I've been taking a look at the voting patterns on 08-B so far, and a few days ago noticed that it appeared that there were a large number of "safe for equality" presbyteries that hadn't voted on 08-B yet. A quick analysis confirmed that this was true, but I didn't fully run the numbers.
So today I finally got around to adding a separate analysis section to the bottom of the tracking spreadsheet linked from this blog. It's down there in the section that says "Late voting competitive disadvantage / early voting competitive advantage analysis".
The results are striking. They show a consistent pattern of likely anti-LGBT presbyteries voting early, and pro-LGBT presbyteries voting late. These vote scheduling disparities heavily skew the current presbytery vote count (which, as I've suggested earlier, isn't the critical number to watch -- what I care about are the voting percentage TRENDS) towards "no".
Here's a summary, and the full set of numbers are in the spreadsheet.
-- So far, 2/3 (67%) of all presbyteries have voted.
-- BUT, out of 36 "likely yes" presbyteries, only 53% have voted.
-- This causes a 5-vote "yes" disadvantage compared to what we'd see if these presbyteries were scheduling their votes at an average rate, i.e. if 67% had already voted.
But wait, there's more...
-- Also, out of 77 "likely no" presbyteries, 82% (!) have already voted.
-- This causes an 11-vote "no" advantage compared to what we'd see if these presbyteries were scheduling their votes at an average rate of 67%.
In other words:
-- Anti-LGBT presbyteries are voting early.
-- Pro-LGBT presbyteries are voting late.
-- The result (as of right now) is a 16-vote skew towards "no".
-- This is why the current presbytery vote totals look so lopsided.
Of course, the goal of this marathon (not a sprint, it's a marathon) is to shift hearts and minds over time, and the best indicator that we have of that are the percentage vote trends over time.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Weekly 08-B vote wrapup (March 1-7)
OK, here we go with another weekly 08-B vote wrapup. The presbytery individual voting breakdowns and percentage shifts are later below.
SUMMARY FOR THE WEEK (March 1-7):
Yes votes: 3 (was 1 in 2001-2)
No votes: 9 (was 11 in 2001-2)
Ties: 2 (ties count as "no" and are included in the 9 above.)
No-to-yes flips: 1 out of a target 3
Previous "yes" presbyteries held at "yes": 1 out of 1
Presbyteries shifting pro-equality: 10
Presbyteries shifting anti-equality: 1
Nasty surprises: 0
Amazingly positive surprises (unexpected flips): 1
Annoyances: 2 (North Central Iowa, Mission)
Bruce's ranking of the week: "Mostly as predicted, with increasing tie votes"
This week's votes on 08-B came in mostly as an educated guess would predict, however there were a few interesting wrinkles along the way. The presbytery vote lineup for the past week consisted of 6 expected solid "no" votes, 2 more likely "no" votes, 3 candidates for no-to-yes vote flips, and 1 expected "yes" vote. As it turned out, 2 of the 3 candidate no-to-yes presbyteries (Mission and North Central Iowa Presbyteries) did NOT flip, but we picked up an unexpected no-to-yes flip from Whitewater Valley.
My definition of an ideal week would have been 4 yes votes, however that was definitely a stretch goal, since it required flipping two presbyteries with previous 41% pro-equality voting records (North Central Iowa and Mission). A complete blowout miracle week would have been 6 yes votes, which would have required two long-shot presbyteries to also flip pro-equality. Overall, 3 presbytery "yes" votes for the week isn't too bad, and it's 2 more than 2001-2, so as always the overall trend is in favor of equality.
This past week we've also seen The Return Of The Tie Vote, now with twice as many tie votes as before. Previously we had a tie vote from Cincinnati presbytery, and this week we saw both Central Nebraska and Mission presbyteries reach that "just one vote short" threshold of a tie, which unfortunately counts as a "no" for the presbytery. However I'm happy to claim at least 1.5 moral victory "yes" votes from the 3 ties that have happened so far. As with Cincinnati, the lesson here really is that every last vote can matter -- so if you're a voter who is thinking about skipping your presbytery meeting on the voting day for 08-B, please don't.
One important trend this week is that presbyteries shifting pro-equality in their vote percentages totally overwhelmed presbyteries shifting anti-equality. Only North Central Iowa shifted anti-LGBT in its vote this week, and the overall ratio of pro-LGBT-vote-shift to anti-LGBT-vote-shift presbyteries is now well above 3 to 1. To me, these voting percentage shifts are more important to track than the total presbytery vote count, since the shifts tell us where the PCUSA is headed ideologically. It's extremely clear at this point that we have a very strong pro-equality voting trend within the denomination. Regardless of how the final presbytery vote tally comes out on 08-B, it's now obvious that G6.0106b is going to be out of the denomination's constitution within the next few years.
So with that overview out of the way, let's go to the vote-by-vote breakdowns and comments.
ANNOYANCES
North Central Iowa
2001-2 01-A: 46 yes, 65 no --> 41.4% YES
2009 08-B: 31 yes, 60 no --> 34.1% YES (-7.4%)
North Central Iowa ends up on my "most annoying" list this week since it was a target presbytery to flip from no to yes, however instead we ended up with about a 7% ANTI-equality shift. This sort of anti-LGBT trend is highly unusual for a presbytery in the 40% pro-equality support range, so possibly this may have simply been a get-out-the-vote issue for yes-on-08B supporters.
Mission
2001-2 01-A: 164 yes, 235 no --> 41.1% YES
2009 08-B: 181 yes, 181 no --> 50.0% YES (+8.9%)
Mission was another target "no-to-yes flip" presbytery, and isn't as annoying as North Central Iowa since it did shift significantly pro-equality. However a tie vote is almost always annoying, so I'll list it here. You could also make a credible argument that Mission should go into the "slightly positive" list below.
NEUTRAL
Eastern Korean
2001-2 01-A: 0 yes, 48 no --> 0% YES
2009 08-B: 0 yes, 55 no --> 0% YES
I'm not sure what to say about Eastern Korean other than that with those voting patterns, they're certainly consistent. You do have to figure that since God has created roughly 3% of the population as gay, many of the voters in this presbytery are voting against equality for their own children, quite possibly without even knowing it. It's kind of sad to think about it that way. It will be a day to celebrate when we see the first non-unanimous vote from this presbytery.
SLIGHTLY POSITIVE
It may seem strange that here I have a long string of "no" presbytery votes all listed in the "slightly positive" category, however they're all pro-equality voting shifts, some of them fairly significant. Central Nebraska even came up out of the high-30% pro-equality support level and almost became a surprise no-to-yes flip, however the vote ended up as a tie.
I have these listed in order of increasing percentage vote shift.
