Not to rain on Christine Gregoire's parade, but it is December in Seattle and if it's going to rain, it might as well rain on Gregoire's Ukrainian victory parade.
We don't know yet what King Ukraine County's recount report will actually be, but let's suppose it's about as close as reported Tuesday night. There would be many reasons to dismiss the legitimacy of such a close "victory" -- the Chernobyl-quality incompetence and inaccuracy of the King Ukraine County elections office, the Orwellian partisanship of hte King Ukraine County canvassing board (Christine Rossi anybody?), the inexplicable pro-Gregoire surprises in the Snohomish and Pierce County recounts, etc. But let's assume for argument's sake that such a recount "victory" would survive any legal challenges (a non-trivial if). And assume further that any questions that voters have about funny business can be answered and rationalized to within the bounds of random variation and correction of random errors. Gregoire would then claim a plausible "win" in the third count by a thimbleful of votes. But the joke is still on Christine Gregoire. At best she would have a Pyrrhic victory. She would have prevailed in a legalistic contest but without the political legitimacy that comes with being perceived as fairly chosen by the majority of the voters. Hardcore partisan Democrats aside, most regular people would look at this and say that Rossi won twice, Gregoire won once and by the smallest margin yet, and it would offend their basic sense of fairness to see her win the contest. The hard numbers support the common person's intuitive notions of fairness. Indeed, a slender Gregoire "win" in the third count only increases the mathematical confidence that Rossi is the legitimate winner of the entire contest.
It's a simple matter of the law of averages.
After the first two counts, we have 80% confidence that we correctly called Rossi the winner. [see the extended entry for my math] If Gregoire wins by, say, 8 votes or so, our confidence that Rossi is the true winner of the contest actually increases slightly, to 82%. That might sound counter-intuitive, but it shouldn't. It's just a rigorous way of saying that when you have three closely-spaced measurements you can be a bit more confident that the correct answer lies in the middle than when you have only two measurements. Even if one of our measurements lies very slightly on the wrong side of the line, it would actually increase our confidence that Rossi's true margin of victory is about 100 votes.
What kind of win does Gregoire need in the third count in order to claim legitimacy in the entire contest? This table summarizes the confidence levels for various possible outcomes.
In a nutshell, Gregoire needs a 300 vote lead for the contest to be truly called a tie. She even needs a lead of 25 votes or more even to reduce the confidence in Rossi's victory from its current level. An 80% or 82% confidence level is not bulletproof, but it is a whole lot higher than our confidence in the competing hypothesis that Gregoire is the correct winner.
| Margin in third recount (+Rossi / -Gregoire) |
Confidence level
in legitimate victory |
|
+50
|
88%
|
|
+20
|
85% |
|
+10
|
84% |
|
0
|
83% |
|
-10
|
82% |
|
-20
|
81% |
|
-50
|
77% |
|
-100
|
71% |
|
-200
|
59% |
|
-300
|
50% |
|
-400
|
56% |
|
-500
|
60% |
|
-700
|
65% |
|
-1000
|
69% |
Sorry, Chris, enjoy Wednesday's news articles and your moment of "victory". But don't let it last long, because outside of Seattle, few in this state would accept you as their rightfully elected governor.
[Math for those who care: Let the random variable R represent Rossi's lead relative to Gregoire that is measured by a statewide count. The null hypothesis is that Rossi's lead in the actual balloting is less than or equal to 0 (i.e. it's either a tie, or Gregoire really won). We currently have 2 data points -- R = 261 and R = 42. That gives us a sample mean of 151.5 and a standard error of 109.5 for a t-statistic of -1.38. The p-value for a one-tailed test with 1 degree of freedom is 20%, so we reject the Gregoire victory hypothesis at the 20% level. In other words, after one count and one recount, we can only be 20% confident that we might have counted wrong both times and that Gregoire is the true winner. To put it more optimistically, we have 80% confidence that Rossi is the legitimate winner.
Now to recalculate the confidence in our measurements with 3 data points. If the 3rd data point turns out to be, say, R = -8, then our sample mean is 98.3, standard error is 82.6 for a t-statistic -1.19. The p-value for a one-tailed test with 2 degrees of freedom is 18%. In other words, our confidence in Rossi's victory went up from 80% to 82%.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 21, 2004
11:45 PM | Email This
This would be much more understandable to Joe Public than t-statistics. If ballots are appearing or disappearing without any rational explanation, this would indicate fraud in the counting process. It is bad enough when a Democrat canvassing board gives overvotes and undervotes to Gregoire and changes Rossi votes into overvotes. But if the ballot count changes without explanation, we know something is wrong.
