An analysis of the District 1 run-off election on June 11 between Ann Morgan Lilly and Lyda Ness Garcia has some interesting trends worth examining. District 1, generally tends to have a better educated and more affluent electorate than the rest of the city. Therefore, the notion that education and affluence plays a part in electoral participation can be discarded in this case as the electorate in the district is best representative of having these items on their resumes.
Below is a comparison of the May and June votes cast for each candidate. The conditional endorsements are the votes received by Hinojosa and Peinado. The other are the rest of the candidates.
| Candidate | May 26, 2011 | June 11, 2011 | Difference |
| Ann Morgan Lilly | 1,813 | 1,946 | +133 |
| Lyda Ness Garcia | 1,014 | 1,567 | +553 |
| Conditional Endorsement | 858 | ||
| Other Candidates | 1,064 | ||
Mobilization of the electorate
The first item to explore is the concept of mobilization of the electorate for a candidate. In the case of the run-off elections for District 1, the candidates mobilized an additional 686 voters to vote in the runoff.
During the May 26 election, 1,813 voters turned out for Ann Morgan Lilly with 873 votes cast in early voting and another 940 on Election Day. During the run-off on June 11, Lilly received 964 votes in early voting and an additional 982 on Election Day giving Lilly a total of 1,946 votes.
This represents an additional 133 votes for Ann Morgan Lilly during the run-off.
On the other hand, Lyda Ness Garcia received 438 votes during early voting and an additional 576 votes on Election Day in May, giving her a total of 1,014 for that period. During the run-off in June, Lyda Ness Garcia attracted 1,567 votes, divided between 775 votes cast in early voting for both periods and 792 on Election Day.
Lyda Ness Garcia mobilized an additional 553 voters for the run-off.
Is political mudslinging detrimental or effective?
Both candidates mobilized 686 new voters to vote for them with Lyda Ness Garcia receiving the majority. As the District 1 run-off election was characterized as “dirty” politics with accusations flung from one candidate to the other with Ness Garcia generally accused of generating more controversy against her opponent the notion that mud-slinging in politics is not effective appears to be mute as Ness Garcia attracted the lion’s share of the “new” voter in the run-off. Although the argument can be made that the additional voters for Ness Garcia were an anti-Lilly vote, the fact remains that more voters participated in the run-off then in the general election, regardless of the mud-slinging or in spite of it.
Did endorsements count?
The question then becomes on whether Ann Morgan Lilly’s strategy to pander to Manny Hinojosa who garnered 605 votes and Abe Peinado who received 253 in May elections was a wise strategy. On May 16, Hinojosa and Peinado bartered their combined 858 votes with an endorsement of the candidate that would “pledge” their vote on the health benefits fiasco for unmarried couples, among other things. Lilly agreed and she received their “endorsements”. In the end, Lilly’s strategy failed as she only received an additional 133 votes, short of the 858 expected votes, assuming that Hinojosa and Peinado voters actually voted in the run-off and, if they did, voted for Lilly. In the end, Lilly’s strategy failed as she failed to garner a significant number of mobilized voters to her side.
Are unpaid taxes a voter issue?
Lyda Ness Garcia has acknowledged a significant debt to the IRS. The revelation was made a center piece by Ann Morgan Lilly during the runoff. From the results of the run-off votes cast, where Ness Garcia received an additional 553 votes, to Ann Morgan Lilly’s 133, it can be deduced, that at least for the voters who voted in the run-off election the tax situation for Ness Garcia was not a factor. This is especially true when the difference between early voting in and Election Day results in May are compared to the run-off election. Ann Morgan Lilly, attracted an additional 91 votes in early voting during the run-off as compared to the May election and 42 new votes on Election Day. Her 133 additional votes were less than Ness Garcia’s additional votes in early voting of 337 and 216 on Election Day for a total of 553.
Elections are over in early voting.
This latest run-off election has once again demonstrated that once a candidate is behind in early voting their opportunity to make up lost ground and claim victory with votes cast on Election Day is generally impossible. Therefore, for future candidates, the election cycle is early voting and Election Day voting patterns tend to mirror early voting results. By 7:00 pm, on election night the outcome is generally assured.
Unfortunately for Lyda Ness Garcia, she was unable to muster enugh additional voters in the run-off to overcome the 799 votes that Ann Morgan Lilly had going into the run-off, thus she lost the election.
