Analyzing the voting data for the dueling city auditor ballot measures shows that the majority of voters did want an auditor, but vote-splitting resulted in no auditor being selected.
There is a block of about 11,000 voters who voted no on both measures. This group was opposed to hiring any auditor. This number is derived by assuming those who voted yes for elected also voted no for appointed, and visa versa.
So, subtract the yes-appointed votes from the no-elected votes, and visa versa. This shows the roughly 11,000 block of additional no votes.
There were about 38,000 votes cast for each measure. Subtracting the 11,000 no-auditor votes leaves 27,000 voters who did want an auditor. The data confirms this, showing a combined total of 27,014 yes votes between the two measures. But, the minority no-auditor block won because the yes votes were
split between the two measures (with nearly twice as many yes-elected than yes-appointed votes).
It is well known that offering a competing ballot measure often results in the most popular measure being defeated because of vote-splitting. I don’t think using vote-splitting (a side effect of our antiquated voting system) is a good exercise of democracy.
Only if all yes-appointed voters wanted their measure or no auditor at all, has democracy prevailed. But if at least one-third of them would prefer an elected auditor over no auditor, then democracy has been
cheated.
And it has been cheated knowingly by those on the appointed campaign who are aware of the vote-splitting effect.
James Stauffer
Eugene
A Note From the Publisher
Dear Readers,
The last two years have been some of the hardest in Eugene Weekly’s 43 years. There were moments when keeping the paper alive felt uncertain. And yet, here we are — still publishing, still investigating, still showing up every week.
That’s because of you!
Not just because of financial support (though that matters enormously), but because of the emails, notes, conversations, encouragement and ideas you shared along the way. You reminded us why this paper exists and who it’s for.
Listening to readers has always been at the heart of Eugene Weekly. This year, that meant launching our popular weekly Activist Alert column, after many of you told us there was no single, reliable place to find information about rallies, meetings and ways to get involved. You asked. We responded.
We’ve also continued to deepen the coverage that sets Eugene Weekly apart, including our in-depth reporting on local real estate development through Bricks & Mortar — digging into what’s being built, who’s behind it and how those decisions shape our community.
And, of course, we’ve continued to bring you the stories and features many of you depend on: investigations and local government reporting, arts and culture coverage, sudoku and crossword puzzles, Savage Love, and our extensive community events calendar. We feature award-winning stories by University of Oregon student reporters getting real world journalism experience. All free. In print and online.
None of this happens by accident. It happens because readers step up and say: this matters.
As we head into a new year, please consider supporting Eugene Weekly if you’re able. Every dollar helps keep us digging, questioning, celebrating — and yes, occasionally annoying exactly the right people. We consider that a public service.
Thank you for standing with us!
Publisher
Eugene Weekly
P.S. If you’d like to talk about supporting EW, I’d love to hear from you!
jody@eugeneweekly.com
(541) 484-0519