The voting in our city election Saturday ultimately showed that those candidates with the most money won.
Looking at the numbers however we can see some remarkable things.
In the district 8 race the two candidates showed $31,194 and $4,464 of campaign spending in the campaign finance report filed 8 days before the election. One candidate outspent the other by almost seven times. How did they end up? The incumbent and the one with the larger amount of money got 1,950 votes while the challenger got 1,641. That works out to a cost of $16 per vote for the winner and $2.72 for the challenger.
In district 5 we had another incumbent and challenger. The incumbent reported having spend $13,363 and the challenger $1,460. The result? Each vote cost the incumbent $7.58 while the challenger paid $1.59.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
That probably means that if the one with the lower budget would have won and the PUBLIC really prefers the challenger.
If BOTH spent the same amount of money, the challenger would have won.
LikeLike
Proof again that MONEY talks !
LikeLike
Money talked but APATHY won.
LikeLike
Sad to say but apathy won on the side of voters who didn’t vote, those who were not informed and the inability to get candidates to challenge the status quo.
Of course, the lack of candidates is also affected by the first two…
LikeLike
Please, God, get me out of this 3rd world shithole.
LikeLike
Gee, Jerry. It’s finally sinking in, huh. I hear U-Haul is running a special this week. So, what are you waiting for?
LikeLike