Washington state's junior senator has spent most of her working life in the public sector. But she did work for Real Networks, though I have never seen a good description of what she did there, other than negotiating a contract with the Seattle Mariners. And I may be too cynical, but I have never been able to shake the suspicion that her job at Real Networks, which made her a millionaire, was, essentially, a campaign contribution from the company's founder, Rob Glaser, who is quite generous toward left wing causes and candidates. (Cantwell's very brief official biography is so vague on this question that she does not even mention Real Networks by name.)
As I said, perhaps I am too cynical, but one thing is certain: Without the cash that she got from her brief time at Real Networks, she almost certainly would have lost to Senator Slade Gorton in the 2000 election. So her time there was crucial to her political career.
And that makes it fair to ask what Cantwell knew about one of the bigger scandals of the personal computer era, the eavesdropping that Real Networks did on its unsuspecting customers. The invasion of privacy was so bad that PC World named the Real Networks player the second worst product of all time. (After AOL, from 1989 to the present.)
And some of RealNetworks' habits were even more troubling. For example, shortly after RealJukeBox appeared in 1999, security researcher Richard M. Smith discovered that the software was assigning a unique ID to each user and phoning home with the titles of media files played on it--while failing to disclose any of this in its privacy policy. Turns out that RealPlayer G2, which had been out since the previous year, also broadcast unique IDs. After a tsunami of bad publicity and a handful of lawsuits, Real issued a patch to prevent the software from tracking users' listening habits. But less than a year later, Real was in hot water again for tracking the habits of its RealDownload download-management software customers.
In other words, Real Networks was spying on its customers. (Apparently, the information they were collecting is worth big bucks to recording companies.)
Now what did Cantwell know about these invasions of privacy, this eavesdropping by Real Networks? I have never seen the answer to that question. She may have known nothing — which would support my suspicion that her job there was a campaign contribution. Or, she may have known all about it, which raises doubts about her willingness to protect our privacy. I am not sure which explanation is worse.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(I am never been able to resolve the central question about her 2000 win: If one could exclude all the illegal votes, would she still have beaten Slade Gorton? After that election, I attempted a rough, back of the envelope, estimate, and decided that she probably did not win legitimately. At the time I made the estimate, I would have put the odds at 60-40 against her win being legitimate. Now, after all we have learned from the 2004 election about how King County conducts elections, I would put the odds against her 2000 win being legitmate at 90-10, and perhaps even higher. (Those outside Washington state may need to know that King County includes Seattle, a Democratic stronghold, and most Seattle suburbs.)
Rob Glaser knew about the spying by Real Networks, and that tells us something interesting about this wealthy leftist. Like George Soros, another wealthy leftist, Glaser believes in rules, but does not always think those rules should apply to himself.)
Posted by Jim Miller at May 28, 2006 05:21 PM | Email ThisHow many times do we have to explain it to you? Those who make the rules are FAR smarter and wiser than "we the people"! The rules don't apply to them! How silly would that be, when they know so much better what is "good" for us? The sooner we understand that, the better off we'll be!
Posted by: suzihomemaker on May 28, 2006 05:56 PMKind of makes you wonder what he is getting in return.
Posted by: Janet S on May 28, 2006 08:02 PMAnd Lillian Hellman said:
"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth!"
Cantwell is a carefully crafted LEFTIST PINHEAD, bought & paid for by Rob Glaser. She stole the election because Slade Gorton was a wimp! Had Gorton fought like a man, he may have won.....and certainly it would have lead to enough "clean-up" work that Rossi would have won. But alas, Slade rolled over and took it like a dog.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 28, 2006 09:16 PMThat was just one of three races that year that the Republicans gift wrapped for the dems. The others were Ashcroft allowing himself to be beaten by a dead man and Guiliani pulling out too late for Lazios to be effective against hillary...
Posted by: rbb on May 28, 2006 09:45 PM(trolls, you KNOW I'm right)
Posted by: Misty on May 28, 2006 10:19 PMI actually agree with you on that. Both are stupid, although the privacy thing is not.
