A Comparison of McHenry County Board Totals Before and After Adding in Early & Absentee Votes

There were differences between the totals on which I based the earlier articles I wrote last night and the ones that now appear on the McVote election results web site.

Added in at the end of the counting were 31,091 early and absentee votes.

Total ballots cast at this point are 134,323, a 66.10% showing.  (There was a 77.2% turnout four years ago.)

So that means a bit over 23% of those participating in the election cast early ballots.

On the left hand side below are the tallies before adding in the early and absentee votes.  You can click to enlarge any image.  (If you do any analysis, I’d appreciate seeing it.)

District 1 without early & absentee votes.

Most of the votes are included here. Just a few absentee ballots may be show up before the canvass.

Comparing the ballots cast in person on the left with a combination of those cast at the polling place, plus absentee votes and early votes shows some differences, but the early and absentee votes seem in line with the final results.

It certainly should tell future candidates to campaign early enough to catch those who don’t vote on election day.

District 2 results without early and absentee voting.

District 2 County Board results with only late arriving absentee ballots left out.

I’m reminded of the differences between election day votes and those cast earlier during the 2012 McHenry County Sheriff’s primary.

District 3 results without early and absentee votes.

District 3 County Board results with just late arriving absentee votes missing.

I supported Zane Seipler over incumbent Sheriff Keith Nygren.

I worked the precinct the last weekend.

Seipler carried my Algonquin Township Precinct 7 by about 2-1 among those who voted in person.

After the early and absentee ballots were folded in Seipler was still ahead, but only marginally.

That shows the value that Nygren’s massive name identification had on the electorate.

In District 2 both County Board Chairman Ken Koehler and the man trying to knock him off, Democrat Jim Roden, didn’t do a lot of early campaigning.

There were four mailings I received from Koehler.

The first, about the Second Amendment, arrived on October 23rd, just eight days before the end of early voting.

The next came on October 26th.

That was the endorsement from Lakewood Village President Erin Smith.

Two others arrived on October 27th. One was a Pro-Life pitch from Irene Napier.

The other was aimed at senior citizens about Medicare.

If you compare the two sets of vote totals, you will see both Democrats picked up strength once the early and absentee votes were folded in.

Interestingly,  Jim Roden picked up more than Jim Kennedy.

Since Roden’s pieces attacking Koehler seem to have gone out the weekend before the election, I can’t figure out why.

Maybe someone else can.

These totals for District 4 do not include early and absentee votes.

After early and absentee votes were added the results were what you see above for District 4.

Similarly, I cannot figure out why Koehler’s total went down after the inclusion of early and absentee votes.

Looking at the two sets of results for District 3, I can’t see much difference.

There’s not much difference in District 4 either.

Hammerand was down about a quarter of a percentage point.

There was hardly any difference for Sandy Salgado.

Same with Sue Draffkorn.

Fourth place Republican primary winner Bob Martens was down a tad.

And Democrat Mary Margaret Maule was up three-tenths of a percentage point.

Maule sent out mailings, but none of the Republicans did.

Here’s what the tallies looked like for District 5 prior to adding the early and absentee votes.

These are District 5′s numbers without late arriving absentee ballots.

In District 5, which is comprised mainly of the Woodstock area in Dorr Township, western Lake in the Hills and eastern Huntley, Green Party candidate Frank Wedig  did a bit better with election day voters than early voters.  Perhaps that is because early and absentee voting is driven by the two power parties.

There may be evidence of that in Democrat incumbent Paula Yensen’s doing better after early and absentee votes were added to the in-person ballots.

The difference was over one-third of a percentage point.

No early or absentee ballot are included in these District 6 totals, which are what people say on the County Clerk’s web site Tuesday night.

Here are the near final results for District 6. Nothing missing but any absentee ballots that did not arrive by election day.

In District 6, the most rural in McHenry County, the extent to which the Republicans and Democrats drive early and absentee balloting can be seen by looking at Larry Smith’s totals before and after those votes are added into the in-person ballots.

On election day, Independent Smith got 11.63% of the vote.

Adding in the early and absentee ballots dropped his share to 11.31%.

Evertsen, McCann and Aavang also saw their shares diminish with the adding of the non-election day votes.

Democrats Scott Summers and Jay Kadakia saw their percentages increase, while Jack Franks’ favorite Ryan Heuser experienced a drop.

So, put on your analytical caps and tell folks what you can tease out of the differences between the numbers lots of people when to bed thinking were the final results and the near complete counts after the early and absentee ballots were added some time after I stopped writing articles.

Remember that any image can be enlarged by clicking on it.


Comments

A Comparison of McHenry County Board Totals Before and After Adding in Early & Absentee Votes — 9 Comments

  1. Looks like Tricky Nicky was the top vote getter in the entire county!

  2. It looks like those who sent out the hit pieces didn’t profit from the tactic.

    wonder if it is because these were local races, where you were more likely to know the candidate.

    Negative does work, see Obama, Barack.

