Breaking Down the Boxes

When one's opponent is less than 4 percentage points away from a majority – and you trail her by 13.5 – the writing might seem to be on the wall. Looking at who won where, some insights can be gleaned that Randi Shade had to weigh as she decided to work another month to try to keep her job away from challenger Kathie Tovo. See map at left.

Why Shade Should Stay in the Race

Looking at the map, it's clear that Shade's strength is in West Austin. That's a plus, because West Austinites have the highest turnout and the strongest political motivation – good things in a run-off, when too many people won't return to the polls unless there's a gun to their heads. If you think 7.3% turnout in the first round was pathetic, prepare to be really depressed on June 18.

Notice the precincts with the bold outlines: Those are the power boxes, the Top 25 vote-producing precincts in the city. See how many of them neatly coincide with boxes where Shade beat Tovo?

In a low-turnout run-off, those precincts will be even more crucial. It's no longer about issues and ideas – there won't be any more debates or forums. With every vote being precious, it comes down to which campaign machine wears out the shoe leather getting out the vote. There is historical precedent for this: In 2005, Margot Clarke led Jennifer Kim 40% to 27%, but Kim swung it the other way a month later to become Shade's Place 3 predecessor.

Why Shade Should Have Given Up

Yes, Shade has strength where it counts – a much better situation than, say, Perla Cavazos in 2009. She dominated southeast Austin against Chris Riley, which looked really impressive on a map – until one examined the vote totals for those neighborhoods.

Unfortunately for Shade, Tovo also has strength in the power boxes – more than Shade, in fact. Tovo took nine of the Top 13 precincts and 15 of the Top 25, including outright majorities in 10, with percentages up to 69% and margins of up to 260 votes over Shade. By contrast, Shade barely got more than 50% in her best boxes, and only box 347 (Hill Country Middle School) gave her a margin of 100 votes or more. Tovo averaged a 110-vote margin in her winning boxes.

If Tovo can just get a sizable percentage of her first-rounders back to the polls, it should only take a few Max Nofziger and Kris Bailey voters to put her over the top.

And again unfortunately for Shade, those Nofziger and Bailey voters are where the Jennifer Kim analogy breaks down. In the 2005 Kim vs. Clarke race, Place 3 was an open seat, so both enjoyed equal footing. Shade, on the other hand, is an incumbent. Presumably, people only vote against an incumbent for one reason – they are dissatisfied with her performance and want her gone. By that logic, Shade lost by a better than two-to-one margin. Every vote for Nofziger and Bailey was a vote against Shade, and it's highly unlikely many of their supporters will change their minds and switch to Shade for the run-off.

Voting Results

Voting Results

PLACE 1	Early Voting	Election Day	Total Vote
Chris Riley	8,819	64.0%	11,323	67.4%	20,142	65.9%
Roger Chan	3,412	24.8%	3,958	23.5%	7,370	24.1%
Josiah James Ingalls	1,008	7.3%	925	5.5%	1,933	6.3%
Norman Jacobson	532	3.9%	602	3.6%	1,134	3.7%
Total votes	13,771		16,808		30,579
PLACE 3
Kathie Tovo	6,230	43.3%	8,616	48.9%	14,846	46.4%
Randi Shade	4,881	34.0%	5,649	32.0%	10,530	32.9%
Michael “Max” Nofziger	2,211	15.4%	2,351	13.3%	4,562	14.3%
Kris Bailey	1,058	7.4%	1,011	5.7%	2,069	6.5%
Total votes	14,380		17,627		32,007
PLACE 4
Laura Morrison	9,579	70.4%	12,449	74.8%	22,028	72.8%
Eric J. Rangel	2,852	20.9%	2,868	17.2%	5,720	18.9%
K. Toby Ryan Hill	1,183	8.7%	1,333	8.0%	2,516	8.3%
Total votes	13,614		16,650		30,264

The Power Boxes

The Top 25 vote-producing precincts in the May 14 election

Precinct	Tovo	Shade	Ballots*
342	415 58%	215 30%	716
347	179 27%	307 47%	657
332	371 69%	111 21%	539
256	190 38%	249 50%	495
242	279 58%	135 28%	482
236	285 60%	129 27%	473
253	164 35%	242 51%	472
231	162 35%	219 47%	466
135	222 48%	171 37%	459
239	295 68%	91 21%	437
354	182 43%	150 35%	425
136	249 59%	139 33%	421
152	206 50%	157 38%	409
262	142 35%	192 48%	404
250	179 45%	175 44%	402
251	167 42%	173 43%	402
273	208 54%	130 34%	387
367	125 33%	142 37%	381
237	141 37%	190 50%	378
278	175 48%	160 44%	367
249	157 43%	147 40%	364
345	86 24%	185 51%	361
421	244 68%	86 24%	359
238	133 38%	159 45%	354
336	241 69%	63 18%	350
Totals	5,197 47%	4,117 38%	10,960

* including Nofziger and Bailey