(Which were kind of silly to start with, especially since Cantwell is likely to beat McGavick as easily as Murray beat Nethercutt.)
Yah...you keep thinking that. You might want to take your own advice on that tin foil hat thing.
Posted by: Cliff on May 29, 2006 12:00 AMI seem to remember the GOP really thought Murray would be in trouble against Nethercutt. How'd that turn out for you?
Of course, things can change. But at this point, things don't look to good for Mike.
Posted by: wayne on May 29, 2006 12:37 AMI've worked for startups in the software business for more than twenty years. I've even been senior management myself. I've seen some pretty unusual people in senior management positions, especially during the most insane period of the dot-com bubble, but I would have to say that Cantwells resume shows absolutely no qualifications for a VP of Marketing position in the software business, especially in a small startup.
Definitely a FOF, Friend Of the Founder. She got the job for personal reasons not professional reasons. Someone with her resume would never have got such a position in any other software company I know of, unless she was a FOF.
As for Real Networks itself. Let's just say they were so despised in the business that they were in the unique position that absolutely everyone was rooting for Microsofts WMS to defeat RealAudio - which it eventually did. You know things are bad when even hardened Microsoft haters want Microsoft to win.
The RealJukebox spying fiasco was just one of the many incidents in the history of Real Networks truly nasty and thoroughly unethical business practices.
But that seems to be the pattern, at least in the software business. The more lefty / progressive / in your face the politics of the company founders, the nastier the company actually is. A perfect example was the company run by the two of the founders of MoveOn. Two of the companies twenty programmers committed suicide because of over-work and burn-out in one 14 month period, a unique record in the business. Management lied to their employees about going public and then turned around and sold the company to a multi-national conglomerate which soon afterwards shut down most of the company and fired most of its employees. And, no surprises here, almost none of the many multi-millions paid for the company went to the employees. Even by the low standards of the software business it was a extremely shabby story.
Gotta love those Lear-Jet Liberals.
snort
That should read: After being defeated in 1994 after serving only one term in the United States House of Representatives ....
Posted by: jimg on May 29, 2006 09:58 AMAs a liberal . . . you don't see hope for anything associated with decency, facts or reality.
You may be right about the candidates. The voting system here is so corrupt that your party could get
a Chihuahua elected. After all, they elected Gregoire, Murray and Cantwell. What small, brain dead critter next?
I now tend to agree that the election was fraudulent & that Slade Gorton should have been stronger in questioning the results.
Ah, well; water under the bridge but the taxpayers of Washington state pay the price.
Posted by: Clean House on May 29, 2006 11:21 AMMy sources at high levels of the industry particularly those who were charged with Business development (the most logicial place for a semi attractive former pol) never ran into her or saw her at any of the ususual meetings. The other place for her would have been in government affairs but Real networks did not have such a department.
Every Thursday morning in her office in DC she holds an open house and I have attended a couple just to see what is going. First she is an ice princess and second you have never see such a collection of moon bats as attend those things. The three times I have visited her office for business matters I have never found the same staff people there all the ones I talked to before had left. She has one of the worst staff retetion records on the hill and that is some record.
Posted by: Dennis on May 29, 2006 12:56 PMYour argument relies upon multiple sets of slippery, factually unsupported suggestions which you then try to link through sly implication into some nefarious plot on the part of Senator Cantwell.
You are free to dislike the business practices of RealNetworks, or any other business (e.g., Safeco, Microsoft, the King County Sheriff's Office). It is tortured rhetoric, however, to link Senator Cantwell, merely by association, to practices to which you object. If she were a chief executive of an organization whose members abused the public trust under color of law (as say, perhaps, Sheriff Dave Reichert), there might be something to talk about. Unlike Sheriff Reichert or Safeco CEO Mike McGavick, however, Sen. Cantwell did not have executive authority during her tenure at ReaNetworks.