Holston
2001-2 01-A: 22 yes, 74 no --> 22.9% YES
2009 08-B: 24 yes, 68 no --> 26.1% YES (+3.2%)
Trinity
2001-2 01-A: 42 yes, 114 no --> 26.9% YES
2009 08-B: 48 yes, 106 no --> 31.2% YES (+4.2%)
Coastal Carolina
2001-2 01-A: 95 yes, 286 no --> 25% YES
2009 08-B: 110 yes, 205 no --> 35% YES (+10%)
Central Nebraska
2001-2 01-A: 24 yes, 39 no --> 38.1% YES
2009 08-B: 21 yes, 21 no --> 50.0% YES (+11.9%)
This vote shift from Central Nebraska obviously shifts it into the category of "strong target no-to-yes shift" if there needs to be a next time.
South Dakota
2001-2 01-A: 22 yes, 66 no --> 25% YES
2009 08-B: 32 yes, 48 no --> 40% YES (+15%)
Similar to the voting in Central Nebraska, this large pro-equality swing of 15% from South Dakota shifts it from what we'd call "Seeking A Miracle" status to "long-shot target to flip pro-equality" if there needs to be a next time.
SUCCESSES
Heartland
2001-2 01-A: 150 yes, 139 no --> 51.9% YES
2009 08-B: 127 yes, 90 no --> 58.5% YES (+6.6%)
Heartland was a "hold" presbytery, which means that it had previously voted pro-equality and we wanted to keep it that way. That was successful, and with a solid 6.6% pro-LGBT shift.
John Calvin
2001-2 01-A: 16 yes, 76 no --> 17.4% YES
2009 08-B: 33 yes, 55 no --> 37.5% YES (+20.1%)
Here's another presbytery "no" vote, however look at that pro-equality shift of over 20%. Supporters doubled the number of "yes" voters, while the "no" side lost 21 votes. That's a very positive shift towards equality.
Whitewater Valley
2001-2 01-A: 95 yes, 150 no --> 38.8% YES
2009 08-B: 108 yes, 106 no --> 50.5% YES (+11.7%)
Whitewater Valley was a "very long shot to flip" presbytery, and in fact did flip this year from "no" to "yes". This was our "amazingly positive surprise" Presbytery for the week. Many thanks to everybody working in this presbytery for equality.
Yellowstone
2001-2 01-A: 29 yes, 37 no --> 44% YES
2009 08-B: 25 yes, 23 no --> 52% YES (+8%)
Yellowstone was another target presbytery to flip from "no" to "yes", and here it was successful. As with Whitewater Valley, a change of a single "yes" vote to "no" would have made this into a tie this year, which would have counted as a "no". (Did I mention yet that every vote counts?)
SUMMARY FOR THE WEEK (March 1-7):
Yes votes: 3 (was 1 in 2001-2)
No votes: 9 (was 11 in 2001-2)
Ties: 2 (ties count as "no" and are included in the 9 above.)
No-to-yes flips: 1 out of a target 3
Previous "yes" presbyteries held at "yes": 1 out of 1
Presbyteries shifting pro-equality: 10
Presbyteries shifting anti-equality: 1
Nasty surprises: 0
Amazingly positive surprises (unexpected flips): 1
Annoyances: 2 (North Central Iowa, Mission)
Bruce's ranking of the week: "Mostly as predicted, with increasing tie votes"
This week's votes on 08-B came in mostly as an educated guess would predict, however there were a few interesting wrinkles along the way. The presbytery vote lineup for the past week consisted of 6 expected solid "no" votes, 2 more likely "no" votes, 3 candidates for no-to-yes vote flips, and 1 expected "yes" vote. As it turned out, 2 of the 3 candidate no-to-yes presbyteries (Mission and North Central Iowa Presbyteries) did NOT flip, but we picked up an unexpected no-to-yes flip from Whitewater Valley.
My definition of an ideal week would have been 4 yes votes, however that was definitely a stretch goal, since it required flipping two presbyteries with previous 41% pro-equality voting records (North Central Iowa and Mission). A complete blowout miracle week would have been 6 yes votes, which would have required two long-shot presbyteries to also flip pro-equality. Overall, 3 presbytery "yes" votes for the week isn't too bad, and it's 2 more than 2001-2, so as always the overall trend is in favor of equality.
This past week we've also seen The Return Of The Tie Vote, now with twice as many tie votes as before. Previously we had a tie vote from Cincinnati presbytery, and this week we saw both Central Nebraska and Mission presbyteries reach that "just one vote short" threshold of a tie, which unfortunately counts as a "no" for the presbytery. However I'm happy to claim at least 1.5 moral victory "yes" votes from the 3 ties that have happened so far. As with Cincinnati, the lesson here really is that every last vote can matter -- so if you're a voter who is thinking about skipping your presbytery meeting on the voting day for 08-B, please don't.
One important trend this week is that presbyteries shifting pro-equality in their vote percentages totally overwhelmed presbyteries shifting anti-equality. Only North Central Iowa shifted anti-LGBT in its vote this week, and the overall ratio of pro-LGBT-vote-shift to anti-LGBT-vote-shift presbyteries is now well above 3 to 1. To me, these voting percentage shifts are more important to track than the total presbytery vote count, since the shifts tell us where the PCUSA is headed ideologically. It's extremely clear at this point that we have a very strong pro-equality voting trend within the denomination. Regardless of how the final presbytery vote tally comes out on 08-B, it's now obvious that G6.0106b is going to be out of the denomination's constitution within the next few years.
So with that overview out of the way, let's go to the vote-by-vote breakdowns and comments.
ANNOYANCES
North Central Iowa
2001-2 01-A: 46 yes, 65 no --> 41.4% YES
2009 08-B: 31 yes, 60 no --> 34.1% YES (-7.4%)
North Central Iowa ends up on my "most annoying" list this week since it was a target presbytery to flip from no to yes, however instead we ended up with about a 7% ANTI-equality shift. This sort of anti-LGBT trend is highly unusual for a presbytery in the 40% pro-equality support range, so possibly this may have simply been a get-out-the-vote issue for yes-on-08B supporters.
Mission
2001-2 01-A: 164 yes, 235 no --> 41.1% YES
2009 08-B: 181 yes, 181 no --> 50.0% YES (+8.9%)
Mission was another target "no-to-yes flip" presbytery, and isn't as annoying as North Central Iowa since it did shift significantly pro-equality. However a tie vote is almost always annoying, so I'll list it here. You could also make a credible argument that Mission should go into the "slightly positive" list below.
NEUTRAL
Eastern Korean
2001-2 01-A: 0 yes, 48 no --> 0% YES
2009 08-B: 0 yes, 55 no --> 0% YES
I'm not sure what to say about Eastern Korean other than that with those voting patterns, they're certainly consistent. You do have to figure that since God has created roughly 3% of the population as gay, many of the voters in this presbytery are voting against equality for their own children, quite possibly without even knowing it. It's kind of sad to think about it that way. It will be a day to celebrate when we see the first non-unanimous vote from this presbytery.
