Election week is passed. The polls are cast and the numbers are in. With the passing of levies by certain percentages and the winning of candidates, voters are usually well aware of the numbers that were counted. A week removed, the numbers that were not counted may merit a story of their own. In Richland County, approximately 75 percent of voters elected to stay home.
The result did not come as a shock, but on an election day free of inclement weather and with high of 59 degrees, Richland County’s voter turnout was a still lower than expected.
“The voter turnout was about 24.7 percent this year which is surprisingly low because we were expecting about 30 percent.” said Mike Casto, chairman of the Board of Elections.
The 24.7 percentage is the percentage total of votes cast divided by total eligible voters. In Richland County’s General Elections dating back to 2007, this year’s number is a new low. In fact, the second lowest is 2007, which saw 33.93 percent participation from registered voters. The years 2008 and 2012, involving Presidential candidates, saw 90.05 percent and 78.30 percent participation. The general election years 2009 and 2011 posted rates of 45.53 percent and 46.99 percent respectively.
According to the unofficial count released by the Richland County Board of elections, individual precincts in Richland County varied across a range of roughly 34 percentage points. The highest turnout in the county was Shelby’s 4B who received votes from 47.20 percent of registered voters. Shelby 4th Ward had a 38.24 percent turnout from 1,799 registered voters. The city of Shelby’s 6,505 registered voters saw 1,894 (29.12 percent) participate.
The county’s lowest point of participation came from Mansfield 6C at 8.59 percent. Mansfield’s 6A-6E saw their registered voters participate at a 13.30 percent percent rate. That’s 735 participating voters out of 5,528 registered.
As for how that affected the issues across the county, Mansfield’s .25 tax increase offers an interesting case study. The aggregate voter participation rate for Mansfield was 20.93 percent. That means that out of 32,251 voters, 6,750 went to the polls.
However, not every voter chooses to vote on every issue. Total votes cast for the issue came in at 6,589. There were 3,369 voters in favor of the levy (51.13 percent) and 3,220 voters opposed (48.87 percent). That means 20.43 percent of voters voted on the new 0.25 percent income tax.
The smaller number, but perhaps more interesting statistic, is the issue’s swing vote. The difference that ultimately passed the levy was 2.26 percent of the votes cast. That means 149 people made the deciding vote in an issue that 32,251 voters were eligible to affect.
The decisive margin comprised 0.46 percent of the registered voters.
The city of Shelby also had a critical decision to make. Their infrastructure was in need of repairs and the city had proposed a .2 percent income tax to address the weathered pavement. Voters turned out and cast votes at 29.12 percent rate to ultimately pass the new tax. Out of 6,505 registered voters, the city had 1,894 participating voters and 1,871 who voted on the tax. The tax passed 1,075 votes (57.46 percent) to 796 votes (42.54 percent).
The swing vote was comprised of 279 voters or 4.2 percent of registered voters.
The Mansfield City School District was a focal point of the local election. The issue would have been presented to 25,522 voters. Of that registered total, 5,187 votes were actually cast; 2,803 votes (54.04 percent) for the levy and 2,384 (45.96 percent) votes against the levy.
The margin was a fairly decisive 8.08 percent. That represents 419 votes. That’s just 1.64 percent of registered voters. The district turnout was 20.32. A voter turnout increase to just 22 percent held the potential to reverse the result.
“We were surprised with the passage of the levies, but it is great because it shows how much the community cares about making Richland County a good place to live,” commented Casto.
Casto highlights an issue that is inherent with local elections. Low voter turnout carries inherent apprehension for any side of an issue and for candidates of all political stripes. With a lower sample of the true voter population, decisions fall into the hands of a relatively small percentage of participating voters. That means surprises can happen with the change of a few hundred choices.
What do the numbers tell us?
Well, simple numbers tell us that when the Oval office was at stake, rates climbed to 90.05 percent and 78.30 percent for the county. Ohio’s gubernatorial election turned out 45.53 percent. Richland County’s 2007 mark of 33.93 percent saw a few mayoral offices at stake. This year’s election saw Ontario’s mayoral election and collection of levies and taxes, some old, some new.
In the last six years, the more localized the issues have been; the lower the voter turnout has been. By extension, it could readily be argued that we are most apathetic and least concerned with the issues in closest proximity to us.
“The voter turnout was about 24.7 percent this year which is surprisingly low because we were expecting about 30 percent.” said Mike Casto, chairman of the Board of Elections.
The statistics used in this article are unofficial counts available at press time. Official counts have since come in and are in the More Coverage section of this article.