Hopefully, the Shark can run a computer program on the precinct data file that King County will be making available when they announce the official results.
The longer term project would be to compile the names of each person who is recorded as actually casting ballots in each precinct, and compare this to the number of ballots which were counted in each precinct.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 22, 2004 01:33 AMThe Supreme Court has already ruled that no ballots that weren't counted in the 2nd count will be allowed in the 3rd (hand) count. Courts also like to uphold thier own temporary restraining orders, and they will further explain why the "new" ballots are illegal. However, I
would not be suprised if they also added that some or all of the 300 "re-canvassed" votes that miraculously appeared for the 2nd count were void, too. After all, no re-canvassing may legally occur between the 1st and 2nd counts, just as it cannot occur legally between the 2nd and 3rd counts.
I also believe that Democrats have been spreading a fantasy, like the Election Day exit polls for Kerry. The Democrats have nothing to lose by saying Gregoire won by 8 votes ahead of any announcement, and they just want to see how the Republicans will respond, before the Court decision comes down.
Either way, this has already cost Cantwell her Senate seat in 2006.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on December 22, 2004 02:41 AMHow the hell does the state Democratic party have this info if Republicans and the media don't? Do they WANT to look like they're sitting on the inside pulling all the strings, fiddling around with votes engineering a result? Why not just say, "We haven't finished tampering with and finding votes yet, but when we do, we've decided that Gregoire will win by eight."
Fine work, Stefan. And is it true that Christine Gregoire really does plan to be 'the governor of all of King County'???
Egads, Michele...that would be governor of all of Seattle. Rossi won King County ex-Seattle.
Posted by: South County on December 22, 2004 07:51 AM
How cynical.
I had a lawyer flame me once for pointing out the concept of margin of error. He said "you don't know how elections work, they are according to the law. the law decides, not your math"
Don't get me wrong I am all Rule of Law and don't believe in judges making changes, but I'm also for the legislature passing laws that have something to do with reality. As your article points out, if the Democrat wins, it will seem unfair, even if legal.
http://eyesontheball.blogspot.com
News satire that's Right for you
Hello Senator Rossi.
Wasn't she the one who would accept no "Special Interest Money for her campaign? By the way what is Real Networks trading at right now???
Posted by: Fish out of water on December 22, 2004 08:38 AMThese votes need to be removed and a real manual recount number needs to determine the winner of this election per the law.
Posted by: Ralph on December 22, 2004 08:46 AMThank you Stefan for doing a better job of explaining what I've been trying to for days. How can it possibly be fair for someone to be declared an ultimate winner after "winning" only one out of three contests? The Sonics could go pretty far according to those rules!
Posted by: RossiForKing on December 22, 2004 08:53 AMOh,and while I am busy correct your wile-eyed mis-perceptions; the state supreme court did not rule that "no ballots that weren't counted in the 2nd count will be allowed in the 3rd (hand) count". The court ruled that counties would not be REQUIRED to revisit all ballots, that were rejected previously. The court did not directly say whether or not counties COULD revisit these ballots. The fact is at least 5 other counties have revisited rejected ballots and changed dicisions on some of them resulting in a net gain for Rossi. Funny how neither the Rossi campaign, nor any of you moonbats noticed that while you were attacking King county for having the temerity to give its citizens ballots the same consideration.
Clearly you folks, and the Rossi campaign, have to interest in obtaining an accurate count. That would explain why Rossi was launching lawsuits agianst King Co. prior to the finish of the initial count. The agenda of the Rossi campaign, and this website, has been to try and poision the well, making any vote result from King county suspect merely becuase it is by far the largest county in the state and heavily democratic.
Posted by: JohnnyC on December 22, 2004 08:56 AMRossi seems to have three causes of actions
regarding military ballots.
1) For every day the military absentee
ballots were late the deadline for the postmark
for returning them ought to have been extended
one day, and that extention should have been
clearly stated on the absentee ballot. Failing
that, the soldiers who received their ballots
late must be sent a new ballot and given a proper
chance to vote.
2) Washington state election law was amended by
a county judge four days before the deadline for
correcting technical errors in an absentee ballot.
Four days notice, to political parties, was not
sufficient notice for troops stationed overseas.