    Also, some of the radio ads I heard in the Bill Foster- Judy Biggert race, the Foster ads, were so histrionic, I can’t believe people voted for him.

    The advantage of a redrawn district, I suppose.

    Negative also didn’t work for Dee (the ad where she used Missouri Senate hillbilly candidate Todd Akin’s idiotic remarks and tried to tie McSweeney to those).

    It’s one thing to call out your opponent based on record, another to become so shrill.

  3. Negative didnt work for Dee, but it sure worked or McSweeney. His enter campaign was premised in negative attacks about Madigan.

  4. Oh- and it is rich for you to try and call Dee out for being “shrill” and not focusing on record, considering that the vast majority of McSweeney’s negative campaign wasnt about Dee, and when it was at all about Dee, it was lies.

    Shrill, indeed.

  5. dave:

    Are you stalking me or something?

    The Akin commercial was shrill, to be kind. To be honest, I didn’t hear much in the way of McSweeney’s radio spots, but I couldn’t avoid Dee’s. Hence my observation. The shrill comment I made wasn’t directed at Dee, but I think it qualifies, considering the commercial.

    Observers, such as Cal, noted that McSweeney’s mailings, especially at the beginning, were not aggressive (some would say dirty). Dee didn’t have a record, she just proclaimed her entitlement to the office because of her husband’s tenure. (She wanted to continue his work, what was that work again?)

    I think McSweeney’s primary run against Gaffney was more aggressive (some would say dirty, I am not judging) in a lot of respects. I think Dee said that campaign got her undies in a bunch and why she entered the fray.

    And even though you think Madigan is nothing more than a boogeyman to the paranoid, his fingerprints on any campaign are not clean.

    It’s over dave, give it a rest.

    My guy Mitt flamed out, very painful to watch.

    Your horse in this race did the same, it was the same kind of experience for you.

    But to blame McSweeney for picking on poor innocent Dee, as you try to portray her, is not a fair evaluation of the race.

    I would be interested in your comments on the local races and tactics on a general basis.

  6. **blame McSweeney for picking on poor innocent Dee,**

    I’m not blaming McSweeney for picking on Dee. I’m blaming him for lying about Dee, mistress presenting Dee, and focusing on someone who wasn’t running rather than on any issues. You yourself said that negative attacks should focus on issues. And, of course, as you said, it was just a continuation of the lies that McSweeney beat Gaffney with.

    ** on poor innocent Dee, as you try to portray her,**

    Incorrect, and I never said as much. What I have said is that McSweeney’s campaign was focused on Madigan rather than Dee, and when focused on Dee, it was focused on lying and distorting the truth about her.

    **its over. Give it a rest. **

    I will…but you brought up Dee and negative ads, not me. And I was just pointing out that McSweeny was just as negative as Dee. Bt McSweeney’s negatives weren’t even about Dee, or truthful.

    Look…as you all know, I really wanted Dee to win. I worked hard for her. And I did so for two reasons.

    1- I think that she would have been a vastly superior legislator than McSweeney, even though she is much more conservative than I am,.

    2- McSweeney isn’t just an extremist in pretty much every area. He also is arrogant, rude, and disrespectful (and this showed in his willingness to lie and distort in both the primary and general) and his own party/caucus have told me that they don’t want to work with him. Dave McSweeney will not be able to accomplish any of legislative priorities, and not just because he is in the super-minority caucus.

  7. **I would be interested in your comments on the local races and tactics on a general basis.**

    Well…not sure if you are asking about anything specific, but I’ll make a few comments.

    I didn’t follow a lot of the local campaigns outside of mchenry county d2 very closely, so I can’t comment too much on them.

    I think that the yes on county executive campaign was absurd, and was very clear that they had little/no support from individuals (i.e. only signs on build property, etc).

    It was a bad idea, with a bad campaign, and I don’t think that Franks even fully bought into it.

    I thought that, for the most part, the county board campaigns were a joke.

    I received no mail, no knocks.

    I reached out to Jim Roden on my own for a yard sign, but he did also drop lit on my door.

    And Donna knew she had my support, do didn’t need to knock.

    Where the heck was Jim Kennedy?

    What is very clear to me is that it is almost impossible to win an election in mchenry county without being a republican.

    Jim Roden had, arguably, the second most active campaign in D2 (other than Kurtz), but just had no chance.

    And I don’t think his losing had anything to do with him or his positions, but it had two do with being a Republican.

    So I would say, overall, that both McHenry County political parties are pretty much non-existent, and have little/no organization.

    I’ve been surprised at the lack for GOP organization out here.

    I grew up here… And just moved back two years ago.

    So while I knew how Republican the turf is, I’ve been surprised about the lack of organization.

    That was all pretty disjointed…

  8. Thank you Cal!!!

    We need more like you to educate the conservative / libertarian base!!!

    McHenry County Republicans need to seriously consider a change of direction from the OLD school!!

  9. I voted early this year and it was so great and quick.

    I will continue to vote early whenever I can.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>