SLIGHTLY POSITIVE
It may seem strange that here I have a long string of "no" presbytery votes all listed in the "slightly positive" category, however they're all pro-equality voting shifts, some of them fairly significant. Central Nebraska even came up out of the high-30% pro-equality support level and almost became a surprise no-to-yes flip, however the vote ended up as a tie.
I have these listed in order of increasing percentage vote shift.
Holston
2001-2 01-A: 22 yes, 74 no --> 22.9% YES
2009 08-B: 24 yes, 68 no --> 26.1% YES (+3.2%)
Trinity
2001-2 01-A: 42 yes, 114 no --> 26.9% YES
2009 08-B: 48 yes, 106 no --> 31.2% YES (+4.2%)
Coastal Carolina
2001-2 01-A: 95 yes, 286 no --> 25% YES
2009 08-B: 110 yes, 205 no --> 35% YES (+10%)
Central Nebraska
2001-2 01-A: 24 yes, 39 no --> 38.1% YES
2009 08-B: 21 yes, 21 no --> 50.0% YES (+11.9%)
This vote shift from Central Nebraska obviously shifts it into the category of "strong target no-to-yes shift" if there needs to be a next time.
South Dakota
2001-2 01-A: 22 yes, 66 no --> 25% YES
2009 08-B: 32 yes, 48 no --> 40% YES (+15%)
Similar to the voting in Central Nebraska, this large pro-equality swing of 15% from South Dakota shifts it from what we'd call "Seeking A Miracle" status to "long-shot target to flip pro-equality" if there needs to be a next time.
SUCCESSES
Heartland
2001-2 01-A: 150 yes, 139 no --> 51.9% YES
2009 08-B: 127 yes, 90 no --> 58.5% YES (+6.6%)
Heartland was a "hold" presbytery, which means that it had previously voted pro-equality and we wanted to keep it that way. That was successful, and with a solid 6.6% pro-LGBT shift.
John Calvin
2001-2 01-A: 16 yes, 76 no --> 17.4% YES
2009 08-B: 33 yes, 55 no --> 37.5% YES (+20.1%)
Here's another presbytery "no" vote, however look at that pro-equality shift of over 20%. Supporters doubled the number of "yes" voters, while the "no" side lost 21 votes. That's a very positive shift towards equality.
Whitewater Valley
2001-2 01-A: 95 yes, 150 no --> 38.8% YES
2009 08-B: 108 yes, 106 no --> 50.5% YES (+11.7%)
Whitewater Valley was a "very long shot to flip" presbytery, and in fact did flip this year from "no" to "yes". This was our "amazingly positive surprise" Presbytery for the week. Many thanks to everybody working in this presbytery for equality.
Yellowstone
2001-2 01-A: 29 yes, 37 no --> 44% YES
2009 08-B: 25 yes, 23 no --> 52% YES (+8%)
Yellowstone was another target presbytery to flip from "no" to "yes", and here it was successful. As with Whitewater Valley, a change of a single "yes" vote to "no" would have made this into a tie this year, which would have counted as a "no". (Did I mention yet that every vote counts?)
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Weekly 08-B vote wrapup: the anti-equality deck-stacking begins
This wrapup has a combination of statistics, comments, and advisories.
As I noted a few weeks back, there are a significant number of presbyteries with strong anti-equality voting records. The 13 presbytery votes over the past week included 10 of these "likely no" presbyteries, so the vote totals this week are very lopsided towards "no" votes.
The big news this week is that the 15 no-to-yes presbytery vote flips of the previous several weeks have both frightened and motivated the anti-LGBT forces within the denomination. We're now starting to see an increase in anti-08B activity at the presbytery level, including the use of antidemocratic tactics such as suppressing presbytery meeting discussion of 08-B. The largest disappointment this week was in Indian Nations, a target no-to-yes swing presbytery, where the anti-08B side successfully used debate-suppression and was able to nudge the "yes" vote just under 50%. Had 08-B been given a fair and open discussion from Presbytery floor, as is generally required by Presbyterian polity, Indian Nations very likely would have voted "yes" on 08-B.
I should be clear about the impact of what we've learned from the past week. If you're in a presbytery which has a good chance of a vote flip this year, YOUR PRESBYTERY IS A TARGET FOR VOTING PROCESS ABUSE during your presbytery meeting. You should do what you can both before and during your presbytery meeting to ensure that 08-B is given a fair, deliberative discussion and a fair vote. If you feel that the process isn't fair, at the very least please make some noise about it, under the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" principle.
Here are some popular tactics that can be used by anti-equality groups to game the voting system so that pro-equality overtures have a reduced probability of success at the presbytery level:
- "Stifle the Spirit" tactic: Don't allow discussion of the equality overture, just go directly to a vote. Variation: schedule only a token time interval for discussion.
- "Public intimidation" tactic: Don't use secret ballots -- make people stand up in the middle of presbytery meeting to have their vote counted. Works particularly well in presbyteries with a strong majority on either side.
- "Endurance test" tactic: Schedule the vote on the overture at the end of a 7-hour meeting so that younger voters with kids at home have to leave before the vote.
- "Consent calendar" tactic: Put a "no" vote on the overture onto the consent calendar to try to sneak it through. Even if pro-equality supporters catch this trick, they then have to go through procedural hoops on the floor of presbytery to get the item removed from the consent calendar.
This is just my off-the-cuff list -- I'm confident that there are other tactics that can be, and have been, used to create an unfair context for voting.
______________________________________
With those preliminaries and warnings out of the way, let's go into the summary and the vote-by-vote comments.
SUMMARY FOR THE WEEK (Feb. 23-28):
Yes votes: 2
No votes: 11
No-to-yes flips: 0 out of a target 1
Previous "yes" presbyteries held at "yes": 2 out of 2
Presbyteries shifting pro-equality: 8
Presbyteries shifting anti-equality: 2
Nasty surprises: 1 (Indian Nations)
Amazingly positive surprises (unexpected flips): 0
Annoyances: 1 (Missouri Union)
Bruce's ranking of the week: "stormy with anti-gay pushback"
Roughly in order of neutral, then annoying, then good news, here are the recent votes that I'm aware of:
1. PREVIOUS VOICE-VOTE PRESBYTERIES:
Cherokee
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote "no"
2009 08-B: 24 yes, 79 no --> 23% YES
Shenango
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote "no"
2009 08-B: 4 yes, 101 no --> 4% YES
New Harmony
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote "no"
2009 08-B: 20 yes, 99 no --> 16.8% YES
All three of these presbyteries took voice "no" votes on 01-A back in 2001-2, so there are no voting percentages from those years to compare for a vote shift. These three "no" votes suggest that the initial trend -- in which half of the previous voice-vote-no presbyteries flipped to "yes" -- was probably an outlier. The most likely pattern for the remaining prior-voice-vote-no presbyteries is that we'll see most or all of them come in with "no" votes.
