That's what I would now give in Washington state's gubernatorial election — assuming there is a complete hand recount of the entire state. The margin after the first recount, 42 votes, is so small that it is easy to see that it might not survive another recount. (Those of you who follow my site closely may recall that I originally set the odds at 3 to 1 in Rossi's favor. But that was before King county discovered so many votes.)
King county, the heart of the Christine Gregoire's strength, did what amounted to a manual recount, and so I would not expect her to gain more than few votes here. But she could gain more in the rest of the state, even though she lost badly to Dino Rossi in most of Washington's counties. The votes that she might gain would come from voters who did not fill out their ballots correctly. Those voters tend to be less educated than the average voter and the less educated tend to be Democrats. (As well as the most educated. The Republicans have the edge with in between voters, from high school graduates up to those with post graduate educations.) Kerry had just a 1 point advantage over Bush this year among those with less than a high school education, according to the New York Times exit poll, but in the three previous presidential elections, the Democratic advantage was more than more than 20 percent in that group.
I am sure that there are Democrats who can do this same analysis, so I think a hand recount is almost certain. (I have heard reports that the Democrats will ask for hand recounts of just a few counties. If that isn't illegal, it should be.)
And if Gregoire wins this second recount, will I consider her win illegitimate? Almost certainly yes. Not because of the glitches in the recounts, which at times almost seemed intended to create Republican suspicions, but because of what I have begun to call "distributed vote fraud", the vote fraud committed by individuals, and made easier by our lax election laws. (I described the problem here and here.)
Here is my guesstimate again. If a Democrat wins a statewide election in Washington by fewer than 100 votes, then their margin almost certainly came from fraudulent votes. If they win by fewer than 1,000 votes, then their margin probably came from fraudulent votes. I can't prove those numbers are correct, of course, but neither can anyone who disagrees prove that they are incorrect. We simply don't know how many fraudulent votes are cast in our elections, but we can be almost certain that they benefit Democrats, net.
(Cross posted at
Jim Miller on Politics.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 24, 2004
03:26 PM | Email This
Furthermore, the whole way in which the counts have been conducted thus far should be illegal. By allowing humans to make subjective choices regarding individual ballots the objectivity of the elections process, which is so critical to the trust we have in our entire political system, is severely damaged.
This "vote welfare" is what is allowing Gregoire to net more votes. Democrats and those on the left eupemistically call this "making every vote count" but the real meaning of this doublespeak is that every vote that needs to count in mostly Democratic King County, even if it was highly suspect, counts. Thus votes without proper signatures, vaque undervotes, mispelled write-ins, suspect provisional ballots and many other forms of what Jim calls "distributed vote fraud" are all that is needed to swing a close election.
If Gregoire wins, it will be a sad day for the objectivity of our system.
- Counties can only be recounted twice
- Either party can request a recount, either by hand or by machine, and they can request the recount in only a few (cherry picked) counties
- If that cherry picked recount does change the outcome of the election, that triggers an automatic recount of all other counties, using the same method as was used for the cherry picked counties (either by hand or mechanical)
So the scenario of the Dems requesting a hand recount of only King County (or even just certain precincts) is viable.
If it changes the outcome, a state-wide recount is automatic, so it could easily swing back to the original result.
I just hope the Dems don't put us through it, I'd like to know who my Govenor will be before Christmas.
Since you read through several years of my site so quickly, I am sure I don't need to mention some of the other examples that give us reason to expect siginificant amounts of fraudulent votes.
Or, if I am wrong, and you did not read through all those posts and don't want to, try thinking statistically. Are 300 fraudulent votes implausible in an election where 3 million voted? And given the large Democratic edge among felons, is it really implausible that most of those fraudulent votes would have been cast by Democrats?
I heard part of the same press conference and Jason is correct. A partial hand recount that changed the result would trigger a full recount. I assume that the party requesting the partial recount would not have to pay for the full recount, but I might be wrong.
Posted by: Jim Miller on November 24, 2004 04:00 PMDoesn't sound like a concession speech to me.
Posted by: Terry Mueller on November 24, 2004 04:07 PMOnce again, there is a time for silence and a time to speak. The Dems may not be smart enough to select the best course of action next.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 24, 2004 04:14 PMWith provisional ballots, I could vote in my home precinct, then drive 20 minutes to another precinct and cast another ballot, though that one would be provisional. I would expect that the provisional ballot would be thrown out. If she wants all provisional ballots to be accepted, she is not only inviting voter fruad, she is encouraging it.
Posted by: Jason on November 24, 2004 04:15 PMI can tell you that we tied the Red Sox in every ballgame.
