Post Analysis of Jonathan Alder LSD - Bond - 5.12mills/37years

🗳️ Status: Too close to call. Unofficial election‑night totals show the Jonathan Alder 5.12‑mill, 37‑year bond separated by just 11 votes. Provisional ballots have not yet been counted and could change the outcome. The charts below summarize votes reported so far and will help explain the geography of support and opposition.

So, let's talk about the Jonathan Alder LSD – Bond (5.12 mills / 37 years).

1. What does it tell us about our school district?

2. What tactics were missed in the voting cycle?

3. What are some next steps to explore for the school district moving forward?

1) What happened, in one page

Overall (from the precincts shown + Union County summary sheet):

• YES 2,240 | NO 2,253 — essentially a coin flip (–13 votes).

• Plain City (both counties) voted YES by solid margins; most rural townships voted NO by large margins.

Where the votes came from (YES share):

• Plain City West (Madison): 59.5% YES (578–393), large volume.

• Plain City East (Madison): 58.6% YES (253–179).

• Plain City (Union): 54.3% YES (203–171).

• Jerome Twp 7 (Union): 63.2% YES (294–171).

• Jerome Twp 1 (Union): 53.3% YES (88–77).

• Deercreek (Madison): 61.5% YES (8–5), very small.

Consistent NO strongholds:

• Canaan (Madison): 38.9% YES (304–477) – largest single negative margin (–173).

• Monroe/Pike (Madison): 30.7% YES (99–224) – big negative (–125).

• Darby (Madison): 42.0% YES (102–141) – mid‑size negative (–39).

• Jefferson Twp A (Madison): 25.8% YES (8–23) – small volume, heavy NO.

• Jerome Twp 2 (Union): 42.8% YES (119–159) and Jerome Twp 5 (Union): 44.7% YES (184–228) – both lean NO.

• Tiny pockets (Somerford, Union Darby‑1) were all or nearly all NO but had only a handful of votes.

Method of voting (Madison County precincts in the screenshots):

• Election Day: 1,070 YES vs 1,066 NO → essentially tied (50.1% YES).

• Absentee by Mail: 109 YES vs 90 NO → 55% YES.

• Early In‑Person (Absentee Office): 173 YES vs 289 NO → 37% YES (strong NO skew).

Union County behaved a bit differently: Absentee was 55% YES there as well, while “Normal” (Election Day) was ~52% YES (from the Union summary).

2) What this says about our district

1. It’s two districts in one.

   • Village/suburban households (Plain City + parts of Jerome) were broadly supportive. That maps to newer subdivisions and neighborhoods closest to the schools—likely more households with school‑age kids and frequent school contact.

   • Outlying rural townships (Canaan, Monroe/Pike, Jefferson, parts of Darby) were mostly opposed and by large margins. These are areas with more acreage, larger property‑tax exposure, and less day‑to‑day school connection.

2. A few precincts determine the outcome.

   • The combined negative margins in Canaan (–173) and Monroe/Pike (–125) alone outweighed the big Plain City positives. Flipping ~90 voters in Canaan and ~65 in Monroe/Pike would have changed the district‑wide result.

3. Early in‑person voters in Madison County leaned NO.

   • Where early in‑person voting was popular, the NO side banked an advantage. By contrast, vote‑by‑mail leaned YES in both counties.

4. Union County is mixed but slightly pro‑bond overall.

   • Big support in Jerome 7 and good numbers in Jerome 1 and Plain City (Union) overcame NOs in Jerome 2 and Jerome 5.

     
     

3) Which tactics were likely missed

• Targeted persuasion in the two largest NO bases (Canaan & Monroe/Pike).

  • Messaging there needed to be specific to rural taxpayers: farm/residential‑ag credits, millage math, what 5.12 mills add to typical ag/residential bills, and why the project benefits outlying areas (transportation times, property values, safety, program access).

• An early‑vote plan at the Madison County BOE.