The Shenango vote was originally reported elsewhere as 4 yes, 191 no, which is incorrect. My correspondence with the Stated Clerk got a corrected number of 4 yes, 101 no, and a process note that the vote was taken by asking people to stand up in the middle of presbytery meeting to have their "yes" or "no" vote counted. Presumably they did one set of people standing for "no" and then took a headcount, and then another set of people standing for "yes" and took a headcount. This is a nice example of the "public intimidation" voting tactic that I mention above. Not necessarily intentional on the part of the vote-takers, but probably effective at reducing the "yes" vote count regardless of intent.
I really want to call out here for thanksgiving the four people in Shenango who had the courage to stand up to be counted "yes" on 08-B this year. We don't know your names, we don't know who you are, but you're all heroes. It would have been so easy, in the midst of what was already known to be a lopsided presbytery no-on-08B vote, to simply stay seated, anonymous, and safe. If Peter can get away with it in Matthew 26:69-74, why not us, 2000 years later? But you didn't -- you ensured that it wasn't a 101-to-zero "no" vote, it was 101-4. The light shines in the darkness in Shenango! Four people potentially put their careers within Shenango Presbytery at risk by standing for equality this week. What will the rest of us do to stand for equality they way they did?
2. MOST ANNOYING
Indian Nations
2001-2 01-A: 52 yes, 52 no --> 50.0% YES
2009 08-B: 38 yes, 43 no --> 46.9% YES (-3.1%)
What should have been a no-to-yes flip this year turned into a 3% anti-equality shift due to the use of the "stifle the Spirit" tactic used during the presbytery meeting. Thanks for reminding us that you don't play fair, anti-08B people. Your use of this tactic suggests that you don't feel that your arguments can stand the sunlight of open discussion, as mandated by Presbyterian polity. If you think that the PCUSA should discriminate against gay people, at least have the guts to stand up in your presbytery meeting and say so. Cowards.
Missouri Union
2001-2 01-A: 34 yes, 46 no --> 42.5% YES
2009 08-B: 31 yes, 48 no --> 39.2% YES (-3.3%)
Bucking the trend of "if it's over 30% in the past, it will probably shift pro-LGBT" was Missouri Union, with a perhaps statistically insignificant 3% anti-equality shift. This presbytery was a long shot to flip from no to yes this year, but instead it's hovering around that 40% mark. It would have been nice to see a 5% to 7% pro-equality shift, so this one counts as "annoying".
3. SLIGHTLY POSITIVE
Here we have a series of "no" votes, so you might be wondering why I list these in the "slightly positive" category. The reason, of course, is the voting percent shifts. In every case it was a pro-equality shift, even in some heavily anti-equality presbyteries that we might expect to trend anti-equality.
North Puget Sound
2001-2 01-A: 39 yes, 73 no --> 35% YES
2009 08-B: 42 yes, 69 no --> 38% YES (+3%)
Northeast Georgia
2001-2 01-A: 44 yes, 101 no --> 30.3% YES
2009 08-B: 49 yes, 89 no --> 35.5% YES (+5.2%)
Yukon
2001-2 01-A: 12 yes, 40 no --> 23.1% YES
2009 08-B: 17 yes, 42 no --> 28.8% YES (+5.7%)
Tampa Bay
2001-2 01-A: 63 yes, 142 no --> 30.7% YES
2009 08-B: 71 yes, 105 no --> 40.3% YES (+9.6%)
4. SUCCESSES
Hudson River
2001-2 01-A: 103 yes, 28 no --> 79% YES
2009 08-B: 94 YES, 12 no --> 89% YES (+10%)
Another "safe yes vote" presbytery comes in with a 10% pro-equality shift, similar to what we've seen earlier in (for example) Chicago, Redwoods, and Sante Fe presbyteries. We haven't had any presbytery break the 90% support barrier yet, but Hudson River is certainly close.
Milwaukee
2001-2 01-A: 68 yes, 35 no --> 66% YES
2009 08-B: 86 yes, 24 no --> 78% YES (+12%)
And still another >10% pro-equality shift from a "safe yes" presbytery. Nice job in Milwaukee bringing out the pro-equality vote.
Peace River
2001-2 01-A: 37 yes, 105 no --> 26.1% YES
2009 08-B: 63 yes, 82 no --> 43.4% YES (+17.4%)
The winner of the pro-equality shift award for the week is Peace river, which shifts from "strongly anti-equality" to "target swing presbytery if there needs to be a next time". There were both significant numerical increases in the yes vote, and decreases in the no vote -- the best scenario. And a 17% pro-equality shift is huge -- this is a good success story for the week.
South Alabama
2001-2 01-A: 18 yes, 49 no --> 26.9% YES
2009 08-B: 24 yes, 33 no --> 42.1% YES (+15.2%)
Nipping at the heels of Peace River for the pro-equality shift award this week is South Alabama. As with Peace River, here we see a presbytery with a voting history of mid-20% pro-equality suddenly jump into the low-40% range. +15% is an amazing jump in support, and as with Peace River moves this presbytery out of the category "strongly anti-equality" into the category of "target to flip pro-equality".
As I noted a few weeks back, there are a significant number of presbyteries with strong anti-equality voting records. The 13 presbytery votes over the past week included 10 of these "likely no" presbyteries, so the vote totals this week are very lopsided towards "no" votes.
The big news this week is that the 15 no-to-yes presbytery vote flips of the previous several weeks have both frightened and motivated the anti-LGBT forces within the denomination. We're now starting to see an increase in anti-08B activity at the presbytery level, including the use of antidemocratic tactics such as suppressing presbytery meeting discussion of 08-B. The largest disappointment this week was in Indian Nations, a target no-to-yes swing presbytery, where the anti-08B side successfully used debate-suppression and was able to nudge the "yes" vote just under 50%. Had 08-B been given a fair and open discussion from Presbytery floor, as is generally required by Presbyterian polity, Indian Nations very likely would have voted "yes" on 08-B.
I should be clear about the impact of what we've learned from the past week. If you're in a presbytery which has a good chance of a vote flip this year, YOUR PRESBYTERY IS A TARGET FOR VOTING PROCESS ABUSE during your presbytery meeting. You should do what you can both before and during your presbytery meeting to ensure that 08-B is given a fair, deliberative discussion and a fair vote. If you feel that the process isn't fair, at the very least please make some noise about it, under the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" principle.