I'm sorry if you find Cantwell's job description vague. That does not mean, however, that one may tar her with quibbles about any objectionable practice one believes RealNetworks might ever have engaged.
The next logical trip, however, is utterly breathtaking:
"If one could exclude all the illegal votes, would she still have beaten Slade Gorton? After that election, I attempted a rough, back of the envelope, estimate, and decided that she probably did not win legitimately."
"All the illegal votes..."???
From what deep colonic cavity did you pull that baseless assertion? Now that you, Stefan, et al. have established yourselves as the Inspector Clousseaus of Washington State electoral politics, you apparently think you have free license to question the outcome of any close election with which you were not happy by shouting "illegal votes"?
The disingenuousness of this post first invited deep guffaws. Upon pause, however, one realizes that this is just yet another example of the politics of smear, innuendo and outright lies which have so debased civic dialogue in recent years.
Really, can't you do better than this?
If we had a proper registration system in King County, and did a real check on each registrant, there would be of the order of 5,000 illegal voters. Evergreen Freedom Foundation, yes, a conservative/libertarian organization, but it only wnats legal votes, not the Dean Logan everybody votes machine, has done such estimations. We know that statewide there were over 1,600 illegally registered felons that actually voted in 2004. About 800 of those in King County, as I remember. Nor was that all of the registered felons. Many more have been cleansed recently. If we follow the statewide cleansing of more than 30,000 double registrations, and 20,000 dead people removed from the list, I'm sure we can find 5,000 illegal votes. Note that I've not even mentioned all the non-citizen voters swept in by the motor voter law.
Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on May 29, 2006 05:32 PMYour language of "cleansing" is inadvertently revealing.
It speaks volumes about your motives. Pity you have no data to support your assertions.
Am I alone in finding your rhetoric of "scrubbing" and "cleansing" the voter roles just a tad er, CREEPY?
Why do I get the impression that you'd much rather spew liberal talking points that engage in a serious discussion?
If we were to challenge you to debate the issues, and require you to generate an original thought, I think your response would be,
"I would prefer not to."
Cantwell's camp was counting on public outrage about Corporate America to damage McGavick. The reality is that RealNetworks is a whole lot more about what is wrong with corporate America than SAFECO.
Cantwell's group has opened the door for Corporate Discussions. Let's talk about it some more.....please!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 29, 2006 06:57 PMI appreciate your literacy. Bully for you!
Alas, you say:
If we were to challenge you to debate the issues, and require you to generate an original thought, I think your response would be, "I would prefer not to."
I put forth several thoughts, all of which you failed to engage.
Sorry, my friend, I PREFER to debate.
Sadly, I suspect that you and your ideological friends have no toys with which to compete. TOO BAD FOR YOU.
What multiple sets of slippery, factually unsupported suggestions are you referring to?
Are you claiming that Cantwell Washington is not state's junior senator? Or are you claiming that Cantwell never worked for Real Networks? Maybe you are saying that you can prove that her association with Real Networks was not a campaign contribution from the company's founder, Rob Glaser? Obviously you believe there was no scandal about the eavesdropping that Real Networks did on its unsuspecting customers and that Cantwell could not have known anything about the facts, but can you prove any of it?
Of course not! You have no facts whatsoever so you smear the issues with nonsense, change the subject and attack the attacker.
The election that put Cantwell into office was as reliable the one that elected Rossi and put Gregoire into office. As Jim said, ”after all we have learned from the 2004 election about how King County conducts elections, I would put the odds against her 2000 win being legitimate at 90-10, and perhaps even higher.”
Calling Stefan et al the ”inspector Clousseaus” of Washington State electoral politics doesn’t diminish the fact that they have free license and indeed an ethical and moral obligation to question the outcome of any corrupt election with which they have established strong inductive evidence that the outcome was gained with "illegal votes.”
Nice try at smearing anyone who refuses to suck the liberal appendage as you do with nonsense but Cantwell is vulnerable by her own efforts of that kind. Jim asks some very good questions, and leaves the issues wide open to interpretation. Your shrill protestation signals that nefarious inferences very likely have more merit than many of us thought at first.
