As the amount of money is a factor in elections I believe it is important to see how much each vote has cost each candidate. As you know, I have been tracking the campaign contributions for each of the candidates in the city council races. This has been an ongoing project for me for various political races already so it gives me the opportunity to see the cost per vote as it trends through the different elections.
On March 2014 I shared with you my analysis on the County Judge race in my blog post titled “County Judge Election Analysis.” In that post I shared with you that the cost per vote in 2006 was $7.37 per vote. This is for all of the votes cast in that county election. In 2010, the cost per vote dropped to $2.09. In my post “County Judge Election 2014 by the Numbers” I shared with you Eddie Holguin spent $2 per vote, while Veronica Escobar spent $5 per vote. Aliana Apodaca, on the other hand, spent $14 per vote in 2014 County Election. In Saturday’s city elections, the average cost per vote was $14.24.
I thought you might like to see a comparison of how much each vote cost each individual candidate. Rather than bore you with more words I believe most of you are enjoying the infographics I have been using instead of wordy posts.
Therefore here is an infographic detailing how much each candidate spent for each vote they received. As you can tell is went from a low of 49 cents to high of $36.60 per vote.
As many of you have commented on social media there was an interesting outcome in the Josh Dagda/Cortney Niland race that I believe has sealed the door shot for Niland’s quest for the mayor’s office. I’ll have some commentary on that this afternoon.
This election has shown the drive for change is taking traction. They expected a status quo, then felt the heat and started throwing money everywhere.
Incumbents are usually difficult to defeat, but looking at the numbers. I would say that’s pretty sad when the incumbents have to outspend the challengers by five times! Doesn’t speak well of their council record.
This should be a wake up call for all the politicians in El Paso. “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all if the time”. The people are starting to see thru all the shenanigans. Think about it two novice candidates, both start late, limited funding, find campaign managers a couple of weeks into the campaign, one is an experienced public speaker. One of the candidates is a fast learner. Yet they force the incumbents to squirm and spend thousands of dollars to win. The incumbents won but lost at the same time.
I see a political future for Dagda, if he decides to run for office in the future. This guy is a fast learner, has charisma, determination, despite some the opaque givernment we have. Might as well use the council meeting room for something else, they spend more time in executive session than they do in the public.
If this doesn’t signal the beginning of the end for these council hucksters and county prima donnas, nothing well. Which is good, it will be much easier to get rid this county of the legacy building leeches.
The incumbents have nothing to brag or celebrate. Dagda has plenty to celebrate. He should walk proudly as his staff should. Ya dun good.
90% stayed home so there is no hope. Dagda – a nobody of no accomplishment whose purpose in life seems to be to get high. Sorry, I would have stayed home, too, if I lived in Dist 1.
Niland as mayor? Dios nos libre!
Just happen to see the District 1 survey.
That’s one heck of a choice isn’t it? The trolley man vs the Nice guy. Either way District 1 is screwed, both see nothing wrong with feeding into the current spending spree. I can’t believe people voted for a guy whose only qualifications are he wanted a trolley and if elected some more &%~~#^=+# ideas. The other states “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead “. And I thought the informed voters were in this District. LOL, #%|<€%, .
That’s one heck of a choice isn’t it?
Yes, it sure is. Most of my friends voted for one or the other of these two saying what nice guys they are. My friends, BTW, are educated professionals and business people, some of whom know Al from Rotary. They are voting for a friend, not a platform. One said she voted for Al this time but will probably vote for Peter in the runoff. Go figure. That is not how I vote, but it is how the rest vote.
Cost per vote analysis is always a little misleading given that a candidate could spend much more than is ever needed to win a race. The firefighters would be a great example of this. They spent six figures on a ballot issue they would have won spending zero dollars (there was no organized opposition to them).
Money cannot buy you Love or can it?
Comments are closed.