The troops must be contacted personally, and
given an equal chance to correct signature
mismatches, or lack of signatures. This would
apply to all troops.
3) One county instituted a very lenient standard
of "intent" regarding over and under votes.
Every soldier whose ballot was rejected as an
over or under vote is entitled to a reevaluation
by that standard regardless of what county they
voted.
Dino should also try to find ten Rossi voters
who were contacted by the Democrats only to not
be informed of the fact they failed to sign their
ballots simply because they indicated the
"wrong" preference.
In a couple of words, there are provisions in the state constitution for a recall, but the bar is high.
a) A crime of malfeasance or misfeasance must be executed after the person is officially sworn
into office.
b) 25% of the number of voters that voted in the election state must sign a petition to recall (or, about 700,000 people).
c) More than 50% of the population must then approve the recall on the ballot.
Posted by: DustinJames on December 22, 2004 09:16 AM"At best she would have a Pyrrhic victory. She would have prevailed in a legalistic contest but without the political legitimacy that comes with being perceived as fairly chosen by the majority of the voters."
You wrote this with a straight face? How you do feel about President George Pyrrhic Bush?
Next, clamoring for recall elections!
Can I borrow a line from 2000 - get over it!
What a bunch of crybabies. If the rulings don't go your way, it must be fraud. If you aren't happy with the process, you seek to subvert the process.
Posted by: Christine G on December 22, 2004 09:25 AMThere is an opportunity to turn this setback into a long-term victory. If Christine Yanukovych's performance as AG is any indication, she will be an even more incompetent governor than Gray Davis. Obnoxiousness + incompetence is no way to govern.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 22, 2004 09:41 AMWA Republicans are going to have to take a page out of Ukraine's book - gather a crowd in Olympia, and leave them there until this obvious fraud is overturned.
1) Allow the additional King ballots and order all of the counties to recanvas under the same guideline. Result, Rossi wins. This scenario is doubtful based on their previous decision.
2) Disallow the additional King ballots along with any ballots added during the hand count that could be considered recanvassing. Result, Rossi wins. I think this is the most likely scenario.
3) Allow or disallow the additional King county ballots, but leave the other counties as currently certifed. Result, Gregoire wins. This scenario is probably the second mst likely, but subject to a Federal voter rights appeal using the criteria of the Gore fiasco four years ago. Is Seattle in the ninth circuit? If so, that Kangaroo court in SF will be little help and Rossi will need to hope the supremes are will to hear the case.
4) Invalidate the entire election and call for an immediate runoff. There is precedent for this from NH and this becomes a much bigger issue if the recanvassed ballots in the other jurisdiction were not segregated from those of the orirginal count. Result, Rossi wins.
Posted by: Jim on December 22, 2004 09:55 AMAnd South County, of course I know that democrat-heavy Seattle is X-tine's bread and butter. But this travesty was conducted by the King County government structure (where we learned that she was awarded a vote literally based on a stray mark--see Robert Mak's report on enhanced ballots at the King 5 news website), not the Seattle City Council. Hence, my post as it appeared.
Posted by: Michele on December 22, 2004 10:09 AMBefore Ds get too smug
Too Late.
But, hey, if it weren't for left-wing obnoxiousness, I wouldn't have voted for Bush this year.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 22, 2004 10:28 AMKen
Posted by: Ken Hupp on December 22, 2004 10:30 AMAfter all the legal challenges, possible re-recounts, etc., disallowance of KC ballots included in the current 8 vote lead - either candidate could win.
If Rossi wins, you won't hear me whine. You won't hear me calling for recalls, runoffs, or clamoring about fraud. It will be OVER so far as I'm concerned. There is a legal process, and it is being implemented, and the court will rule.
Because what you guys don't realize about stuck up, obnoxious King County folks like me, we tend to be acutally grown ups.
Life doesn't always go your way. Processes are imperfect. We learn to get over things and live with imperfection.
Why should the state go through more of this in a runoff election? We could easily end up with a recount after the runoff. Why should the state spend millions of dollars just because some people (rep or dem) are unhappy with the results of a recount? Somebody is ALWAYS going to be unhappy with the results of a recount - we should just always have runoffs instead of recounts, I suppose, if that's your view. Of course that isn't your view - you're just a SORE LOSER.
After all the criticism of the Dems on this board for making this difficult, not immediately conceding, being litigious, all I see are threats to drag the state through more litigation, more runoffs, recalls, more drama, if it doesn't go your way.
