April 12, 2005
Election Townhall Traveling Show

The townhall meeting in Shoreline was sponsored by King County Council rep Carolyn Edmonds and the League of Women Voters. Council rep Bob Ferguson was in the audience. Attendance was at least 200. It was tightly structured to the chagrin of many. There was a 1-minute limit on the public comments/questions period and most people were cut off.

I was surprised that the host Carolyn Edmonds was not involved in the give and take. She did the welcome and such - before I arrived. But I thought as an elected official she would be involved in addressing the problems. It was her chance to show she is part of the solution. I guess she didn't want to appear to be part of the problem!

Logan had 30 minutes to show every fact that made him look good and skip those that didn't. He couldn't leave out the fact that there are still 1800 more ballots than voters. But in several other areas he made mention of the problem and "don't worry I am taking care of it." But he kept forgetting to tell how bad the problems were: How many ballots were enhanced improperly obscuring the voter's original markings? How many provisional ballots were counted before being validated? He just forgot to say.

When Dean Logan made his bold declaration that the counting was as good as it can be the guy seated next to me cupped his hands and shouted "Bull bleep." He was just sitting next to me; I don't know him. Well, actually I do; but he's usually kind of quiet and I was as surprised as everyone else. And a lot people were also upset and vocal about it.

A representative of Ron Sims (out sick with the flu) quickly covered Ron Sims' "independent review panel." That got a very big laugh and several pointed comments during the comment time. How can a panel appointed by Sims be independent? It is not humanly possible.

Some of the facts and comments that really stuck out -
- 1800 more ballots than voters. Who cast them? That is a huge problem 5 months after the election.
- King County does not verify citizenship during registration. If you sign the registration form then he assumes you are a citizen. He says that federal and state law preclude him. It's broken.
- An audience member who is a mathematician said the expert statisticians tell him that an election is just a sampling of the population. So you use sampling techniques and don't expect an exact result. I disagree: who turns out might be a sampling. But the vote count is the complete enumeration of those people who participate; so the expected result is exact tabulation of the count. Even if his statement is correct it doesn't mean we can't expect a correct count ov the vote. Updated.
- The rush to certify the election, even when the controls don't match. Logan said he had to certify the election in 15 days, so he did, despite knowing there were problems. There was push-back from the audience. During the comment time Stefan Sharkansky said that Logan was wrong: the law says you only certify if the counts match up.
- A woman who was an observer of the recount said that there were tables that no one could get within 20 to 30 feet of. So it was not possible to verify that the ballots were correctly tabulated.
- Stefan held up the mail vote report done by Logan. An employee said that information in it was false. When will it be corrected? Logan mumbled an acknowledgment that there was a problem. Well, his words weren't mumbled, but the meaning was. Stefan: when will this report be corrected? No promise.
- How many absentee ballots were returned in the mail? Logan doesn't know.

The evening ended on a comical note. A man asked about homeless people who give the King county administration building for their address. When they register the elections department mails a confirmation. If the confirmation is returned then the person is taken off the voter role. But if a homeless person gives 500 5th Avenue what do you do with the mail for him/her. Logan's answer: "Oh, yes, the political flyers start arriving and we shred them." Question: But how about their confirmation? Logan: "Oh, that's different." With the one-minute limit it took the guy 3 turns through the line to finish exploring this question and it sure made Logan's checks appear to be ad hoc - funny and sorry.

Posted by Ron Hebron at April 12, 2005 10:42 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I got the tail end of the Q13 story about this meeting. All I saw was Dean Logan, with those red blotches he gets when under extreme pressure. That telltale sign. Are Depends next for public meetings?

Posted by: lksimstrailgrammy on April 12, 2005 10:49 PM
2. Actually, you and the statistician are both right. An election is a sampling of the population (voters) as a whole, but the vote is an enumeration of the sub-sample which participates in the vote.

Posted by: MIMike on April 12, 2005 10:58 PM
3. Don't worry, Ron Sims has put together a Blue Ribbon Committee with good houstraining. This panel will of course be led by a major Democratic Donator! I feel much better knowing that fact that the truth will be flushed somewhere!

