With Sherlock Holmes back in movie theaters and 2011 winding down, it seems appropriate to apply some ratiocination (as opposed to rationalization) to the November election results in Hudson. What really happened?

 In the wake of any election, people naturally will float theories to answer the questions: Why did Candidate Dick win? Why did Candidate Jane lose? And, what “message” were the voters sending? But it’s rare for such theories to get tethered to any verifiable facts. Instead, these tend only to reflect the victors’ desire to project a mastery of politics (that everything happened according to their master plan) and the losers’ need to deflect blame.

This two-part article will aim to avoid both of those predictable postures by first reviewing the limited—but telling—data available, discussing a few of the theories which have been floated, and then drawing only those conclusions which can be reasonably derived from the facts.

First, then, below are 10 key data points worth pondering:

1. Less than half of those eligible—46.8%, to be precise—cast votes for Mayor. 1,700 did show up and assert their preference. But nearly 2,000 others did not.


2. As the chart above shows, that turnout was unusually, even historically, low. I cannot find evidence of a lighter turnout for any contested Mayoral race in Hudson any time in the past generation, and certainly not in the past decade.


3. This turnout crash can’t be attributed to a loss in registered voters, as the number eligible to vote has remained pretty constant during the period considered. (For example, the number registered to vote in Hudson in 2002 was 3,697; today it’s 3,687.)


4. 50 people showed up at the polls, yet did not vote for either Mayoral candidate. 


5. Hallenbeck’s margin of victory was 50 votes.


6. Turnout was especially low in the 2nd Ward, dropping from a high of 483 in 2007 to just 290 in 2011. That’s almost 200 “missing” voters, four times the margin of victory.


7. Turnout hovered around 50% in most of the City, except for the 2nd and 4th Wards, which were way down at 39% and 42%, respectively. (And without the high level of participation via absentee ballots by residents of the Firemen’s home, the 4th Ward’s showing might have been even worse.)


8. There was only a small percentage difference (52% vs. 49.5%) in turnout among Republicans vs. Democrats. But since there are over three times as many Dems as GOP members in Hudson, that small percentage difference got magnified in terms of actual votes cast, with the former in effect losing 50 more potential supporters.


9. Turnout likewise wasunusually light among members of the Bangaladeshi community. Historically, these recently-minted registrants have participated at impressive rates well over 90%, enjoying their newfound citizenship. But this time around, their turnout was more like 50%. 


10. Hallenbeck won a single suburban district—5-2, which is the northernmost part of town, nestled among the “boulevards” of Greenport—by 112 votes, more than double his margin of victory. In other words, the result would have been reversed if not for that district, which in recent years has felt increasingly alienated and distant from Hudson’s downtown.

In Part II tomorrow, I’ll move from these hard data to a few ratiocinated conclusions.

I’ve had several requests for charts showing population changes for Berkshire and Ulster counties, similar to the ones already posted here for Columbia, Greene and Dutchess. Here you go:

If you want to work with the raw data, here it is as a PDF. As ever, this info is presented with the caveat that population figures, taken in isolation, should not be interpreted as a measure of prosperity.

For example, though Berkshire County is widely regarded as more prosperous than Columbia, their population fell slightly over the past decade, whereas Columbia’s stayed essentially unchanged—up by two residents. (Meanwhile, half of the entire Berkshire population loss is attributed to Pittsfield and North Adams, which are very different in character from much of the rest of the county.) Such trends ought to be examined in a fuller context of other demographic data and on-the-ground observations.

Clearly, Hudson and Columbia County have changed a great deal in the past decade. But how, exactly?

The 2010 Census figures for Columbia County still aren’t available. But one can get some sense of how a place has changed over the past decade by taking a look at shifts in its voter registration... Below are some simple observations based on a comparison of the Hudson voter rolls in 1999 vs. today in 2011:

• The total number of Hudson voters dropped* by 142 registrants between 1999 vs. 2011.

(Note: In the middle of that decade, voter rolls temporarily swelled over 3,800; but that included a large number of voters who proved to be “inactive,” i.e. still on the rolls but not actually still living in Hudson. These are slowly weeded out by the Board of Elections via mail checks and occasional challenges by candidates.)

• Enrollment in the Democratic party went up by 56% and Independence Party** rolls increased by 93%—while the number of Republicans fell -25% and Conservative enrollment dropped a whopping -73%,

• 51% of all voters in Hudson today have only been registered locally for 10 years or less.

• Meanwhile, only 17% have been registered for 20 years or more.

• The balance of voters in the various Hudson wards has shifted somewhat:

• In 1999, 56% of Hudson voters were female. Today, that number has evened out slightly, falling to 54%.

• 14% (approximately 1 in 7) of those registered to vote have never actually done so.

---

* Drops in population or voter enrollment are often lamented as a sign of a community in decline, but this analysis often proves too simplistic. For example: Imagine a house in terrible condition, owned by a large extended family which hasn't paid its property tax bill for several years, who have a host of “fence disputes” with their neighbors, and who rent out the basement apartment to known crack dealers for cash. The house gets sold, the back taxes get paid, the problem neighbors use the remaining proceeds to move to another town, and a retired couple renovates the house—in the process, pouring many dollars into the pockets of local contractors such as roofers, electricians, plumbers and painters. In that scenario, a formerly-derelict house is back on the tax rolls, back in good condition, and lived in by people who care about their surroundings. So while the population of the block may have decreased, the block and the City would appear to be better off.

** Many who consider themselves "independent" voters mistakenly enroll as a member of the confusingly-named Independence Party, which is actually a political organization. Those with no party affiliation are recorded by the Board of Elections as "NOP" or "NPE" voters (for No Party or No Party Enrollment).