Four data takeaways from San Francisco’s November election

It’s been three weeks since the Nov. 5 election in San Francisco, the votes have all been counted, and we can identify some interesting data tidbits from this year’s races. 

We’ve already written about the role that redistricting played this year. Here are some other takeaways.

1. Turnout

In 2020, turnout reached a near-record high of 86.3 percent in the presidential election. This November, turnout was a far cry from that: 78.9 percent. 

San Francisco’s average turnout in presidential elections, going back to the 1916 election of Woodrow Wilson to a second term, is 77 percent. So this year was just slightly above average; there was no “Trump bump,” as in the last two general elections, but numbers were more in line with other years.

“There wasn’t that last extra spark that takes presidential turnout from good to great,” said Eric Jaye, a San Francisco campaign strategist. “Some [voters] are disillusioned with the choices that were offered. Enough of them stayed home, which was enough to slightly depress turnout.”

About 412,000 people voted in this year’s general election, 38,000 fewer than in 2020 — even though the total number of registered voters is about the same: 522,265 in this election compared to 521,099 in 2020. Fewer people voting in San Francisco is on par with state and national trends: Turnout in California was 17.2 percent lower than in 2020, according to the Associated Press.

Turnout in the S.F. November election was not high

Chart by Junyao Yang, updated by Kelly Waldron. Data from the San Francisco Department of Elections.

While turnout was not particularly high for a presidential election, more voters than ever before weighed on some of the local races, including the races for mayor, district attorney, city attorney, treasurer and sheriff. That’s thanks to 2022’s Proposition H, which shifted the election for some races from odd years, when few vote, to even years, when turnout is high. 

That likely made more of a difference for the mayoral election, but less so for races like district attorney and city attorney, which were far less contested.

Jaye said that, in this election, campaigns typically spent less time turning people out to vote, and more time convincing them to vote for their candidate. That meant more budget spent on “media-centric persuasion” (ads) rather than field organization (knocking on doors, making phone calls).

2. Geographic divides

Geography played a big role in many of November’s races. Perhaps the starkest divide of all was the split on Proposition K, the measure to close the Great Highway to cars.

Voters in districts closer to the Great Highway voted overwhelmingly against the measure; that’s Districts 1, 4, 7 and 11. But it was a citywide measure, and passed 55-45, a 35,600-vote difference. 

“The impacts are incredibly geographic,” added Jim Stearns, Aaron Peskin’s political consultant, who also likened it to the Proposition E of 1998, which prevented the Central Freeway from being rebuilt, and kept Octavia Boulevard a ground-level road. Voters on the Westside strongly supported having the freeway at the time.

The outcome of Prop. K is likely a problem for District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, who oversees the Sunset and placed the measure on the ballot. “The voters in his district are overwhelmingly against this,” said Jaye. “That doesn’t go down well.”