Multimedia News

Notables who have lost children
6 photos
John Travolta's 16-year-old son Jett died Jan...
New Year, New You
6 photos
Oprah regrets her weight gain over the past y...
Hopman Cup highlights
6 photos
Russia's Dinara Safina returns a shot against...
Ski jumping at its finest
6 photos
Ski jumper Nicolas Mayer from France flies du...
Virginia Tech beats Cincinnati in Orange Bowl
6 photos
Virginia Tech's Darren Evans (32) celebrates ...

Low turnout could have rippling effects

Nov 6, 2007 11:03 PM (428 days ago) by Brent Begin, The Examiner
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
According to preliminary numbers, voter turnout was very low for Tuesday’s election in San Francisco.
(Cindy Chew/The Examiner)
According to preliminary numbers, voter turnout was very low for Tuesday’s election in San Francisco.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Voter turnout for this mayoral election was dismal, with a rough estimate of 109,000 voters going to polls.

The number is preliminary, according to Department of Elections Director John Arntz, and it fails to include absentee and provisional ballots delivered Tuesday. It is one of the lowest turnouts in The City’s history.

The low turnout in a mayoral election could have serious implications for the future of San Francisco politics.According to the City Charter, the number of voters in a mayoral election determines how many signatures are required for an initiative to be placed on ballots for the next four years.

For this election, petitions needed 10,396 signatures to get on the ballot — 5 percent of the vote cast for all mayoral candidates in 2003. For the next four years, proponents will need roughly 5,500 signatures if the election turnout numbers hold up, meaning future ballots could become clogged with legislation.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Despite the low turnout, San Franciscans didn’t quite outdo themselves as far as civil irresponsibility goes.

In November 2001, less than 30 percent of voters came out to the polls, and about half that number showed up for the subsequent runoff in December, making 75,267 people the lowest voter turnout in San Francisco since 1960, when those numbers were first posted.

In that runoff election, Dennis Herrera won the office of city attorney against challenger Jim Lazarus. Voter apathy helped spur the ranked-choice voting initiative The City uses now instead of costly runoffs.

This election, 419,599 people were registered in San Francisco by the October deadline — a 9 percent drop from the last mayoral election.

bbegin@examiner.com

Add a Comment


Name: (required)
Comments:
characters left
Comments are regulated by the Terms of Use.

Comments from Examiner Readers

12:45 PM MST on Wed., Dec. 5, 2007 re: "Election results still unofficial"

Jack Kirkpatrick said:
It is Wednesday, December 5, 2007 and the November 6, 2007 results are not in? The First Committee on Vigilance should reorganized to combat the Sidney Ducks, aka The Miscreant...; here the ancient story takes a new turn toward modernism. Instead of stealing a small safe from a Long Wharf shipping office our voters are held hostage to an uncertified election. The S. F. election office is calm throughout this ordeal. Ducks expected a rescue party - California Department of State's Debra Bowen -that never materializes and without her assistance the inevitable happened; the election officials "ducks" and we are still without certified election results. The real story of 1851 is a parody; it was probably was not even an election year except for vigilantes, but we were admitted to the Union by then; somebody got that right thanks to the gold rush! Save some of that gold for electronic counting machines offering a paper trail; the Duck's won't have to take cover from the electorate

113 agree | 114 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:16 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 30, 2007 re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."

Examiner Reader said:
Why are all the opensourcers trashing Sec Bowen and Steven Hill? Why is this a zero-sum game to these techkys? It sounds to me like a few folks didn't get their way and want to derail the rest of our atempts to have a IRV system that works.

117 agree | 117 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:42 AM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007 re: "Election count may end today"

No on H said:
I can't believe that anyone is still willing to support the BOS decision to giving ES&S an extentions. Shame on you!

131 agree | 112 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:27 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 14, 2007 re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."

Voter said:
At least when the votes and results are announced, we will know that they are accurate. Much better than getting innacurate or hacked votes immediately. Let Debra Bowen do her job. She's proven time and again that an honest, fair and transparent election is what she's working toward. Supervisors might not like it, other county officials might not like it, but the citizens and voters should tell them to get with the Secretary of State's program.

130 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:55 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007 re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."

Examiner Reader said:
Can't we have both: a system that is certified and work, which also provides IRV?

138 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:23 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007 re: "Pundits deem city election predictable"

Examiner Reader said:
once again, the pack of self righteous "activists" like Steven Hill and the progressives forced on us a failed voting process, and tried to change the rules to benefit their candidates...and it FAILED....and now theyr'e actually lobbying AGAINST FAIR VOTING MACHINES just because it hurts their precious IRV. Newsom is no great mayor but I'm glad he won just so the regressives like Chris Daly will see their stupid ideas stopped with a nice big veto!

170 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:22 PM MST on Mon., Nov. 12, 2007 re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."

Examiner Reader said:
It look's like we have a chance to fix our problems this Wednesday when San Francisco finally votes for a new system...anyone want to make odds that our Board of Supervisors will screw this up again?

147 agree | 126 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:12 PM MST on Mon., Nov. 12, 2007 re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."

Examiner Reader said:
What we need is for our Board of Supervisors to stop playing Secretary of State. Can we please let Debra Bowen do her job and give San Francisco a voting system that is certified and works!

162 agree | 165 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:15 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "Parking measure losing out; 'Question Time' up in air"

Examiner Reader said:
This is a real bummer - I resent anyone tampering with my ballot, remarking it to their liking. I have a God-given right not to give three preferences, and nobody has the right to add a third preference on my behalf. This system is pure, unadulterated baloney, if not to say voter fraud. The ballots should be tallied by another machine at City Hall, and only if there is a difference between the precinct's machine and the one at City Hall should there be a visual evaluation of the ballots. This sounds to me to be another encroachment upon our voting rights. And the fact that poll workers are not required to check voter IDs makes it a shameful sham anyway.

155 agree | 173 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:40 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "Election (not quite) in the bag"

Examiner Reader said:
Great news, another 4 years of serious hair-product and Newsom-speak. Maybe this election result says more about the current nature of the electorate in San Franciso than the Mayor's effectiveness? Seduction can be an amazing quality.

140 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:45 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "Election (not quite) in the bag"

Examiner Reader said:
Why the emphasis on "speed"? Accuracy is what people want.

157 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:28 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "Low turnout could have rippling effects"

Examiner Reader said:
To the Examiner Reader who wrote: We need to have more great leaders, like Norton the First, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico. Today we have: Supervisor Chris Daly, Activist for Renters, Protector of Progressives, and Advocate for Justice in the Tenderloin.

158 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:17 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"

Examiner Reader said:
The reason why we have no election system in place is because Chris Daly tabled the new vendors’ contract after being heavily lobbied by open source activists. The same activists are supported financially by a company called Open Voting Solutions who have sent several un-solicited bids for a system built in a garage by some open source hobbyists. What we need is a system approved and endorsed by Debra Bowen, not some tech geek’s weekend distraction project.

161 agree | 157 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:41 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"

Examiner Reader said:
Asking city departments to met goals. Wow, is the Mayor actually grading this crummy voting system. I thought I lived in a world class city. Maybe I should be asking for a tax refund based on poor performance. I will be waiting for my check.

181 agree | 158 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:59 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"

examiner critic said:
Good job Bonnie. The chroni-cle sounds like a Newsom sound-bite.

154 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:57 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007 re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"

Examiner Reader said:
We need to have more great leaders, like Norton the First, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.

155 agree | 161 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Advertisement