Sincerely,
Tony La Russa
Posted by: Efrem from Sacramento on November 24, 2004 04:28 PMHowever, given the Dem's mantra of "count every vote", I'll be a little ticked if they try to cherry pick counties and/or precincts.
Posted by: Dave on November 24, 2004 04:38 PMThe longer answer, which you can find discussed at more length in my October post, is that at least a few people are dishonest, and that they are more likely to act dishonestly that if controls are weak. They have been weakened, especially by the increase in mailed ballots and the 1993 Motor Voter Act. It is almost certain that fraudulent voting has increased in Washington and elsewhere.
For my argument to be correct, the following three things are sufficient. A mere 1 in 1000 voters must have cheated in the election. Each cheater cast only one fraudulent vote. And the Democrats are twice as likely to cheat as Republicans, something for which there is, to say the least,
considerable evidence.
There are other sets of conditions that would work, too, of course.
(And, if I may say so, you seem to have missed the central point of my argument about "distributed vote fraud". I have been arguing that by lowering the standards, we increase this kind of fraud, which is extremely difficult to detect.)
Then she declares that if yet another recount shows that Rossi wins, she will be behind him all the way. Of course she fails to mention that there cannot be another recount. And what exactly will she do to support then Governor Rossi? Switch parties and start working as a tireless Republican? Ask all of the Democrats that are under her current administration to suppport Rossi? Oh wait, she's not an incumbent.
We learn a lot about Mrs. Greoire here. She essentitally views herself as the incumbent, or more probably the heir to the Democratic throne of Washington. Many a pundit has pointed out that the only reason she didn't win decisively in a mostly Blue state is that she conducted her campaign as an incumbent. Too True.
Let's all hope that after yet another recount, Rossi wins and we don't have to suffer under the ego of this woman and her delusions of grandeur.
This way either Gregoire wins or in the event of a Rossi win, they can try to de-legitimize his victory like they're trying to do to Bush in Ohio. This isn't voter fraud, but rather cynical political gamesmanship.
Posted by: Steve N on November 24, 2004 04:56 PMUntil today.
an automatic recount did a better job of counting votes and dramatically narrowed the gap. So what is wrong with having a manual recount -- it would be more precise. If a manual recount isn't allowed, I'll consider Dino's win illegitimate. It is more important to count votes carefully than to rush to judgement, especially when an automatic recount reduced the difference so dramatically.
Posted by: bt on November 24, 2004 05:40 PMPrecise is exactly the wrong word here. Precision is what makes machine counts reliable, and what made the recounts statewide so close to the original count - except for King County, which suffered from rules not uniform with the rest of the state.
What is hoped, by those hoping to overturn Dino's two wins, is a recount that would be more subjective, more susceptible to advocacy, to interpretatation and argument, where the loudest bullshitter can hope to prevail over precise counting.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 24, 2004 05:56 PM1) Machines don't stop and ponder a small mark near Gregoire's fill in bubble when the Rossi bubble is clearly filled in and then say, hmmm, this might have been a voter that wanted to vote for Gregoire. This happened in King County.
2) Humans are error prone when it comes to counting. We get tired, we double count, we forget where we are, etc. A machine will make no such mistakes.
3) When machines do make mistakes, they tend to make them in large repeatable ways that are easily detected and corrected.
All of this talk about manual recounts is precisely what those who wish to destroy our elections want. Manual recounts introduce human bias and eliminate the objectivity on which elections depend.
The sooner we remove canvassing boards altogether and just go to straight machine counts, more likely we are in obtaining a real objective democracy.
And if a hand recount narrows the gap further, but doesn't put Gregoire over the top, then we can bring in Karnack the Magnificent to divine the intent of the voters of spoiled ballots, and that will the even more precise. We'll just keep recounting until the precision leaves Gregoir ewith at least one more vote than Rossie
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on November 24, 2004 06:02 PMI recall that the Supremes overwhelmingly ruled in Florida that there had to be a statewide standard for counting the ballots. If this is true doesn't this overrule the Washington Law allowing different standards in each county.
Wouldn't this apply in this situation where the votes of 38 counties created a net 26 vote gain for Rossi and the votes of 1 county created 245 for Gregoire.
I would expect that whatever the outcome of a hand cound, the current Washington statute would be vulnerable to lawsuits by either party.
Posted by: Steve N on November 24, 2004 06:18 PMConsider those voters you mentioned, who are not very well educated, and who mis-marked their ballots.
Do you believe such people should not be permitted to vote?
