March 24, 2011
Maps of November election results by legislative district

The maps below show how I-1100 (liquor privatization, top) and I-1098 (Democrats' income tax proposal, below) fared by legislative district. Green=won, red=lost, the darker the color, the more extreme the win/loss.

The Democrats' income tax proposal lost big everywhere, except for the 5 Seattle districts. I-1053, Eyman's 2/3 majority for tax increases, was its exact mirror image (map). I-1107, the candy/soda tax repeal, was similar to I-1053, but also lost in Olympia and some Seattle suburbs (map)

I-1082 (BIAW's worker's comp privatization) (map) and I-1105 (distributor's spoiler liquor privatization) (map) lost in every district.

I-1100 showed the most regional diversity, winning 12 districts in greater Puget Sound. A capable campaign in all media markets probably could have won. An improved policy proposal promoted by an effective statewide campaign should have a clear shot.

I-1100

[click to enlarge]

I-1098

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 24, 2011 05:50 PM | Email This
Comments
1. The State would do well, if we didn't hear anything from the democrats for the next twenty or so years. Yes, I know I'm dreaming.

Posted by: Pete on March 25, 2011 07:56 AM
2. You're dead on Stefan. The 1100 people only ever polled Costco customers. They thought they had it in the bag and completely ignored the desires & concerns of those in the red districts. They failed to respond to the anti-1105 campaign (funded by the 1105 campaign donors, interestingly enough). The only yard signs to be found were against the two initiatives.

People need to be educated on liquor. It's not dangerous; it's part of our history. For hundreds of years, it was how farmers perserved the portion of the crop they couldn't bring to market. They also need an education on the initiative. We need to show that privatizing liquor will actually reduce problems. Nobody wants winos running through their stores. The state can't refuse customers the way private stores can. Private stores aren't interested in selling bottom shelf stuff with minimal markup if it means dealing with trouble customers.

The result of liquor privatization will produce the same result it has in every other state where it's tried. Better selection of better products. I think we also need to emphasize how much money is lost to out of state sales because the bureaucratic liquor store clerks can't service the simplest requests nor can the stores compete on price.

Posted by: anthonw on March 25, 2011 08:39 AM
3. As if California has gone to the dogs because you can buy liquor at Costco, oh wait...

Posted by: Crusader on March 25, 2011 10:42 AM
4. Someone asked for the source of the maps.

I took the district-level election returns from the Secretary of State
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Data/Pages/default.aspx

District maps in KML from the Legislature's GIS server
http://maps.leg.wa.gov/ArcGIS/rest/services/LegDistricts/MapServer/generatekml

I wrote a script to create the final KML from the source based on voting results and loaded it into Google Earth.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 25, 2011 03:24 PM
5. This is why a candidate who focused solely on economic and tax issues would sweep the state in a landslide.

But that means being silent on all social issues including abortion, homosexuality, marijuana and so on.

Posted by: John Bailo on March 25, 2011 03:49 PM
6. What does the following three words mean?

Responsibility to Protect

Posted by: CnR on March 25, 2011 07:44 PM
7. Mrs. CnR @6: "Responsibility to Protect"?
Hmm. According to Wikipedia it means:
a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. RtoP focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

You tell us, ma'am. What does this mean in the context of the maps I posted?

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 25, 2011 09:16 PM
8. I would post it in your article about how the Young Republicans are having a rally to protest Soros's war and how Reichert is going to speak at that rally.

But, I doubt you would write anything like that because I highly doubt that would ever happen.

I know the Democrats hate America. But now I am wondering about the Republicans if they can't stand up on an issue so serious.

I am not pro-war. I am pro-America. Which means I support wars that are in America's interests. We don't get our oil from Libya. The people we are helping are the same group of people who brought down the towers on 9-11. The leader of the Libyan rebel forces fought against the US in Afghanistan until he was captured in 2002. He also admitted that his fighters have Al-Qaeda links.

Congress hasn't even been consulted!

But yeah, go worry about your Kahlua.

Posted by: CnR on March 25, 2011 10:14 PM
9. Mrs. CnR -- instead of posting cryptic off-topic comments in my blog, you should post an announcement for your anti-Soros's war rally on the front page of your blog so everybody will see it and attend the rally!

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 25, 2011 10:33 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?