With Low Turnout, Votes Are Costly in District 3 Supervisorial Race in S.F.

Of all the political races in San Francisco’s November 2015 election, the contest for District 3 supervisor was one of the most closely watched and hardest fought.

That’s because there's a lot at stake -- the balance of power on the 11-member San Francisco Board of Supervisors will be impacted by the final outcome, resulting in a six-member voting bloc that can either be expected to align with  Mayor Ed Lee or oppose him.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting (but not every last vote tallied) it appears former board president Aaron Peskin is poised to reclaim the District 3 seat, which he previously held from 2001 to 2009.

Peskin, Lee’s polar opposite as far as San Francisco politics is concerned, was ahead of incumbent and mayoral appointee Julie Christensen by nearly 10 percentage points as of Tuesday afternoon. While the gap could narrow, it's statistically unlikely that the next round of election results will put Christensen in the lead.

So with Peskin expected to take office again, the board will be more likely to take a  progressive stance on major decisions  -- the opposite of what would have happened if Christensen had won. In a fascinating political twist, Peskin was backed in this race by Rose Pak, an influential Chinatown figure who was previously a close ally of the mayor.

Running these campaigns, of course, required a lot of time and energy -- not to mention money. At the end of the day, major expenditures were laid out for a race that, by early estimates, drew fewer than 12,000 to the polls. There are more than 34,500 registered voters in the district, which includes Telegraph Hill, North Beach, Chinatown,  Russian Hill, the Financial District, Fisherman's Wharf, Nob Hill and part of Union Square.

According to the most recent campaign finance filings, financial support for Peskin didn’t quite rise to the level that Christensen supporters raised -- but they were in the same ballpark. A San Francisco Examiner report noted that the final spending tally for the Christensen camp surpassed $1 million. Spending to elect Peskin wasn’t so far behind, clocking in at $904,914.

With such abysmal voter turnout, the race to represent the iconic San Francisco district turned out to be a very expensive affair, which raises this question: What’s the estimated spending per vote received?

According to the latest results, Christensen received 5,038 votes, while forces promoting her candidacy spent $1,060,752. Do the math -- yes, we know it’s based on a preliminary vote tally – and it comes out to $210.55 spent per vote received. Using the same formula, Peskin’s per-vote spending comes out to $146.30. He received 6,185 votes.

These exact figures per vote will certainly change -- but they are still useful in a comparison with spending in other races.

Campaign spending in favor of Mayor Ed Lee, who was easily re-elected, totaled $1,441,570, while Lee garnered 70,715 votes. That comes out to $20.38 spent per vote received -- a bargain compared with the District 3 campaigns' spending, particularly when one considers that Lee, who did not face any opponents with strong name recognition or political experience, arguably had more money at his disposal than was actually needed.

So, what did all the donations poured into the District 3 campaigns ultimately pay for? Campaign ads, of course, many of which required translation in an attempt to capture the all-important Chinatown vote.

Nor were the District 3 opponents particularly kind to one another when crafting their glossy campaign materials.

To wit:

Christensen supporters attacked Peskin's character, while Peskin supporters distributed fliers casting Christensen as tone-deaf to San Francisco voters:

In any case, it will be interesting to see what happens next. Stay tuned for the final vote tally, expected by the end of the week.