Tim Myers runs the numbers on Hart Board election

Woe to the incumbent elected official in the SCV! To read the letters to the editor and the Tell it to The Signal message boards these poor wretches must constitute the single most hated group in the history of the planet. From overt talk of recall to covert talk of incompetence and borderline criminality how can these poor souls even arise in the morning to face the day against such a tide of hatred? And yet, inexplicably, they get re-elected term after term. No better example of incumbency inertia exists than the Hart District School Board, the frequent whipping boys and girls of media and malcontents alike.

Everyone knows the travails of the cost overruns of Arroyo Seco Junior High School’s refurbishment, and the “failure” to build a high school in Castaic, but yet, astoundingly, in the last election cycle with three seats up for grabs EVERY single incumbent swept back into office. And this time, with two seats available only ONE challenger came forth to war with the status quo. How could this be? Unfortunately, it all boils down to the science of probability and statistics. A bold statistical statement: The most likely person to win an election? The person who won that election before. Why? Because they actually did something the challenger did not yet accomplish. They received enough votes for election. During the political history of the SCV incumbents lose on a par something like direct hit lightning strikes during the dry season. Very few challengers understand and appreciate the mathematical challenge. Consider the case of poor Henry Schultz. In 2004 he ran for City Council against two strong and well-funded incumbents, and finished a seemingly close third. This heartened Henry because he did not understand that in a three person race, someone must come in third, and a certain set of voters will NEVER vote for an incumbent. In a wider field in 2006 Henry finished much lower. The going for the non-incumbent gets much tougher in the case of at-large elections. Why? Consider the simple example of the three person race for two seats, much like the current race for the Hart District Board. Some made up numbers for illustrative purposes. Assume 7,000 people show up and cast 14,000 votes (their two per voter) for the three candidates; two incumbents and one challenger. Further assume that in the prior election 5,500 voters cast 11,000 votes with one incumbent receiving 4,300 votes, the second 3,800 and the challengers receiving a total of 2,900 votes. So we assume that the incumbents out of the 14,000 retain their 4,300 and 3,800 votes respectively. (Remember, this constitutes the most likely outcome because they did it before.) So the challenger gets 5,900 votes and wins, unseating one of the incumbents, right? Wrong! In this election 1,500 additional people from the last election decided to cast ballots for 3,000 additional votes. 2,900 already expressed a propensity for voting for a challenger, but based purely on random probability these additional voters would divide these votes equally amongst the candidates at 1,000 votes each. The actual total? Incumbent 1: 5,300. Incumbent 2: 4,800. Challenger: 3,900. Result: Challenger skunked again. Well, let’s change the dynamic. Let us just say these 1,500 additional voters all came from the Castaic precincts. The historical fact exists that in school board and bond elections the Castaic precinct turnout percentages are 30-50% of the weak turnouts in the other precincts, so even a small mobilization of these communities could completely change the dynamic of the election process, and swollen with anti-incumbent fever, they each cast one vote for the challenger, giving them 500 additional votes from just a random outcome. But wait. The challenger loses again. How? The new voters read the instructions and cast a second vote, randomly for one of the other incumbents, figuring one may constitute a slightly less odious choice. The new total? Incumbent 1: 5,050. Incumbent 2: 4,550. Challenger: 4,400. The Challenger continues to loss, but by the narrowest of margins. Does one see a trend here? For those now scratching their heads and wondering if a mathematical impossibility exists against unseating an incumbent, take heart. A solution exists. Let us say those 1,500 new voters vote for the challenger and ONLY for the challenger (a practice known as “bullet” voting). The new totals: Incumbent 1: 4,300. Incumbent 2: 3,800. Challenger: 4,400. The Challenger actually wins outright. So food for thought. Those voters REALLY upset by trends in the Hart District and angry enough to vote for the first time should vote for Joe Messina and ONLY for Joe Messina for Joe to stand the best chance of unseating an incumbent and actually fulfill the mood of incumbent hostility. I already did. Tim Myers

Comments (2)

MorningstarrOctober 16 at 4:51 PM PT
Hmmmm, this may actually be an election. Anyone else? Messina sure isn't an option for me. But Tim just might be right. I'll noodle on it a while.
CyndeerulesOctober 16 at 6:40 PM PT
Yes, the Hart Board needs to be recalled, but NO we don't need to vote for someone who doesn't even send his kid to public school! Messina has his daughter in a PRIVATE Christian school. Sorry.... I'm not rolling THAT way... It's a pity that everyone who SHOULD have run were too cowardly. How about YOU Tim? Why didn't YOU run? I'll hold my nose and vote for the incumbants... because the only thing WORSE is Joe Messina