Posted by: X on November 24, 2004 08:49 PMI rather like the Washington system in which candidates can pay for handcounts in cherry-picked counties, but then the state pays for a state-wide recount if the outcome flips. That's similar to what happens here in California (where four years ago I was involved in a local recount in a race ultimately decided by three votes out of ninety-five thousand). Here the challenger can pay for a recount on a day-to-day basis, but can also select the order of precincts (or provisional ballots). The challenger can stop the recount at any time to cut his monetary losses. If the recount goes to completion, and the outcome switches in his favor, then his money is refunded. But if the recount is stopped short of completion, the results revert to the pre-recount numbers.
No one's rights are violated by "cherry-picking" counties, since all counties must ultimately be recounted for the outcome to change. If the election is so close that such cherry-picking can temporarily alter the standings, then it's close enough for a state-wide recount.
I'm not convinced that hand-recounts will favor "less educated" Democrats; that's the same kind of elitist snobbery which Democrats are using to try to explain to themselves why Kerry lost. It's much more likely that a hand-count of Rossi-leaning counties will produce extra Rossi votes, just as King county produced extra Gregoire votes. And since King has already effectively had its vote-enhancing hand count, the remaining counties should widen Rossi's lead.
It would be idiotic for Gregoire and the Democrats to concede an election that is this close. After spending millions of dollars in the campaign, it's well worth a few hundred thousand more for a hand-count which has perhaps a 25% to 45% chance (my guess) of generating a victory.
And yes, it means you may have to wait until Christmas to know the winner. Too bad. That's the nature of a very, very close race.
Posted by: Daniel Wiener on November 24, 2004 08:58 PMI think that pretty much sums up the thinking of far too many Democrats these days. Close not only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades, but in elections too (if you are a Dem).
What isn't taken ito account is the ill will that will generated by trying to turn this into another Florida, where votes keep getting counted until a particular outcome is achieved. At this point, it appears that the Dems will be calling for a third count, with their only excuse being that "every ballot should be counted." How many ballots haven't been counted is never mentioned. Neither has there been charges of fraud by the GOP, or incompetence or failure on the part of any county official charged with counting the vote, or judicial decisions that have gone against the Dems and need to be appealed, or that the Dems weren't permitted to canvass provisional voters and encourage only those who voted Dem to certify their ballot. They have absolutely no reason to complain about this process, especially when they control all of it in places like King Cty. They only want to count more ballots because the vote didn't turn out the way they wanted.
Any ballots that have not been counted by now are because those rules, laid out well in advance, were not followed. Ballots are not votes. They only get turned into votes if all the rules get followed. The Dems make it sound like there's been some nefarious plot to keep them from becoming votes If a person is unable or unwilling to follow those rules, then they are throwing away their vote, and its their fault. We are not obligated to extend them the courtesies that we won't extend to those who follow the rules.
The Upper Left Washington has a conceit that its politics is the cleanist in the nation. Whether or not that is true has always been debatable, but it will definitely not be true if the Dems proceed as they seem to intend. A lot of people are going to not like that, and unlike Florida, the GOP is not going to get blamed in this one. What we are seeing is just how corrupt the one party politics of King Cty. has become, and how that corruption is now threatening to overwhelm the rest of the state. (To see that future, just look at Cook Cty. and Illinois.)
Manufacturing a Gregoire win by "finding" a few votes is going to be a victory like the one they had in So.Dakota in'002. Far better to let the GOP have the governorship while putting their brand new majority in both houses of the legislature to block him with the excuse that he doesn't have a "mandate." But that requires thinking ahead, something the Dems have decided is a liability when it comes to holding power.
Gregoire lost by 42 votes in a state she should have won easily. Patty Murray won, John Kerry won, all the Dem congresional delegation won. (Only Senn managed to lose a competative race.) Why did so many people vote for them and not her? We are seeing why.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on November 24, 2004 09:33 PMThey already ARE permitted to vote, and you knew that when you asked the question. What you want is for them to be exempt from the same rules that everyone else must follow. Marking a ballot properly is not rocket science, and if the Republicans can figure out how to do it, certainly the Democrats can do so as well.
I realize that you would prefer that voting require absolutely no effort at all on the voter's part; after all, the essence of liberalism is relying on the government for everything. However, that is not the way the process works. If Gregoire can't win without having to use witchcraft to figure out what a bunch of ABSOLUTE MORONS meant to say when they voted, she does not deserve to be governor.
Posted by: Ima Nonimus on November 24, 2004 09:48 PMNo- Senn ran the worst of any statewide Democrat, but both Laura Ruderman and Mike Cooper succeeded in losing competitive races. What is interesting is that the blathering Democrats lost, while the quietly competent- Brad Owen, Mike Murphy, Brian Sonntag, and Mike Kreidler- all won easily, not even drawing real challenges.
Posted by: Jim King on November 25, 2004 01:10 AM