Measure L retro lady

After reading Chris Nguyen’s analysis of which sections of Anaheim voted for whom, an insightful reader shared with us a different take on the numbers:

Chris Nguyen’s analysis missed one key point for the future: turnout levels. Looking just at the numbers in the post, a total of 16,127 votes for Mayor were cast in the Hills, while a total of 14,900 votes were cast in the Flatlands. That’s right, 52% of all ballots cast citywide (using Mayoral votes as the counter) were cast in the Hills, even though it’s less than 25% of the City’s population. 

After council districts are drawn, its likely that in future elections about 10,000 voters in the Hills will elect one councilmember from one district, about 6,000 voters in the Hills and maybe 2,500 in the Flatlands will elect a 2nd Councilmember, and the other 12,500 Flatlands voters will select the other four Councilmembers, with roughly 3,200 voters per Flatlands district. Numbers will go up in the Presidential-year election, but you get the idea.

No wonder the unions want to isolate the Hills in Districts. This also explains how districts set the stage for a Democratic takeover of the Council, even with a citywide Republican turnout advantage.

Somehow, I don’t think Anaheim Hills voters who cast their ballots for Measure L really understood they were watering down the value of their vote.  How is that for “authentic representation”? But hey – now Anaheim will have a city council in which every councilmember knows everybody in their 58,000 person districts, right? At least, if the hooey ladled out by Measure L advocates is to be believed.