  • Early in‑person (“Absentee Office”) broke 37% YES / 63% NO in the Madison precincts shown. The YES campaign likely under‑invested in (a) reminding supporters to vote early in person and (b) presence at the early‑vote site (legal signage, greeters, ride programs).

• Vote‑by‑mail chase.

  • Mail ballots skewed YES but the volumes were small. A systematic VBM application + chase program (requests, returns, curing) would have banked low‑friction YES votes.

• Jerome micro‑segmentation.

  • Jerome isn’t monolithic: J7 was a blowout YES; J2 and J5 leaned NO. Treating them the same leaves support on the table.

• Relational outreach in “soft‑NO” legacy neighborhoods.

  • Darby and parts of Jerome have long‑time residents who don’t see the direct benefit. Fewer visible validators (farm leaders, township trustees, respected retirees) likely cost votes.

    
    

4) Next‑step plan (12‑month view)

A. Set precinct‑level vote goals and a flip map

• Keep Plain City margins where they are; then plan to flip 90 in Canaan and 65 in Monroe/Pike and 20 in Darby. That alone nets ~+175—more than enough to pass with cushion.

• Build a simple “Precinct Scorecard” with monthly progress: ID’d supporters, VBM requests, early votes banked, doors knocked, commitments collected.

B. Message architecture by audience

• Rural taxpayers (Canaan, Monroe/Pike, Jefferson/Darby outlying):

  • Property‑tax dollars, not just mills (show actual $/month with homestead/CAUV/Renewal credits).

  • Why new capacity reduces future operational strain (busing times, boundary stability, class size).

  • “Fix once, fix right” durability & maintenance savings vs patching buildings.

  • Local‑economy framing: trades jobs during construction, property value stability.

• Village/suburban families (Plain City, Jerome 7/1):

  • Capacity, safety, program expansion, career‑tech and athletics access.

  • “Vote early by mail” convenience—this is where you already lead.

• Skeptical long‑timers (“soft‑NOs”):

  • Independent validators (farm bureau voices, township trustees, retired teachers).

  • Short one‑pagers that show: scope, cost, why 37 years, what happens if we do nothing.

C. Field & turnout

• Vote‑by‑Mail program:

  • Mail every known supporter an application; follow with text/phone chase; cure missing signatures promptly.

• Early‑vote site plan (Madison BOE):

  • Legal presence every open day; ride offers; “I already voted” capture.

• Door program focused on flips:

  • 100% coverage of Canaan and Monroe/Pike targeted streets (IDs, not persuasion scripts alone).

  • Use deep canvass (5–7 minute conversations) for property‑tax concerns; leave behinds with actual dollar impact.

• Relational organizing:

  • Equip board members, coaches, PTO leaders, bus drivers, and student‑activity parents with “10 voters I will move” lists in the NO precincts.

D. Public understanding & trust

• Transparent project ledger: line‑item cost, contingencies, bond schedule, and annual tax‑bill calculator on the website.

• Quarterly community briefings in the NO precincts (hosted with township partners) where Q&A is the main event.

• Facility tours (safety/access issues, crowding) to make the need tangible.

5) Where to focus first (lowest lift, highest impact)

1. Canaan & Monroe/Pike – they account for ~70% of the NO margin in Madison County.

2. Early in‑person at the Madison BOE – close the 173–289 gap with a tailored early‑vote push.

3. Jerome 2 & 5 – targeted education can plausibly move 40–50 votes each without jeopardizing strong support in Jerome 7/1.

4. Maintain Plain City performance – keep West at ~60% and East at ~59%; add more VBM.

   
   

Bottom line

The vote shows a district split by geography and daily connection to the schools—Plain City and adjacent growth areas are ready to invest; outer townships are cost‑sensitive and need tailored outreach. The margin was so small that a disciplined, precinct‑specific plan—especially around Canaan, Monroe/Pike, and early voting at the Madison BOE—likely flips the outcome.