Analyzing the UFT elections

The UFT elections earlier this Spring resulted in no changes in the line-up of officers or Executive Board. Then why look more closely? Because we can. Because the numbers exist. Because there were shifts, including some surprises.

Michael Mulgrew, running with both his own Unity support, and the support of New Action, received 91% of the vote. The Chief asked “Randi who?”

Unity’s vote stayed steady. New Action (my caucus), emphasized both our support of Mulgrew, and also our willingness to disagree when the leadership is wrong. We aggressively got our literature into schools, and saw our vote increase by 75% among active members. The Independent Community of Educators and the Teachers for a Just Contract, running in coalition, through much of the winter on criticized the leadership’s work on school closings, and counterposed mobilization. They maintained that theme through the election, concentrating almost exclusively on the high schools. Their vote fell 10% in the high schools, and 25% overall, even as turnout rose.

I am no Nate Silver, but over the last few weeks I have poked at the numbers, caucus by caucus, division by division, and year by year. I looked at turnout, slate voting. I considered the campaign and the events leading up. And I considered exceptional details.

I tried a few models before settling on a group of assumptions that I felt comfortable with – both by agreeing with the results and by making sense.

I’ll be sharing my findings, division by division, over the next two weeks. As I complete them, I’ll link them from here:

Retirees – Active – Elementary – High School – Functional – Middle School – Summary