Throwing Money at It Won’t Make It Better
Raising salaries for city council and the mayor’s office is not the solution to the stagnation of our city. Although current salary levels are insufficient for most highly educated professionals in our city, they are reflective of the medium income that El Pasoans currently make. This is important because we must remember that democracy is based on the premise that the government is elected as a representative of our community, we after all are a government of the people for the people.
By calling for a raise in the elected positions of our city government, we as the people are creating an elite sovereign to rule over us. A highly educated politician demanding a private sector salary is not representative of the community as a whole, he is only a representative of the elite in our community. Perception is the basis from which we all draw our experiences. To an individual who is accustomed to a salary of $50,000 and more a year, a raise in property taxes of $12.00 per year is only a “pizza”. To a laborer making only $5.50 an hour, the property tax increase is two hours worth of labor and less milk for the baby.
Of course, the argument can be made that a laborer is incapable of running a multi-million dollar budget. This is where the fallacy lies in the argument for increasing the council’s salaries. Our government is based on the premise that our elected officials are derived from the majority of our community to represent the interests of the community. The reality in our community is that less then 30% of our population is college educated and our medium income is less hen $26,000 a year. This is the reality and this is where the community should derive its leaders. By electing representatives that truly represent the community, the direction that the community will take will be based on the perception of the reality of the community. In other words, a $12.00 tax increase or a .25¢ parking meter increase now carries with it the reality of how the community truly feels. Attention to the true needs of the community such as access to education or resources such as parks now becomes the focus of the community instead of grandiose plans of multi-million dollar theaters that only a few “elite” will truly enjoy.
Of course, education and real-world experience are needed in order to manage the budget of our city. The ability to attract and pay for this talent is already in place in the form of executive assistants, department heads and the chief administrative officer as provided by the city charter. The salaries currently paid to those professionals are representative of their experience and talent. The mayor and city council on the other hand are not elected to be the experts in managing the city; instead, they are elected to represent the community in the form of setting policy for the city. Their expertise lies not in their ability to manage a multi-million dollar budget but in their ability to see and feel what the community truly needs. The technical expertise and balancing of the budget is the responsibility of the paid experts. The chief administrative officer can demand that the city raise taxes to meet expenditures, a department head can demand better pay, but the power to grant those lies squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives, who should be representing the community.
The call to serve the community should be based on a true need to serve, not on the ability to create a job for oneself. There are many qualified individuals ready and willing to serve the community they live in, unfortunately their responsibility’s to themselves and their families is such that the current salary is insufficient to serve the community. On the other hand, our last few mayors have been representative of those “elite” few who through power influence the city we live in. Professionals such as lawyers, professional engineers and bankers have led our city to where we stand today. The salary has remained the same and these professionals chose to serve as mayors. The argument of course is whether they chose to serve or to further their economic gains, the answers truly only known only to themselves. The reality is that the salary has not deterred those professionals to run and raising the salary will not magically bring about change. The answer lies on the electoral process itself.
Our current electoral process guarantees that anyone of modest means is excluded from running for office. This is because the electoral process is based on “popularity”. The only way for a candidate to get himself elected is to get “face” time in our major news media. This is only accomplished by spending thousands of dollars on advertising and attracting media to news conferences. The thousands of dollars are derived from two sources, first and the most used one is the raising of funds from those “elite” hoping to get someone elected to further their own economic goals. An individual’s own funds are the other option. Because of this situation, the mayor does not have the need or the will to carry out the wishes of the community. Although it is easy to blame the mass media or the politicians for this, the reality lies in the fact that the true blame lies within our community.
By not taking the time to educate themselves on the issues and relying solely on the sound bites our media produces; the community is the real culprit that has allowed this city to languish. We have only to blame ourselves as less than 30% of us even bother to vote, of those that vote the majority vote based on popularity instead of what is best for the city. Yes, the economic situation makes it difficult for the community to learn and vote intelligently, but there is no magic politician out there ready and willing to serve the community. By ignoring the problem, we only exasperate the situation. We need to do more as a community, we need to demand more from ourselves, learn and participate in the process, ignoring it only makes it worse for us all. The solution lies within us, throwing more money at the politicians will only encourage more “elite” to represent us and more of our community to throw up their hands in despair and scream; “why bother, no one cares what I have to say, anyway!”