Buncha crybabies.
Posted by: Christine G on December 22, 2004 10:34 AMYou've been a smug, condescending POS throughout this entire process.
"If Rossi wins, you won't hear me whine. You won't hear me calling for recalls, runoffs, or clamoring about fraud."
Ummm....could we please NOT hear you under any and every circumstance? You haven't added anything useful to this discussion, you only seem to want to add more fuel to the fire.
You may not realize it, but attitudes like yours are one of the reasons why most of the country is so 'Red', and why slowly but surely Washington is turning Red as well.
Posted by: Larry on December 22, 2004 10:52 AMThat should be amended with "and then there's the work product of the King County Elections Office"
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 22, 2004 11:03 AMHow big of you. Your candidate will only have lost three times.
Posted by: South County on December 22, 2004 11:04 AM"Gregoire has promised to concede if she loses the recount. But on Tuesday her spokesman said if the Democrats lose the state Supreme Court case she may appeal to the state Legislature or challenge the election under state law."
Posted by: Jim on December 22, 2004 11:13 AMin fact, I would say to them, don't bother coming here...you are very suspect because you constantly defend the indefensible..sort of like the ACLU sticking up for child molesters....
its not the truth, its just the power....
Posted by: lee on December 22, 2004 11:16 AMin fact, I would say to them, don't bother coming here...you are very suspect because you constantly defend the indefensible..sort of like the ACLU sticking up for child molesters....
its not the truth, its just the power....
Posted by: lee on December 22, 2004 11:16 AMDino Rossi would graciously concede if he lost the count.
But now:
He reserves every right to contest the election results if they aren't in his favor.
Also, the fact that the dems wanted a second recount doesn't make them 'crybabies', but rather justified and the fact that the repubs are questioning this victory does make them (repubs) crybabies also doesn't make sense. I wouldn't want to think that by tossing off terms and distorting their meanings, i.e., 'tie', 'victory', 'mandate' means that the only way a republican could win is by nefarious means and that if a dem loses then it's only because of questionable behavior. Words mean things and shouldn't be distorted for unscrupulous gain, or pretty soon we'll all be convinced that 2+2=5 and there's no need to correct it.
Sounds to me that the dems treated the governship as if it was their rightful throne and Gregoire is the heir apparent. That is not democracy, but manipulation and I just hope that more people see that and that the fallout over how Gregoire became Govenor is a short-term victory because in the end the voters will remember how little their vote counted, unless you voted for the 'correct' side for every future election.
"Because what you guys don't realize about stuck up, obnoxious King County folks like me, we tend to be acutally grown ups."
Forgetting, I suppose, where most (all?) of the contributors to Sound Politics live. Depending on how you interpret her statement, she is either saying that King County residents tend to be grown ups. I like that argument, and will accept the compliment. I am sure Stefan and the other King County residents who write for Sound Politics will, too.
Or, and this is the variant of the argument I love, she is arguing that only the "stuck up, obnoxious" King County folks tend to be grown ups. That's amusing enough so that I hope she will expand on the idea, even though it is a bit off topic. (Most school teachers, and most parents, would disagree that being stuck up and obnoxious makes one a grown up.)
Both arguments are fun, though not exactly traditional for Democrats, who used to talk at great length about their love for those who had less education, money, and status. Really, they did, though Christine may not be old enough to remember that. I rather miss the Democrats who at least pretended to care about the little guy.
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 22, 2004 11:41 AMAnd worse, explain why an obvious democrat guy WHO IS EMPLOYED IN THE KING COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARMENT actually told me that Bush stole Ohio? Hellloooooo, tin-foil hat brigade......Not even John Kerry believes THAT
Posted by: Michele on December 22, 2004 11:50 AMI've heard that called "verbicide."
Posted by: South County on December 22, 2004 11:57 AMYou need to understand what an "argument" is. I didn't make an argument, I made an observation based on my experience.
The remainder of comments seem to be 1) I'm adding nothing to the discussion and 2) I'm nasty and that's the reason that the country is red. Let me take them in turn:
1) There is a legal process for recounting the votes. Some of the issues that arise are in the discretion of the canvassing boards; others will be decided by the Supreme Court. What I am wondering - and what I am "adding to the discussion" - is WHY THE HELL DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ABIDING BY THE RULE OF LAW, regardless of whether it works smoothly or to your liking?