Here are some popular tactics that can be used by anti-equality groups to game the voting system so that pro-equality overtures have a reduced probability of success at the presbytery level:
- "Stifle the Spirit" tactic: Don't allow discussion of the equality overture, just go directly to a vote. Variation: schedule only a token time interval for discussion.
- "Public intimidation" tactic: Don't use secret ballots -- make people stand up in the middle of presbytery meeting to have their vote counted. Works particularly well in presbyteries with a strong majority on either side.
- "Endurance test" tactic: Schedule the vote on the overture at the end of a 7-hour meeting so that younger voters with kids at home have to leave before the vote.
- "Consent calendar" tactic: Put a "no" vote on the overture onto the consent calendar to try to sneak it through. Even if pro-equality supporters catch this trick, they then have to go through procedural hoops on the floor of presbytery to get the item removed from the consent calendar.
This is just my off-the-cuff list -- I'm confident that there are other tactics that can be, and have been, used to create an unfair context for voting.
______________________________________
With those preliminaries and warnings out of the way, let's go into the summary and the vote-by-vote comments.
SUMMARY FOR THE WEEK (Feb. 23-28):
Yes votes: 2
No votes: 11
No-to-yes flips: 0 out of a target 1
Previous "yes" presbyteries held at "yes": 2 out of 2
Presbyteries shifting pro-equality: 8
Presbyteries shifting anti-equality: 2
Nasty surprises: 1 (Indian Nations)
Amazingly positive surprises (unexpected flips): 0
Annoyances: 1 (Missouri Union)
Bruce's ranking of the week: "stormy with anti-gay pushback"
Roughly in order of neutral, then annoying, then good news, here are the recent votes that I'm aware of:
1. PREVIOUS VOICE-VOTE PRESBYTERIES:
Cherokee
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote "no"
2009 08-B: 24 yes, 79 no --> 23% YES
Shenango
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote "no"
2009 08-B: 4 yes, 101 no --> 4% YES
New Harmony
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote "no"
2009 08-B: 20 yes, 99 no --> 16.8% YES
All three of these presbyteries took voice "no" votes on 01-A back in 2001-2, so there are no voting percentages from those years to compare for a vote shift. These three "no" votes suggest that the initial trend -- in which half of the previous voice-vote-no presbyteries flipped to "yes" -- was probably an outlier. The most likely pattern for the remaining prior-voice-vote-no presbyteries is that we'll see most or all of them come in with "no" votes.
The Shenango vote was originally reported elsewhere as 4 yes, 191 no, which is incorrect. My correspondence with the Stated Clerk got a corrected number of 4 yes, 101 no, and a process note that the vote was taken by asking people to stand up in the middle of presbytery meeting to have their "yes" or "no" vote counted. Presumably they did one set of people standing for "no" and then took a headcount, and then another set of people standing for "yes" and took a headcount. This is a nice example of the "public intimidation" voting tactic that I mention above. Not necessarily intentional on the part of the vote-takers, but probably effective at reducing the "yes" vote count regardless of intent.
I really want to call out here for thanksgiving the four people in Shenango who had the courage to stand up to be counted "yes" on 08-B this year. We don't know your names, we don't know who you are, but you're all heroes. It would have been so easy, in the midst of what was already known to be a lopsided presbytery no-on-08B vote, to simply stay seated, anonymous, and safe. If Peter can get away with it in Matthew 26:69-74, why not us, 2000 years later? But you didn't -- you ensured that it wasn't a 101-to-zero "no" vote, it was 101-4. The light shines in the darkness in Shenango! Four people potentially put their careers within Shenango Presbytery at risk by standing for equality this week. What will the rest of us do to stand for equality they way they did?
2. MOST ANNOYING
Indian Nations
2001-2 01-A: 52 yes, 52 no --> 50.0% YES
2009 08-B: 38 yes, 43 no --> 46.9% YES (-3.1%)
What should have been a no-to-yes flip this year turned into a 3% anti-equality shift due to the use of the "stifle the Spirit" tactic used during the presbytery meeting. Thanks for reminding us that you don't play fair, anti-08B people. Your use of this tactic suggests that you don't feel that your arguments can stand the sunlight of open discussion, as mandated by Presbyterian polity. If you think that the PCUSA should discriminate against gay people, at least have the guts to stand up in your presbytery meeting and say so. Cowards.
Missouri Union
2001-2 01-A: 34 yes, 46 no --> 42.5% YES
2009 08-B: 31 yes, 48 no --> 39.2% YES (-3.3%)
Bucking the trend of "if it's over 30% in the past, it will probably shift pro-LGBT" was Missouri Union, with a perhaps statistically insignificant 3% anti-equality shift. This presbytery was a long shot to flip from no to yes this year, but instead it's hovering around that 40% mark. It would have been nice to see a 5% to 7% pro-equality shift, so this one counts as "annoying".
3. SLIGHTLY POSITIVE
Here we have a series of "no" votes, so you might be wondering why I list these in the "slightly positive" category. The reason, of course, is the voting percent shifts. In every case it was a pro-equality shift, even in some heavily anti-equality presbyteries that we might expect to trend anti-equality.
North Puget Sound
2001-2 01-A: 39 yes, 73 no --> 35% YES
2009 08-B: 42 yes, 69 no --> 38% YES (+3%)
Northeast Georgia
2001-2 01-A: 44 yes, 101 no --> 30.3% YES
2009 08-B: 49 yes, 89 no --> 35.5% YES (+5.2%)
Yukon
2001-2 01-A: 12 yes, 40 no --> 23.1% YES
2009 08-B: 17 yes, 42 no --> 28.8% YES (+5.7%)
Tampa Bay
2001-2 01-A: 63 yes, 142 no --> 30.7% YES
2009 08-B: 71 yes, 105 no --> 40.3% YES (+9.6%)
4. SUCCESSES
Hudson River
2001-2 01-A: 103 yes, 28 no --> 79% YES
2009 08-B: 94 YES, 12 no --> 89% YES (+10%)
Another "safe yes vote" presbytery comes in with a 10% pro-equality shift, similar to what we've seen earlier in (for example) Chicago, Redwoods, and Sante Fe presbyteries. We haven't had any presbytery break the 90% support barrier yet, but Hudson River is certainly close.
Milwaukee
2001-2 01-A: 68 yes, 35 no --> 66% YES
2009 08-B: 86 yes, 24 no --> 78% YES (+12%)
And still another >10% pro-equality shift from a "safe yes" presbytery. Nice job in Milwaukee bringing out the pro-equality vote.
