A recent letter in The Leader-Telegram, the “other” newspaper in Eau Claire, implied that increased student turnout in 2006 might be attributed “to the extra credit offered by instructors at UW-Eau Claire combined with a nice day for standing in line with your friends.”

If we can step back for a moment and disregard the appallingly condescending attitude towards Eau Claire students that practically oozes from these comments, I think the broader arguments are worthy of analysis. Essentially, the writer implies (as have many) that student turnout made a significant difference in the 2006 election.

In the interests of space, I will limit my discussion to one race. The race that Eau Claire students would have been the most likely to impact was the 93rd assembly district. This race featured incumbent Republican Rob Kreibich running against Democrat Jeff Smith, his opponent from 2004.

In 2004, Kreibich earned 52.16 percent of the vote in the county, but he dropped to 49.3 percent in 2006 and lost his seat. Some have speculated the student vote was a major factor in this outcome. Instead of relying on gut feelings, guesses or assumptions, a look at the actual data may help us assess the impact of student voting.

Essentially, we are looking at two questions: who voted, and for whom did those voters vote? The first question is actually more difficult to answer, as an accurate calculation of voter turnout needs an accurate measure of the eligible voting population. Given the elusiveness of eligible voter counts, the most plausible substitute is to compare turnout in 2006 to turnout in a previous election.

While 2002 might seem the most obvious comparison due to the parallel governor’s races, Kreibich did not have an opponent in 2002, and so any turnout numbers would be artificially deflated. In point of fact, 2004 probably provides us the best comparison because the two candidates are the same.

Overall, the number of ballots counted in the 93rd district assembly race in the county dropped by 27.6 percent from 2004 to 2006. In the two wards that are exclusively students (20 and 24), the count dropped by 37.9 percent. In other words, student voting declined more sharply than the county turnout overall. If we include the wards that are considered “heavy” student wards (2, 5 and 6), the numbers look even worse, with turnout declining by 41.04 percent over the same time.

Now one could argue that, although turnout in the student wards declined more sharply than the rest of the county, the overall levels of turnout decline mean that students’ votes accounted for a greater proportion of the total in 2006 and thus had more weight. This would also be incorrect. In 2004, the exclusive student wards accounted for 8.45 percent of all of the ballots counted, but those same wards only accounted for 7.24 percent in 2006. There is a similar decline, from 18.09 percent to 15.27 percent, if we look at all of the student-heavy wards.

While the decline in turnout in the heavy student wards may be caused by lower turnout among non-students in those wards, it would appear to be a massive misrepresentation of the evidence to argue that student turnout had a greater impact in 2006 compared to 2004. If anything, the numbers appear to show that students became less involved and less motivated than the rest of the citizens of the county over that span.

Some have argued the student vote turned the tide against Kreibich because students are more prone to vote for Democratic candidates. As it turns out, this assessment is also incorrect. Smith’s greatest increases in support came in the 30th Ward (+10.9 percent) and the 4th Ward (+ 9.6 percent), neither of which could even remotely be considered “heavy” student wards. There were three wards in which Smith actually experienced a decline in vote share from 2004 to 2006, the 33rd Ward (-12 percent), and two student wards, the 20th (-0.1 percent) and the 24th (-11.5 percent).

In 2004, 57.56 percent of the students in the student-exclusive wards voted for Smith. In 2006, Smith received 56.38 percent of the vote. If you include the heavy student wards, support for Smith increased by 0.98 percent. For the county overall, the shift was a 2.9 percent increase for Smith from 2004 to 2006. If you remove the student-heavy wards from the mix, the overall support for Smith in the county improved by 3.9 percent over the same time frame.

In other words, if the rest of the county had increased their support for Smith at the same rate as the student-heavy wards, Kreibich would have won re-election. To put it bluntly, Smith did not win because of increased student support; he won due to substantially increased support from everyone but the students.

So, what have we learned?

1)Student turnout from 2004 to 2006 dropped at a faster rate than the rest of the county;

2)Students were less likely to move to Smith than the rest of the county from 2004 to 2006;

3)Republican activists, such as the letter writer from the “other” paper should examine the data before they disparage a group of voters that helped keep the 93rd assembly race closer than it should have been. Even a cursory examination of the overall numbers reveals how wrong her assumptions really are.