That is what it means to be an adult in an orderly democracy. Not engineering recalls before a candidate takes office. Not making up schemes for runoffs that are not provided for in state law.
When the USSC ruled for Bush, Republicans from coast to coast screamed "get over it." And, for the most part, Democrats did. On the fringes, they did not, but there isn't anyone of consequence in the Democratic party who didn't (by which I mean, an elected official to national office or party spokesperson, not Michael Moore or Barbara Streisand).
And, if the courts rule against the Dems here, I have little doubt they will concede. I haven't heard of any Dems suggesting they will recall Rossi or have a runoff if things don't go their way - not even over on horsesass.
So, what's YOUR problem, exactly?
2) This message board has many messages which refer to Democrats as demonic rats, which state that all Democrats are socia1ists, which state that the Democratic party is a "criminal enterprise," and that the Democrats are trying to fraudulently steal this election. I don't really think these messages would go over very well with the average, truly nonpartisan, fairly disinterested voter, do you? Yet my posts - which state exactly what Republicans did in 2000, as they began their current climb to ascendency, in much the same language - are somehow uniquely offputting to the nonpartisans among all the name calling on this board. Hmmm...just afraid that the Dems have learned from your successes?
Posted by: Christine G on December 22, 2004 12:02 PMAs to Berendt's comments, I can't recall exactly what you are referencing...do you have a link?
Posted by: Christine G on December 22, 2004 12:07 PM
That's why he had box seating at the RAT national convention, right?
did you know that Michaal Moore isn't a democrat?
Odd, then, that he was sitting in the presidential box at the Democrat National Convention, isn't it? It's also odd that he refers to John Kerry as "our guy." Odd behavior indeed for someone who isn't a democrat.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 22, 2004 12:16 PMNo matter what ballots are counted, there are doubtless invalid votes have been counted, and valid votes that have been excluded, in all counties. The system is not fine tuned enough to catch all errors.
When the difference among nearly 3 million ballots is less than 1,000, it is impossible to ascertain who got more votes among those validly cast. The system can only come up with an approximation - a pretty close approximation, but not close enough to resolve this sort of race.
No matter what, there are a few invalid votes that got counted in Pierce and Spokane counties, and a few valid votes that got discarded somewhere else. There isn't any obtainable answer to the question of which candidate got the most votes among legitimate voters on election day. If there were an ascertainable answer to that question, there would be some point to talking about "legitimacy" or "stealing" something.
Whether we include or exclude the new ballots won't give us a more accurate or less accurate result.
We could resolve elections this close by a coin toss. However, the law, which is fond of fictions, buys into the fiction that we can go back and get a much better answer through a machine recount or manual recount. The reality is that the result is no more legitimate or rational (or irrational for that matter) than a coin toss.
I'd be happy with a coin toss. But, living in an orderly society, I am also happy with the system laid out in the RCWs. I am willing to accept the imperfections of judges and other public officials in going through this charade, in indulging this legal fiction.
But I'm not so stupid as to take it seriously, and believe that the answer can be known, or that the result can be free of error.
That, kiddies, is being a grown-up. Despite all your protestations to the contrary, that is what most of you aren't.
Posted by: Christine G on December 22, 2004 12:32 PMFor once, CG has posted something with which I can agree. Though I'm sure this isn't what she meant to say, I think she makes a clear case for a runoff system in our elections. A growing number of jurisdictions are now mandating runoffs between the top two vote-getters when a) neither receives a clear majority of votes, or b) when the margin of victory is smaller than the election's margin of error. In such cases, a runoff election in which voters must choose between only two candidates provides the most accurate measure of the "will of the people."
Posted by: Patrick on December 22, 2004 12:54 PMI believe the Luther decision is still good law, and has not been overruled. This same principle was followed in the 1860's and 1870's, when Congress refused to recognize several state governments in southern states due to Democrat vote fraud and denial of voting rights.
This matter can certainly be litigated in state and federal courts, and presumably in the state legislature under Article III, Section 4 of the state constitution. But this matter can also be brought before the U.S. Congress, and the decision of that body is final and controlling. Last time I checked, the GOP has decent enough majorities in both houses of Congress.
Here is the language from Luther v. Borden:
"Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. It is true that the contest in this case did not last long enough to bring the matter to this issue; and as no senators or representatives were elected under the authority of the government of which Mr. Dorr was the head, Congress was not called upon to decide the controversy. Yet the right to decide is placed there, and not in the courts."