Peace River
2001-2 01-A: 37 yes, 105 no --> 26.1% YES
2009 08-B: 63 yes, 82 no --> 43.4% YES (+17.4%)
The winner of the pro-equality shift award for the week is Peace river, which shifts from "strongly anti-equality" to "target swing presbytery if there needs to be a next time". There were both significant numerical increases in the yes vote, and decreases in the no vote -- the best scenario. And a 17% pro-equality shift is huge -- this is a good success story for the week.
South Alabama
2001-2 01-A: 18 yes, 49 no --> 26.9% YES
2009 08-B: 24 yes, 33 no --> 42.1% YES (+15.2%)
Nipping at the heels of Peace River for the pro-equality shift award this week is South Alabama. As with Peace River, here we see a presbytery with a voting history of mid-20% pro-equality suddenly jump into the low-40% range. +15% is an amazing jump in support, and as with Peace River moves this presbytery out of the category "strongly anti-equality" into the category of "target to flip pro-equality".
Monday, February 23, 2009
Feb. 21 presbytery vote wrapup and comments
I finally received the John Knox vote count yesterday, so here's how the weekend voting shaped up, with comments.
High-level view of Saturday 2/21 votes:
Yes votes: 9
No votes: 6
No-to-yes flips: 4 out of a target 5
Previous "yes" presbyteries held at "yes": 5 out of 5
Nasty surprises: 0
Amazingly positive surprises (e.g. unexpected flips): 0
Annoyances: 4
Bruce's ranking of the weekend: "sunny with occasional clouds"
High-level view of everything so far:
Presbyteries shifted pro-equality: 60
Presbyteries shifted anti-equality: 19
Ratio of pro-equality to anti-equality presbytery shift: 3 to 1 (!)
Total no-to-yes flips: 15
Total yes-to-no flips: 0 (!)
Total "almost flipped" no-to-yes: 4 (voted "no", but very close)
Total no-to-yes flips required to pass 08-B: 41 (not an easy goal)
Percentage of total voting process complete: about 45%
There were no huge surprises this weekend in either direction. There were some disappointments, which I'll flag below, but nothing shocking.
In order from most annoying to most positive, let's take a look.
1. MOST ANNOYING
Tropical Florida
2001-2 01-A: 55 yes, 116 no --> 32.2% YES
2009 08-B: 21 yes, 93 no --> 18.4% YES (-13.7%)
Winning the "most annoying" award for the weekend is Tropical Florida, which shifted nearly 14% anti-equality this year compared to previous voting. I wasn't expecting 08-B to pass Tropical Florida this year, but we should have been able to shift the "yes" percentage up a bit this year instead of losing 14%. This looks to me somewhat like a turnout issue on the pro-equality side, which lost over half of the votes received in 2001-2.
Lake Erie
2001-2 01-A: 37 yes, 65 no --> 36.3% YES
2009 08-B: 32 yes, 58 no --> 35.6% YES (-0.7%)
Lake Erie and The James (below) tie for the category of "annoying because I wanted to see 40% support". Here in Lake Erie we see just under a 1% anti-equality shift, which is basically within statistical noise. We should be able to do better than "no movement" here.
The James
2001-2 01-A: 130 yes, 190 no --> 40.6% YES
2009 08-B: 125 yes, 192 no --> 39.4% YES (-1.2%)
As with Lake Erie, here we see about a 1% anti-equality shift, and this from a presbytery that came in above 40% support 7 years ago. It should be possible to move this presbytery pro-equality, so maybe we should all send them some love, or a PFLAG chapter or something.
Homestead
2001-2 01-A: 46 yes, 62 no --> 42.6% YES
2009 08-B: 37 yes, 40 no --> 48.1% YES (+5.5%)
Here we have the "close but no banana" situation for the weekend. Although we have a decent 5.5% pro-equality shift, we fell just 4 votes short of winning here. This was the one serious target "FLIP" presbytery that didn't flip. However, it's that much closer to a pro-equality vote if there needs to be a next time.
2. SLIGHTLY POSITIVE
North Alabama
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote no --> no percentage available
2009 08-B: 30 yes, 47 no --> 38.5% YES
We don't know what the vote might have looked like in 2001-2 had it been counted, but I'll take a starting point of almost 39% pro-equality support in Alabama any day. Given this starting level of support, we should be able to shift North Alabama more pro-equality over time.
Sacramento
2001-2 01-A: 69 yes, 109 no --> 38.8% YES
2009 08-B: 65 yes, 75 no --> 46.4% YES (+7.7%)
This is nearly an 8% pro-equality shift, which is good, though we're not quite there. Sacramento now moves from "long shot" into the "target flip" range.
3. SOLID SUCCESSES
Greater Atlanta
2001-2 01-A: 235 yes, 283 no --> 45.4% YES
2009 08-B: 243 yes, 233 no --> 51.1% YES (+5.7%)
For me this was a nailbiter, but the More Light supporters here came through great, shifting the vote by nearly 6% to get a 10-vote victory. Greater Atlanta flips from "no" to "yes". The next step is to continue work in this presbytery to strengthen the current level of pro-equality support.
New Hope
2001-2 01-A: 153 yes, 159 no --> 49% YES
2009 08-B: 177 yes, 139 no --> 56% YES (+7%)
New Hope was a "should be easy FLIP" presbytery given its previous vote breakdown, and that turned out to be correct, with a 7% pro-equality shift.
Ohio Valley
2001-2 01-A: 74 yes, 90 no --> 45.1% YES
2009 08-B: 57 yes, 44 no --> 56.4% YES (+11.3%)
Another successful no-to-yes flip. There was some initial mis-reporting of the vote count, but I'm told that I have it correct now. The pro-equality shift, now at over 11%, is larger than originally reported.
Santa Fe
2001-2 01-A: 108 yes, 42 no --> 72% YES
2009 08-B: 110 yes, 23 no --> 83% YES (+11%)
I love these safe-yes presbyteries that demonstrate that even when you're at 72% support, you can still shift another 11% pro-equality and break above 80%. That's not always easy. To 90% and beyond!
4. MAJOR SUCCESSES
Arkansas
2001-2 01-A: 92 yes, 96 no --> 48.9% YES
2009 08-B: 116 yes, 64 no --> 64.4% YES (+15.5%)
Arkansas was another successful no-to-yes flip, plus it shifted nearly 16% pro-equality, which is great. Arkansas here shifts categories from "target FLIP" to "likely safe pro-equality".
Eastern Oregon
2001-2 01-A: 17 yes, 14 no --> 54.8% YES
2009 08-B: 22 yes, 6 no --> 78.6% YES (+23.7%)
This was one of 5 "HOLD" presbyteries that we successfully held as pro-equality. The total vote count here is low so the percentages are much more susceptible to statistical noise, however a nearly 24% pro-equality shift in 7 years is very rare, and great news.