Posted by: GS on April 12, 2005 11:01 PM
4. Great report--thank you.

"Don't worry--we're working on that". That's what we're worried about....

Honestly, when people are so very, very clear about what they want in an elections process (photo ID checks, proof of citizenship, etc) how is it that these officials just pretend to not hear it time and time again?? I don't get it...

Posted by: Michele on April 12, 2005 11:16 PM
5. "- A mathematician said the expert statisticians tell him that an election is just a sampling of the population. So you use sampling techniques and don't expect an exact result. I am an operations researcher and I disagree: an election is the complete enumeration of those people who participate; so the expected result is exact tabulation of the count."

Ron,
Please elaborate on the mathematician's theory that an election is merely a "sampling" of the population. Was this Dean Logan's position (that a mathematician told him this, and he agreed with it) or was it the opinion of one of the audience members (who was a mathematician)?

Posted by: Tim B. on April 13, 2005 01:34 AM
6. It seems to me all the committee members Sims appointed are establishment types. I wouldn't expect any rash conclusions from the panel, regardless of the facts.

Posted by: South County on April 13, 2005 05:49 AM
7. Why does he have time for these dog and pony shows but doesn't have time to give a deposition at a legal proceeding?

This is like during the Gregoire regime at Ecology where she wouldn't show up to a court hearing (when Ecology was getting sued) because they were "busy". Obviously, the case later went to the Supremes and she lost her shorts.

The pattern of arrogance with the courts and us continues.

Posted by: swatter on April 13, 2005 07:10 AM
8. Mike and Tim,

The mathematician was a member of the audience. I think Mike is right. " An election is a sampling of the population (voters) as a whole, but the vote is an enumeration of the sub-sample which participates in the vote."

But the mathematician's point was that we can't expect the election count to be accurate. He has the wrong target. Because who shows up is a sample we can't expect who votes to exactly represent the whole popultion. He is right that far. But, since the count is an enumeration, we can expect the count to be accurate.

I will ask the experts.

Posted by: Ron Hebron on April 13, 2005 07:27 AM
9. Hey, I'm a mathematician! (PhD from UW in 1990 -- currently faculty in a neighboring state) I *hate* to see my field misused that way. Elections are based on ballot counts. That's just the way it is and always has been. The fact that the people who turn in a ballot constitute a (self-selected, unscientific) sample of public opinion is true, but irrelevant to the question of who wins an election. Otherwise, we'd just declare winners according to the opinion polls done closest to non-election day.

Since counts matter, we should get the count right. If complete accuracy is not possible, we should at least expect that the *upper bound* on possible error is below the margin of victory in the closest race. That standard has obviously not been met in the 2004 WA governor's race.

The dems better leave mathematics out of their excuses. Them's fightin' words...

Posted by: Moscow Mark on April 13, 2005 11:04 AM
10. As anyone familiar with the council knows, Edmonds isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, and isn't quick on her feet, so that's probably why she didn't get too involved in her own forum.

Posted by: Ricky on April 13, 2005 11:36 AM
11. Agree w/ M. Mark. An election process is NOT a statistical sample, it's a counting process, and with proper document control should be reliably repeatable to single digits. Which King County usually was until Mr. Sims appointed Mr. Logan.

King County failed abjectly in the document control department, and that appears to be linked to Logan's changes of the rules.

I want a seat in the front row when he goes under cross-examination, and pray that the questions expose all the warts that his public flummery hides.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 13, 2005 11:42 AM
12. Wait a minute. I did some numerical stuff (engineering) in college but I don't play a statistician on TV.

How can everyone say this is based on election ballot counts but it can't be perfect? Help me here. I fail to see the lack of perfection in the count. The only way it's off is by election officials failure, nothing else. Otherwise every election would be GIGO. The Jefferson County totals prove my point.

NUFF SAID!!!!

Pudster

Posted by: Puddybud on April 13, 2005 10:01 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?