Luther v. Borden refers to Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 22, 2004 12:54 PMBut this Congress looks like it won't even enact SS reform. Can we really hope that they'll have the fortitude to drag this WA mess before Congress?!
I'd like to think 'yes', but I suspect the answer is 'no'.
Time to get the grassroots mobilized, a la the Specter Affair...
If the laws provided for runoff elections, then that would be fine by me.
But it by no means clear that it is the best way to resolve the issue. If the will of the voters is so divided, we could be forced into a second runoff. Additionally, it would be more expense, more disruption of the operations of government. It would force another round of political ads - yuk, the voters really want that?
The message of the voters is that they are evenly divided. If we have a runoff election, and one or the other wins by 1/4 percent, does that really send a different message? Does that make the winner more legitimate? I don't really think so.
The real, true "fair" way to do this is to recognize what the voters said, and have a co-governorship. This, of course, is very disruptive and unrealistic - but it is the reflection of the will of the people.
I would hope that whoever wins will govern from the middle. Of course, that was my hope with Bush won in 2000, to no avail. If Gregoire is in, it will be difficult to resist the temptation to rule Washington the way the Republicans will rule the rest of the country. Rossi will have huge problems, with such a slim margin and no friendly voice in the house or senate. That could force him to be a centrist, which would be a good thing.
Posted by: Christine G on December 22, 2004 01:44 PMCould it be they assume they're standing on the dividing line?
Posted by: South County on December 22, 2004 01:56 PMWhy am I suspicious that when someone says they want officials to govern "from the middle,"?
Everyone's a centrist in his own mind... even Castro and Mugabe think of themselves as temperate moderates. The Mullahs of Iran think their interpretation of the Koran is middle-of-the-road.
But mostly, "govern from the center" is just a focus-group tested buzz-phrase that means absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 22, 2004 02:14 PMMachines have no political affiliation and no agenda. A machine is neither a democrat nor a republican.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 22, 2004 02:30 PMLike, say, Arlen Specter, Arnold Swartzenegger, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, or Clinton once his health care measures failed. Not like George H.W. Bush, Bob Barr, Ted Kennedy, or Robert Byrd.
Is this a difficult concept to understand?
Posted by: Christine G on December 22, 2004 02:39 PMMatt J Kurlander - Political affiliation and agenda won't come into play as long as there is atleast one representative from each party in each "ballot counting team". Machines miscount period, (i.e. Rossi's lead going from appx. 261 to appx. 46)
Not if the boards are weighted 2-1 to favor one party over another.
Not if the people charged with guarding and processing the votes are partisans.
Machine mistakes are random. Machines have no biases. The vote count for ROssi changes primarily because people in Ukraine county "enhanced" ballots that could not be read by machine. Human error is not. Remember the "Christine Rossi" ballot, that the canvassing board voted was a vote for Gregoire?
Speaking as an independent, I think the reps are in a win/win solution even if Christine Yanukovych is installed as governor. There is a broad public perception that the election was stolen... I mean, anybody with more than an ounce of common sense looks at the suspicious way each recount turned up more democrat votes and goes "hmmmmm." Also, Yanukovych's performance as AG was only slightly less competent than Gray Davis's performance as governor. It would take a master politician to recover from this election, and she ain't it.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 22, 2004 02:59 PM
So, your telling me that a republican is going to sit there while, 2 democrats change a vote? and vice versa?
-----Machine mistakes are random. Machines have no biases.
Yes, this is true, but this fact does not make machines more accurate. It's irrelevant if the mistakes are random are not. A mistake is a -mistake.
Also, if your assertions are true that the change in machine count was due to fradulent activity, the republicans well have a great case for a recall election.
Posted by: Flawed Math on December 22, 2004 03:13 PMThe machine counts didn't count the same ballots, and neither did the hand count. The hand count used a different process than the machine counts. We don't determine elections by average. There's probably more...
Recounting is for correcting mistakes, otherwise all recounting would do is measure the error, like you've done.
What we're really trying to do with any type of recount is determine the correct result, which is why the process includes a hand count with re-examination of the ballots. It's the law. It's there for a reason. If you think it's wrong, then try to change it. But stop for a minute and ask yourself why you haven't heard the party saying anything about removing hand-counts from the process.
Posted by: Anonymous Reader on December 24, 2004 01:25 PM