2007 SCDP Caucus by the Numbers

I'd like to thank Dave Holt for posting the uncertifide 2007 caucus results. I have been looking at them over the past couple days and made a map.

First, here are the raw voter participation and some breakdown.
District-2005 / 2007 / increase / % increase
83-28 / 36 / 8 / 29%
84-31 / 74 / 43 / 139%
85-37 / 80 / 43 / 116 %
86-24 / 44 / 20 / 83%
87-15 / 34 / 19 / 127%
88-16 / 25 / 9 / 56%
89-56 / 52 / -4 / -7%
90-59 / 57 / -2 / -3%
91-22 / 26 / 4 / 18%
92-71 / 46 / -25 / -35%
93-42 / 42 / 0 / 0
95-19 / 20 / 1 / 5%
96-15 / 26 / 11 / 73%
97-10 / 29 / 19 / 190%
98-22 / 32 / 10 / 45%
99-14 / 15 / 1 / 7%

Total: 479 / 636 / 157 / 33%

As you can see there was big increases in participation in districts 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 96, 97, and 98. Note the substantial decline in 92. Aslo there was stability in 89, 90, 93, and 95.

What is really interesting is that there were about 20 precincts that were not represented in 2005 that are now represented in 2007. That shows how pathetic the ward/precinct system is. There are still 65+ precincts unrepresented.

Now lets move on to the delegates.
District-2005 / 2007 / increase / %increase
83-17 / 19 / 2 / 12%
84-25 / 26 / 1 / 4%
85-29 / 40 / 11 / 38%
86-13 / 24 / 11 / 85%
87-11 / 24 / 13 / 118%
88-14 / 11 / -3 / -21%
89-21 / 23 / 2 / 9%
90-29 / 28 / -1 / -3%
91-15 / 13 / -2 / -13%
92-24 / 21 / -3 / -12.5%
93-18 / 23 / 5 / 28%
95-8 / 15 / 7 / 88%
96-5 / 18 / 13 / 260%
97-8 / 22 / 14 / 175%
98-20 / 24 / 4 / 20%
99-10 / 12 / 2 / 20%

Total:259 / 343 / 84 / 132%

There were major increases of delegates in 85, 86, 87, 93, 95, 96, and 97.

Here are two maps. The first is of 2007 and the number of delegates that were selected. The second map shows the level of participation in 2005. Comparing these two maps, the precincts in red had no delegates/voters. There was a noticeable drop in the number of unrepresented precincts. Who did the best in recruiting voters to be delegates in these newly represented precincts?




I'd like to hear what people think this all means. But here are some questions I have.
Did groups weaken Chism's hold on some of the areas of Whitehaven and South Memphis? If so, is Chism relying on MSDIA expansion in 93, 95, 96, and 97 to make up the difference?
Was Upton able to recruit in those same districts and blunt MSDIA?
If Chism is dependent on MSDIA does this explain why he has agreed to support Norman? Was Norman candidacy for Chair MSDIA's demand?
It's getting interesting now.