Thanks for the pointer.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 29, 2006 08:55 PMPerhaps the fact that the allegations made are absurd and/or contradictory is what bartelby is referring to. I've already addressed the ridiculous campaign contribution allegation above. Miller proposes the absurd allegation, so its his responsibility to prove it. I get to point at it and snicker. I can't prove the "Nigerian government official" I received an e-mail from isn't going to send me $15 million, but I think I'll pass on it. If you want to respond because you can't prove its a scam, I'll gladly forward it to you. Let me know how it goes.
Realnetworks did not "eavesdrop". They had code that reported back on users' music selections and the like. A number of internet-related software programs that included the ability to do this sort of thing were developed by a number of companies, including I believe, Microsoft. People viewed it as an invasion of privacy and reputable companies no longer do it (as far as we know.) I am "amused" by the fact that people (with no first-hand knowledge) simultaneously charge that Cantwell did nothing for four years at Realnetworks while at the same time claiming she must have known something about this specific small matter.
The only explanation I can see for the wild charges is that the GOP is so frustrated by the fact that McGavick probably can't win, that any ridiculous theory is run up the flag pole. Well, this one will go nowhere. Better luck next time.
Posted by: wayne on May 29, 2006 10:50 PMMiller suggested that readers make their own inferences from circumstances that you obviously know nothing about or you would have revealed your knowledge. Instead rather than addressing any facts, you merely dismissed anyone that might think about the circumstances as stupid. Calling people stupid for thinking something you don’t agree with when you know nothing about the subject is – in a word — stupid.
Your opinion doesn’t carry any credibility and is less valuable than Jim’s would be because unlike Jim you assert your opinions as facts where he readily admits that he may be ”too cynical, but [has] never been able to shake [a] suspicion . . . “ You don’t have to agree with his suspicion, but that doesn’t make it stupid or unbelievable, especially where Cantwell is concerned.
Liberal projection is hilarious. Jim is under no obligation to prove anything especially to you because his comments are not allegations - just speculations - and he made no pretense to the contrary. Everyone understands that facts hold no water for you when set along side liberal nonsense, so it is understandable that you reflexively assume that Jim’s speculation is treated by your adversaries as facts. While the conjecture Jim suggests may sound unlikely, none of them are anywhere as outrageous and unbelievable as the basis upon which Scooter Libby has been charged or the endless list of idiotic accusations leveled against GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.
Liberals will believe anything that has no facts associated with it, and excuse any behavior from their own in favor of partisanship. I'm skeptical that Cantwell is guilty of the things Jim conjectures, but I do find it hilarious that as a liberal you call others stupid for whimsically practicing your only serious stock–in-trade.
Thanks.
Proved that felons had voted for Rossi? Wow. What world do you live in where felons can be taken at their word? The proof was that they said they did. What else would you expect a felon to say? "No, throw out the soft on crime Democrat, I voted for her illegally." Sorry, but the testimony of a convicted felon is not proof, regardless of how that court case went.
Posted by: Calvin A on May 30, 2006 05:35 AMThanks to several readers, especially jmc, for more information on Cantwell's career.
Posted by: Jim Miller on May 30, 2006 11:00 AMI thought is was about Darcy Burner.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 30, 2006 11:20 AMYou are under no obligation to accept the overwhelming evidence of fraud that Stefan has uncovered, or the fact that the Democrats have rigged our state electoral system, but that won't make it go away. Liberals like you openly defy reality with every waking impulse they possess. If you were as much of a believer in democracy as you are in blind fealty to liberal Democrat party nonsense, you would acknowledge that fraud was overwhelmingly perpetrated by the Democrats and it should be stopped.
Since the Cantwell election was run under the same corrupt administration with the same corrupt elections officials, using the same corrupt practices, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that Cantwell was elected through the same fraud as Gregoire.