Giddings-Lovejoy
2001-2 01-A: 115 yes, 106 no --> 52% YES
2009 08-B: 125 yes, 53 no --> 70% YES (+18%)
This was another nailbiter "will we hold it?" presbytery which delivered with an amazing 18% pro-equality shift. The presbytery shifts categories from "nailbiter HOLD" to "likely safe pro-equality".
Mid-Kentucky
2001-2 01-A: 113 yes, 63 no --> 64.2% YES
2009 08-B: 90 yes, 19 no --> 82.6% YES (+18.4%)
With another 18% shift, Mid-Kentucky apparently wants to compete with Santa Fe for "largest percentage of pro-equality support". Not too many presbyteries are at the 80%+ support level yet, but thanks to Mid-Kentucky we now have one more. Nicely done.
John Knox
2001-2 01-A: 66 yes, 62 no --> 51.6% YES
2009 08-B: 39 yes, 13 no --> 75% YES (+23.4%)
Yet another nailbiter HOLD presbytery delivers with an incredible 23% pro-equality shift. The significant vote count decline from 2001-2 to 2009 is apparently because this year's presbytery meeting was in the middle of a snowstorm. Traditionally the cultural rule has been that "the anti-gay vote will turn out no matter what the weather", however in this case the snowstorm appears to have impacted the anti-equality vote more than the pro-equality vote. Thanks to all the More Light movement supporters who came out in the snow to vote YES on 08-B this year in John Knox.
High-level view of Saturday 2/21 votes:
Yes votes: 9
No votes: 6
No-to-yes flips: 4 out of a target 5
Previous "yes" presbyteries held at "yes": 5 out of 5
Nasty surprises: 0
Amazingly positive surprises (e.g. unexpected flips): 0
Annoyances: 4
Bruce's ranking of the weekend: "sunny with occasional clouds"
High-level view of everything so far:
Presbyteries shifted pro-equality: 60
Presbyteries shifted anti-equality: 19
Ratio of pro-equality to anti-equality presbytery shift: 3 to 1 (!)
Total no-to-yes flips: 15
Total yes-to-no flips: 0 (!)
Total "almost flipped" no-to-yes: 4 (voted "no", but very close)
Total no-to-yes flips required to pass 08-B: 41 (not an easy goal)
Percentage of total voting process complete: about 45%
There were no huge surprises this weekend in either direction. There were some disappointments, which I'll flag below, but nothing shocking.
In order from most annoying to most positive, let's take a look.
1. MOST ANNOYING
Tropical Florida
2001-2 01-A: 55 yes, 116 no --> 32.2% YES
2009 08-B: 21 yes, 93 no --> 18.4% YES (-13.7%)
Winning the "most annoying" award for the weekend is Tropical Florida, which shifted nearly 14% anti-equality this year compared to previous voting. I wasn't expecting 08-B to pass Tropical Florida this year, but we should have been able to shift the "yes" percentage up a bit this year instead of losing 14%. This looks to me somewhat like a turnout issue on the pro-equality side, which lost over half of the votes received in 2001-2.
Lake Erie
2001-2 01-A: 37 yes, 65 no --> 36.3% YES
2009 08-B: 32 yes, 58 no --> 35.6% YES (-0.7%)
Lake Erie and The James (below) tie for the category of "annoying because I wanted to see 40% support". Here in Lake Erie we see just under a 1% anti-equality shift, which is basically within statistical noise. We should be able to do better than "no movement" here.
The James
2001-2 01-A: 130 yes, 190 no --> 40.6% YES
2009 08-B: 125 yes, 192 no --> 39.4% YES (-1.2%)
As with Lake Erie, here we see about a 1% anti-equality shift, and this from a presbytery that came in above 40% support 7 years ago. It should be possible to move this presbytery pro-equality, so maybe we should all send them some love, or a PFLAG chapter or something.
Homestead
2001-2 01-A: 46 yes, 62 no --> 42.6% YES
2009 08-B: 37 yes, 40 no --> 48.1% YES (+5.5%)
Here we have the "close but no banana" situation for the weekend. Although we have a decent 5.5% pro-equality shift, we fell just 4 votes short of winning here. This was the one serious target "FLIP" presbytery that didn't flip. However, it's that much closer to a pro-equality vote if there needs to be a next time.
2. SLIGHTLY POSITIVE
North Alabama
2001-2 01-A: Voice vote no --> no percentage available
2009 08-B: 30 yes, 47 no --> 38.5% YES
We don't know what the vote might have looked like in 2001-2 had it been counted, but I'll take a starting point of almost 39% pro-equality support in Alabama any day. Given this starting level of support, we should be able to shift North Alabama more pro-equality over time.
Sacramento
2001-2 01-A: 69 yes, 109 no --> 38.8% YES
2009 08-B: 65 yes, 75 no --> 46.4% YES (+7.7%)
This is nearly an 8% pro-equality shift, which is good, though we're not quite there. Sacramento now moves from "long shot" into the "target flip" range.
3. SOLID SUCCESSES
Greater Atlanta
2001-2 01-A: 235 yes, 283 no --> 45.4% YES
2009 08-B: 243 yes, 233 no --> 51.1% YES (+5.7%)
For me this was a nailbiter, but the More Light supporters here came through great, shifting the vote by nearly 6% to get a 10-vote victory. Greater Atlanta flips from "no" to "yes". The next step is to continue work in this presbytery to strengthen the current level of pro-equality support.
New Hope
2001-2 01-A: 153 yes, 159 no --> 49% YES
2009 08-B: 177 yes, 139 no --> 56% YES (+7%)
New Hope was a "should be easy FLIP" presbytery given its previous vote breakdown, and that turned out to be correct, with a 7% pro-equality shift.
Ohio Valley
2001-2 01-A: 74 yes, 90 no --> 45.1% YES
2009 08-B: 57 yes, 44 no --> 56.4% YES (+11.3%)
Another successful no-to-yes flip. There was some initial mis-reporting of the vote count, but I'm told that I have it correct now. The pro-equality shift, now at over 11%, is larger than originally reported.
Santa Fe
2001-2 01-A: 108 yes, 42 no --> 72% YES
2009 08-B: 110 yes, 23 no --> 83% YES (+11%)
I love these safe-yes presbyteries that demonstrate that even when you're at 72% support, you can still shift another 11% pro-equality and break above 80%. That's not always easy. To 90% and beyond!
4. MAJOR SUCCESSES
Arkansas
2001-2 01-A: 92 yes, 96 no --> 48.9% YES
2009 08-B: 116 yes, 64 no --> 64.4% YES (+15.5%)
Arkansas was another successful no-to-yes flip, plus it shifted nearly 16% pro-equality, which is great. Arkansas here shifts categories from "target FLIP" to "likely safe pro-equality".
