Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

In today's San Mateo County Times Mike Coffey blamed the defeat of fellow councilmember Mary Janney on voter apathy and low turn out because 'too many people took for granted that the city was in great shape, so they didn't go out and vote.'

Hmmm … nice idea, but it's a pity the pesky facts don't support that Mike. Let's do the math: In 1999 there were 9,231 votes cast vs 9,030 this time. That's a drop of 2%. In 1999 you polled 2,295 vs 2,034 this time. Mary polled 2,622 vs 1,808 this time. So the happy & content non-voters could account for about 46 of the 261 votes you dropped this time, and 52 of the 814 that Mary dropped. Voter apathy doesn't account for the other 977 votes that went elsewhere. Do you think there might be some other reasons?

– Written by admin

Posted in

4 responses to “The truth is in the numbers”

  1. M&M, and in particular Coffey, never let the facts or the actual numbers get in the way of a good spin. Given the state of certain FPPC financial forms’ math, it’s not even clear Stephen’s analysis will be understood. Coffey will have quite a bit to answer to over the next four years (if he makes it that far). All of the old issues about denying making “late night phone calls” as a Planning Commissioner through to the blatant lies on the campaign mailings will not go away–and refusing to talk to reporters simply will NOT WORK for very long.

    I suppose M&M could say that a drop of only 2% was pretty good given that Galligan dropped 4% from his initial election to his re-election, but we will have to gauge that against the money spent. We won’t have a complete picture of that for some time, but I bet it will be eye-opening. And I certainly will be watching that all expenses are listed and accounted for.

    joe baylock

  2. admin

    Joe, I think I managed to confuse you too. The drop of 2% was the overall drop in voter turnout. Coffey lost 11.4% of his support from 1999 while Mary lost 31%. Only 2% can be attributed to the decline in voter turnout.

  3. The path from the word “pathetic” to the word “apathy” is a narrow one.

    But keep in mind Mr. Coffey may, in fact, be correct: ‘too many people took for granted that the city was in great shape…” and he may have been standing in front of a mirror when making that statement. He simply may not have been looking at it.

    Perhaps the reporter did not understand he meant “two” many people?

    As for the “letter from the dog”: I think, Fiona, if you inspect the front lawn closely enough, you will, eventually, find it.

  4. Thank you Admin for the clarification. Since I was on the French Riviera at the time, the combination of sun and 9 hours of time change probably didn’t help me follow you. Those clarified numbers are quite encouraging. The “sea change” that the papers noted (and which started 2 years ago) is now in full flow and quite refreshing–just like the Riviera.

    joe baylock

Leave a Reply


The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.


All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading