 cents to 99 cents for the 2007 winners.
McCray, who finished second, reports spending just over $11,000, or about 42 cents a vote. Third-place Tim Morgan, who already held the District 6 seat, spent just over $23,000, or about 93 cents a vote.
Elyse Dashew, who finished fourth, was the race's big spender, reporting about $42,100 in expenses (about $1.79 a vote). The school board race is nonpartisan, which means there are no primaries and no parties listed on the ballot. But Dashew, who is unaffiliated, was likely hobbled by having no political party pushing her candidacy.
Going into the 2011 school board campaign, there had been speculation that it would take around $50,000 to win a seat. That was fueled partly by Eric Davis' District 5 campaign in 2009; he spent just over $58,000 to win a decisive victory over one opponent, at a cost of about $3.26 per vote.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Ellis-Stewart, McCray ran low-cost campaigns
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
I can sum up the race in two words:
apathy & sheeple.
Single party voting is cheap. When the voter doesn't have to read and they can just press a button, you get bad results. BAN single party voting before the next election!
1:39, people may have followed party recommendations, but a straight-party vote would have resulted in no vote for school board. People had to select those separately.
I guess 1:39 didn't vote...
Since Stewart did not know how to fill out the report do you think she did it correctly? Possibly she did not so you would never know the extent of her errors. Mary did not have to either as NCAE sponsored her with funds and voters. LIFT will make sure they both get re-elected as in $55 million dollars.
I'm afraid the voter turnout for school board elections will get even worse. Most have given up on CMS. When there is no hope for change, apathy reigns supreme.
Wiley, apathy in an odd year election is always a problemas city council and school baord elections don't get as much passion as congressional and presidential elections. As for 'sheeple' cut the nonsence. Those who voted that day knew exactly who they were voting for 9or not voting for). The only 'sheeple' I know are the ones who repeat word for word everything hear from Rush or FOX News or bible quotes that are convenient to them. Everyone else seems to have a mind of their own to make a rational decision.
I'm afraid we're going to get exactly what we paid for.
Joe is White and so is Kay. Message >> comptetance doesn't matter, only how tan you are.
Sincerely, this is not really me Nick Mackey.
Ann,
I was fascinated to read the breakdown of cost per vote. While reluctant to broach the issue, I cannot help but wonder whether is a cost "gradient" based on the demographic of the candidate. In simple terms, does the race or gender of the candidate tend to shift the cost per vote up or down? As much as we'd like to deny it, many voters seem to use this as a criteria and I wonder if that transfers over to the general election.
Anon 4:12...
Thank you for proving my point.
Baaaaaaaa!
Anon 4:12..
I left out the fact Ann was comparing this past election to 2007, which was also an "off year.
McGarry received almost as many votes at-large in 2007 than McCray and Stewart combined. The difference was 2,571.
Sixty dollars, no endorsements, no party affiliation, and yet Bumgarner came in sixth.
He posted that, and the fact he won close to all of the area in Mint Hill, at first or second place, plus the other areas no worse than fifth, on his website.
Further, during his presentation for the Board for the District Six Seat, he showed how he came in not less than fifth or so in the whole district.
Yet sitting watching this board, you knew the Board had already picked the person, and were not listening.
So keep that cost in mind, along with the fact we have so many educated voters, who voted for him, based only on his positions, and not because they saw a sign in the street. This shows positive changes are needed in CMS, and needed now!
What the Charlotte Chamber wants the Charlotte CHamber gets. Look at the campign reports of the winners littered with CHamber money. And the fact the Gorman the new Mr Technology gave to them and now we are on BYOT is SCARY plus a conflict. My children will use no technology sold by Gorman if it costs me $45,000 to go private. I will also bring up federal charges in DC against CMS for inner dealings and payoffs.
This analysis discounts the money spent by the Democratic Party, the Black Political Caucus, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Association of Educators. It also overlooks the impact of the Foxx campaign's get out the vote efforts combined with endorsements of these groups. The simplicity of the analysis offered is insufficient and disappointing.
You can't really analyze the school board votes without connecting it to other factors.
The city council race with Pickering and Fallon getting elected shows clearly that the Dem party was successful in getting a higher proportion of their supports out to the polls.
Race was a factor as evidenced by Shauna McLamb getting a bunch of votes with no campaigning, many blacks voted based on name recognition.
Name placement is another factor to look at. Larry Bumgarner was the first name and benefited greatly from that. Pomis who had all sorts of support and money was buried towards the bottom and lost votes due to that.
Most other states randomize the name order on each voter ballot to control for this, but not NC.
Dashew spent the most and plastered the most name recognition devices around the county and just fell short. Take her out of the equation and look at who the top finishers were - all people backed by the parties.
That ties back to the first point, the party machinery drove this election pure and simple.
Post a Comment