New Free Website For Political Junkies Bares All

David Lynn, who has graced this paper with proven statistical facts as to how money circulates in the political world, has now launched FreePoliticalSpeech.com.

It is available to anyone free of charge. Lynn says, “This is a weblog that will use statistics and publicly available data to comment on the political landscape here in Philadelphia and the Commonwealth in general.”

He adds, tongue in cheek, “You are certainly not required to read it. My first post, located at http://www.freepoliticalspeech.com/2012/03/19/wardstudy/, is very dry, it should only be read by those not operating heavy machinery, since it could cause the reader to fall asleep.”

This study, entitled “Not All Wards Are Created Equal”, compares money disbursed by the City’s Philadelphia Democratic and Republican campaign-finance committees during the 2011 primary and general election cycle.

“I wanted to see what kind of return the two parties were getting on their investment,” said Lynn, webmaster of FreePoliticalSpeech.com. “I found the manner in which the two parties spend money on elections is radically different.”

“According to published statistics, the Democratic Party spent an adjusted $2.04 per Democratic voter during the primary, and $1.90 per Democratic voter in the general election,” Lynn continued. “The Republican Party, with fewer resources, spent an adjusted $3.00 per Republican voter during the primary, and $3.21 per Republican voter in the general election.”

The study was compiled through use of campaign-finance data from the Philadelphia Republican City Committee and the Democratic Campaign Committee of Philadelphia obtained from the City Board of Ethics, voter statistics obtained through the Pennsylvania Dept. of State, and a list of elected Republican and Democratic committeepersons obtained from the Committee of Seventy’s website.

NOT ALL WARDS ARE CREATED EQUAL!

by David Lynn

Generally, both the Republican and Democratic central campaign-finance committees in Philadelphia raise money during the year through a variety of methods, and then dole out this money to the various ward structures throughout the city during the primary- and general-election season. This money is spent by the various ward structures on items such as printing sample ballots and paying poll watchers, usually committee people, to stand at the polls and encourage voters to vote a certain way.

Philadelphia is divided into 66 wards containing 1,687 precincts, or divisions. For political purposes, two large Wards, 39 and 40, are divided into two wards and organized separately by both parties. Ward 66 is split into two wards for political purposes by the Democratic Party, but is organized as a whole by the Republican Party.

Ward 39A consists of Ward 39, divisions 25-46; Ward 39B consists of Ward 39, divisions 1-24. Ward 40A consists of Ward 40, divisions 22, 29-38, and 40-51; Ward 40B consists of Ward 40, divisions 1-21, 23-28, and 39. Ward 66A consists of Ward 60, divisions 20-46; Ward 66B consists of Ward 66, divisions 1-19.

Committeepersons are elected during a primary election every four years concurrent with the party primaries for State Governor. The last such election for committeepersons took place in 2010. Each party in each ward division, or precinct may elect two committeepersons in accordance with party bylaws.

The Democratic and Republican Parties do not claim a full slate of elected committeepersons in all wards. The bylaws of each party allow for appointments to fill such vacancies after committeepersons are elected and the ward committees elect officers for four-year terms.

Unfortunately, vacancy appointments are not tracked by the County Board of Elections, which certifies the election of committeepersons. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get a true estimate of the number of serving committeepersons, but it is possible to get a count of elected committeepersons.

The law does not require that each ward committee maintain a committee with an easily recognizable name (although many, but not all, have campaign-finance committee names that are easy to decipher.)

In response to the Bush/Gore Florida election debacle of 2000, Federal legislation was enacted to mandate that all voters who register remain on the voter rolls for a period of five years as active voters. This is to prevent wholesale purges of voters as took place in Florida before the Florida general election of 2000. After a voter has not voted for five years, that voter is may be marked inactive by the county Board of Elections. However, inactive voters still have up to two federal elections to vote and reclaim their active status. For the purposes of this study, turnout-percentage statistics are calculated using the number of voters who voted vs. the number of active voters in each party to get a truer picture of the likely voting electorate. Both the number of active voters and the number of inactive voters in each ward according to party affiliation are included in the Excel file that accompanies this study, along with voter turnout statistics for each ward.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY 2011

There is no uniform way to describe expenditures, and the two parties describe them differently. Generally, the Republican Party describes their expenditures to ward structures as “Election Day Expenditures” whereas the Democratic Party describes them as “GOTV”, an abbreviation for “Get Out The Vote.” These expenditures are not always made to a ward campaign-finance committee (and not

always to a ward leader, but sometimes to a surrogate).

Total turnout among Democrats during the 2011 primary was 175,125 out of a possible 676,070 active Democratic voters, or 25.90%. Total funds expended equaled $349,200. But how do we know what type of return the Democratic Party received on its money?

With a few exceptions, the Democratic Party appeared to stick to a formula of $200 per precinct for the 2011 primary, and spent $1.99 per Democratic voter with relation to actual turnout.

It is difficult to comment on the amount spent per elected committeeperson. Money expended to ward structures goes to pay for sample ballots and other expenditures as well as paying committeepersons for election-day activities. Also, there are no known published statistics showing both elected and appointed committeepersons for the two parties. Finally, if there are vacant spots on the ward’s roster of committeepersons, individuals may be recruited for the day to fill those vacancies.

Total possible turnout of active Democratic voters during the 2011 general election was 676,878. Total actual turnout of Democratic voters was 167,420. Funds expended to ward structures totaled $311,800. Average turnout percentage was 24.73%.

In the 2011 general election, the Democratic Party appeared to follow a more or less consistent formula of giving $175 per division, and spent $1.86 per Democratic voter. If we adjust for the fact Ward 2 did not receive any funds from the central Democratic Party, the adjusted per Democratic voter spending was $1.90.

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY 2011

Comparisons between Republican and Democratic Party spending are not easy. The Republican Party in Philadelphia did not appear to follow any consistent guidelines for making expenditures to ward structures, the reasons for which are beyond the scope of this study. Not all Republican ward structures received funds from the Republican Party during the 2011 Primary season.

In all, the Republican Party in Philadelphia spent $41,250 on ward structures for the 2011 primary. There were 101,520 eligible active Republican voters for the Republican primary. Turnout totaled 21,210 Republican voters, for a turnout percentage of 20.89%. For ward structures that received money from the party, turnout percentage was 22.90%. Among those that did not receive money, turnout percentage was 17.99%.

It is interesting to note the average adjusted turnout percentage of the Republican ward structures that received funds from the central Republican Party was 1.35%, and 4.38% for those that did not.

Total funds dispersed by the Republican Party to ward structures during the 2011 general election totaled $67,200. Total active Republican voters numbered 101,650, and turnout equaled 26,862 Republican voters, for an overall turnout percentage average of 26.43%. Among wards that received funds from the central party, turnout percentage was 28.32%. For those that did not, turnout percentage equaled 21.36%.

While it appears as though the Philadelphia Republican Party received a slightly higher return on investment than the Philadelphia Democratic Party in spending its resources by targeting those wards that have higher turnout percentages, it paid significantly more per vote in both the primary and general elections of 2011 in adjusted terms.

For those wishing to review the data and the tables used to compile this study, please point your browser to http://www.freepoliticalspeech.com/2012/03/19/wardstudy/.

   Send article as PDF