|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Elections & Legislation |
|
Urbana appearing to reject at-large proposal |
Current rating: 0 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
02 Nov 2004
|
|
At 12:41am, returns suggest that the at-large proposal is heading toward defeat |
A tally of the returns available at 12:41am indiactes that the proposal to add twoat-large seats to the Urbana City Council is headed toward defeat. With 12 out of 23 precincts reporting, those voting NO! on at-large lead, 4116 to 3041, or 57% no, 43% yes.
Two of the precincts, Cunningham 15 and 18, voting against the at-large proposal are located in south and east Urbana, where at-large supporters had hoped to pick up their largest support. Only Cunningham 23 has had a substantial margin in favor of yes so far. |
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
|
1:07am Update |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
As of 1:07am, returns show the at-large proposal failing, with NO! votes of 5212 (57%) to Yes, 3863 (43%). This percentage has held steady the last hour or so.
Cunningham 21 in south-east Urbana came in against at-large, indicating again that the referendum is failing even in the areas its supporters saw as their greatest strength.
Two largely student precincts, Cunningham 4 and 5, remain to be counted. Other largely student precincts have already rejected at-large by overwhelming margins. Elsewhere in the city, at-large has been largely defeated, winning only 3 out of the 15 precincts counted so far, out of a total of 23.
These trends indicate that at-large will go down in flames, with significant political fallout for one of its main proponents, Mayor Tod Satterthwaite, who must stand for re-election in the spring city elections. |
|
1:43am Update |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
Cunningham 7 has been added. The totals now stand at NO!, 5612 (58%) to Yes, 3984 (42%).
I will also note that my and WILL's figures have a small discrepancy. It's late and my math goes downhill after midnight, so I haven't bothered to check to see where the error may be. The trend remains obviously against at-large. |
|
Error Is In Favor of NO! |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
|
I apparently misread one of the precinct totals so that it was in favor of at-large by 200 votes in my calculations through now very bleary eyes. The summary now available indicates that the current standings are NO!, 5612, to Yes, 3784. This is 60% No to 40% Yes. |
|
2:30am Update |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
Latest returns:
NO!, 7427 (63%)
Yes, 4381 (27%)
This leaves four precincts left to count. |