Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Why I was wrong on Boom

Answer: I don't know

124 more people voted in the 3rd ward in 2005 than in 2003. However, Meyer only got 18 more votes than he did in 2003. Apparently a lot more of the people who voted for someone other than Keith in the primary switched their vote back to the incumbent than I predicted. Whether some of this is due to some voters outdated views of Mr. Boom's lifestyle will never be known. I would also be curious to know how many of the new voters were new downtown residents such as myself, or the other 100+ residents of the Lofts.

I haven't heard yet if there's going to be a recount in the 3rd, or any other races. Those 16 under-votes in the 3rd ward could really come into play if there is a recount. Also, Bill's 475 votes would have defeated Keith's 466 in 2003. If it wasn't for those 18 new Meyer voters, Keith would have lost. Maybe Alderman Meyer will borrow an idea from Bill and form a 3rd ward council with representatives from various neighborhoods and neighborhood groups. He could appoint Bill to the 3rd ward council in homage to Fly's Rule #3.

One thing I find most interesting. Only the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th wards had more votes cast for their ward's alderman than in 2003. The 7th ward isn't even a fair comparison, consodering Alderman Barnhill was unopposed in the 2003 election. Out of these 3 though, the 3rd ward had the highest increase in voter turnout in the city. I'm proud to be 1/961 of that.

at least my at-large choices won

7 Comments:

At 11/09/2005 8:28 AM, Anonymous Rich Moroney said...

I've had some experience looking "under the hood" at the county auditor's office, specifically the handling of elections. And particularly on-point, the recount of Bill Lynn's 2003 win.

Unless there are an uncommon number of challenged ballots or late-arriving mailed-in absentee ballots, there's no point in recounting a 9-vote margin. The final canvas (sometime next week) will include any of those scattered remaining ballots that may be out there (and it may be that there aren't any at all) and a recount is extremely unlikely to show a difference of more than a vote one way or the other.

 
At 11/09/2005 10:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I concur with Rich. Boom was beaten because the Third is fickle. He lost for the same reasons Freuh lost last cycle.

 
At 11/09/2005 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have forgotten the large number of people who moved from the 3rd Ward since the last election.

 
At 11/16/2005 12:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boom was beaten not so much because of his lifestyle, but becasue he was "in your face" with it. Look, Engelmann is gay, and he has won elections in the past. It is rumored that Ahrens might be that way too, but certainly he does not define himself that way and he too, has won elections in the past. So, it is not so much about him being gay as it was about him defining himself in a sexual way. His supporters that accompanied him in public were flamboyantly gay, and he owns a gay bar where you walk in and are greeted with a bowl of condems.

Again, it is not about him being gay, but rather making his sexual prefrences an unstated issue. Imagine if Hugh Heffner ran for public office. He is straight, but how far do you think he would get?

 
At 11/17/2005 1:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boom rammed part of his campaign against Ambrose. He and his funny immature friends are running for 2007 already.

 
At 11/17/2005 7:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh God not already. Boom lost because the voters saw the real him.

 
At 7/23/2006 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Mr. Fredenburg!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home