Eastern Oregon
2001-2 01-A: 17 yes, 14 no --> 54.8% YES
2009 08-B: 22 yes, 6 no --> 78.6% YES (+23.7%)
This was one of 5 "HOLD" presbyteries that we successfully held as pro-equality. The total vote count here is low so the percentages are much more susceptible to statistical noise, however a nearly 24% pro-equality shift in 7 years is very rare, and great news.
Giddings-Lovejoy
2001-2 01-A: 115 yes, 106 no --> 52% YES
2009 08-B: 125 yes, 53 no --> 70% YES (+18%)
This was another nailbiter "will we hold it?" presbytery which delivered with an amazing 18% pro-equality shift. The presbytery shifts categories from "nailbiter HOLD" to "likely safe pro-equality".
Mid-Kentucky
2001-2 01-A: 113 yes, 63 no --> 64.2% YES
2009 08-B: 90 yes, 19 no --> 82.6% YES (+18.4%)
With another 18% shift, Mid-Kentucky apparently wants to compete with Santa Fe for "largest percentage of pro-equality support". Not too many presbyteries are at the 80%+ support level yet, but thanks to Mid-Kentucky we now have one more. Nicely done.
John Knox
2001-2 01-A: 66 yes, 62 no --> 51.6% YES
2009 08-B: 39 yes, 13 no --> 75% YES (+23.4%)
Yet another nailbiter HOLD presbytery delivers with an incredible 23% pro-equality shift. The significant vote count decline from 2001-2 to 2009 is apparently because this year's presbytery meeting was in the middle of a snowstorm. Traditionally the cultural rule has been that "the anti-gay vote will turn out no matter what the weather", however in this case the snowstorm appears to have impacted the anti-equality vote more than the pro-equality vote. Thanks to all the More Light movement supporters who came out in the snow to vote YES on 08-B this year in John Knox.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Today's voting: summary with updates
(Feb. 22 last update: all Saturday 2/21 votes are now known.)
The actual votes are on the tracking spreadsheet as usual, so here I'll just summarize predictions from yesterday, versus the actual vote outcome.
Final results for Saturday Feb. 21 voting:
Yes votes: 9
No votes: 6
No-to-yes flips: 4 out of a target 5
Nasty surprises: 0
Amazingly positive surprises: 0
Arkansas
Category: FLIP
Result: Successful, flipped to "yes" vote.
Eastern Oregon
Category: HOLD
Result: Successful, held at "yes" vote
Giddings-Lovejoy
Category: HOLD
Result: Successful, held at "yes" vote
Greater Atlanta
Category: FLIP
Result: Successful, flipped to "yes" vote
Homestead
Category: FLIP
Result: Unsuccessful, fell 3 votes short
John Knox
Category: HOLD
Result: Successful, held at "yes" vote
Lake Erie
Category: LONG SHOT
Result: unsuccessful, didn't flip (that's why it was "long shot")
Mid-Kentucky
Category: HOLD
Result: Successful, held at "yes" vote
New Hope
Category: FLIP
Result: Successful, flipped to "yes" vote
North Alabama
Category: SAM (history of strong anti-equality votes)
Result: Miracle unsuccessful, but comes in at a solid 39% YES support.
Ohio Valley
Category: FLIP
Result: Successful, flipped to "yes" vote
Sacramento
Category: LONG SHOT
Result: unsuccessful, didn't flip, but shifted 8% pro-equality
Santa Fe (not listed in Feb. 20 pre-weekend listing - I didn't know they were going to vote)
Category: HOLD
Result: Successful, held at "yes" vote
The James
Category: LONG SHOT
Result: Unsuccessful, didn't flip (but again, it was a long shot...)
Tropical Florida
Category: SAM (history of strong anti-equality votes)
Result: Miracle unsuccessful, and strong anti-equality shift (there's one in every crowd...)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Pre-weekend expectations-setting
(Updated from a previous email-posted version).
I took a look at the 14 presbyteries which I'm led to believe will vote tomorrow (Saturday Feb. 21) on 08-B, and have categorized them based on their previous vote in 2001-2. Here's what the categories mean:
HOLD: previously voted pro-equality, want to maintain a pro-equality vote in 2009.
FLIP: Previously voted "no" by about 42%-49%, presbytery might flip pro-equality this year.
LONG SHOT: Previously voted "no" by a significant margin, small chance of shifting to pro-equality vote this year. (However, some of these have previously been our big positive surprises.)
SAM: "Seeking A Miracle" - not expected (by me, but what do I know) to shift to a pro-equality vote this year.
These are just my opinions based on prior history, and several votes in the past few weeks have already shown that my predictions are sometimes too conservative, so get out your salt shaker before you use this list.
As always, all pro-LGBT percentage shifts are good news, even if the presbytery votes "no". So doing get-out-the-vote everywhere is important.
FLIP Arkansas
HOLD Eastern Oregon
HOLD Giddings-Lovejoy, St. Louis, MO
FLIP Greater Atlanta
FLIP Homestead, Lincoln, NE
HOLD John Knox, Richland Center, WI
LONG SHOT Lake Erie, Erie, PA
HOLD Mid-Kentucky, Louisville, KY
FLIP New Hope, Chapel Hill, NC
SAM North Alabama, Huntsville, AL
FLIP Ohio Valley, Bloomington, IN
LONG SHOT Sacramento, Sacramento, CA
LONG SHOT The James, Richmond, VA
SAM Tropical Florida
Total expected Saturday votes: 14.
Minimum number of "yes" votes to hold with 2001-2 vote counts: 4 votes.
My target number of "yes" votes (optimistic scenario): 8 votes.
So 8 yes votes this weekend should be considered excellent. Anything above that is amazing, and anything approaching 12 "yes" votes would be considered a pro-equality blowout (and is also extremely unlikely).
There are several presbyteries on this list in the low-50% range from 2001-2, so don't be surprised if we see our first "negative flip" this weekend -- we could see a presbytery shift a few percentage points anti-LGBT and that would be enough to shift it to a "no". Hopefully that won't happen, but you never know.
Stunning upset vote: Tres Rios presbytery shifts pro-equality
With a record-setting 28% pro-equality shift compared to its previous 2001-2002 vote, it appears that Tres Rios has flipped pro-equality. At this point all I can say is that all bets and guesses about the end of the 08-B voting process are off, because simply on the basis of the 2001-2 vote count, you would never have convinced me in advance that the pro-equality vote would win the day here.
Tres Rios Presbytery serves western Texas. A map is here:
www.pcusa.org/links/sun.htm
Tres Rios vote stats:
2001-2 01-A: 17 yes, 54 no --> 24% YES
2009 08-B: 37 yes, 34 no --> 52% YES
This is really a stunner, and in a good way. Whatever you folks are doing in Alabama and now in Texas, keep on doing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)