From memory, I believe 53-27 is a better-than-usual margin for a school levy. Back around the 2005 or so time frame, when I was first getting involved in local politics/economics, we had a couple of bond levies for the construction of the third high school fair, and a believe also a couple of operating levies. The only that finally passed was by only a hundred votes or so.
When I was on the Board, we decided that we needed to put school levies on the POTUS ballots, because that's when we had the greatest turnout. In low turnout elections, the 18-50 voters don't show up in great numbers, while the 50+ voters always do, and the 50+ voters who tend to be empty nesters and retirees, are as a group not very supportive of school levies.
Some say that it's manipulating the system to do this. I have a few responses: 1) if the turnout was high for every election, this wouldn't be an issue; 2) isn't it a good thing to hear from more voters rather than let a minority decide for everyone?; 3) it's stupid to ignore voter patterns, but see #1.
From memory, I believe 53-27 is a better-than-usual margin for a school levy. Back around the 2005 or so time frame, when I was first getting involved in local politics/economics, we had a couple of bond levies for the construction of the third high school fair, and a believe also a couple of operating levies. The only that finally passed was by only a hundred votes or so.
When I was on the Board, we decided that we needed to put school levies on the POTUS ballots, because that's when we had the greatest turnout. In low turnout elections, the 18-50 voters don't show up in great numbers, while the 50+ voters always do, and the 50+ voters who tend to be empty nesters and retirees, are as a group not very supportive of school levies.
Some say that it's manipulating the system to do this. I have a few responses: 1) if the turnout was high for every election, this wouldn't be an issue; 2) isn't it a good thing to hear from more voters rather than let a minority decide for everyone?; 3) it's stupid to ignore voter patterns, but see #1.