As usual your point is a non-point.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 30, 2006 03:01 PMYou're an embarrassment to Irishmen everywhere. You don't believe that Gregoire nor Cantwell received any illegal votes.
But Judge Bridges found 1,600+ illegal votes in the 2004 election - and those were only the ones that were lock, stock, and barrel illegal (many thousands more were and have been called into question.)
So let's take the court and you at your word. We know there were thousands of illegal votes - but according to you, they ALL went to Rossi. So what have YOU done to clean up this mess? Or is it okay with you, as long as your candidate wins? Well, this time let's all hope McGavick wins on the third count by 129 votes - so maybe this time you WILL care.
Dufus.
As for Bartleby and Wayne -
Since you're so enlightened, why don't you tell us what Cantwell did for RealNetworks? I know what Dave Reichert did for King County Sheriff's Office, and I know what Mike McGavick did for Safeco!!
What did Darcy Burner do for Microsoft, and what did Cantwell do for RealNetworks?? We've showed you ours, why won't you show us yours??
It's quite telling, you know.
Posted by: larry on May 30, 2006 04:11 PM(I sincerely doubt it!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 30, 2006 05:01 PMThe repeated lie that felons had to be taken at their word shows just how desperately the "election fraud" criers need to deny reality. The intervenors submitted ample evidence that the felons had voted, since even voting in person leaves a paper trail. (Not as good a record as voting by mail, but adequate.) They also submitted evidence that these felons had contributed money to Republicans. (Are we supposed to believe that these felonius financiers then voted against the party to which they had given money?) Finally, once caught, the felon had every reason to admit the truth, rather than to risk incurring another felony conviction. The plaintiffs, with the same powers of discovery and sums of money, produced none of the evidence that they absolutely needed. This shows just how bogus the lie about felons voting for a sitting prosecutor (!) really was.
Note also that the plaintiffs did not allege fraud in their filing. During oral arguments, their attorney, Mr. Foreman, claimed that it had happened. Although not required to do so, Judge Bridges allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence for fraud. As we all know, they provided nothing.
We should all recall that Judge Bridges did not accept some of the plaintiffs' points, but then decide that this evidence failed to meet the legal standard for voiding an election. He completely rejected every one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding absolutely no evidence of any kind to support anything that they had filed-- or said. He even noted that the "proportional reduction" argument, supported on this site, employed a logical fallacy to obtain a pre-selected result. That act, by the plaintiffs, did constitute intellectual fraud-- the only type of fraud seen at the trial. Anyone who supported this fraud falls guilty of wanting the ends to justify the means-- the very charge that supporters of this fraud level at those of us who wanted the law and the facts-- not insultingly groundless beliefs about the natural perfidity of liberals-- to carry the day.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 30, 2006 07:38 PMSee ya on the flip-side...
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 30, 2006 07:55 PMRepeat it a thousand times. It only proves how desperate and deluded you are.
Posted by: Amused by tedious liberals on May 30, 2006 09:50 PMSo you're denying that Judge Bridges found 1,600+ illegal votes cast in the November 2004 election?
Or are you saying that you just don't care about all those illegal votes, because your candidate won?
Either you're on the wrong end of debating a fact, or you just don't care about the legitimacy of our democracy in Washington because your candidate won.
(he always did remind me of a nightcrawler)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 31, 2006 11:31 AMJudge Bridges recognized that 1,678 (if I recall properly) illegal votes were found by petitioners and intervenors. No one presented any evidence to show that those votes altered the outcome of the election. The only evidence presented showed that five of those votes did not alter the outcome. If you believe that those remaining illegal votes went to Gregoire in sufficient numbers to change the election, then please show us your evidence.
“Or are you saying that you just don't care about all those illegal votes, because your candidate won?”
Of course I care. If the elections officials across this state, from both major parties, had done better jobs, we might have gotten the margin of error to within the margin of victory. As it happened, no candidate could have claimed victory beyond doubt. I also care to have evidence count in such cases, and we have no evidence to show that those 1,673 remaining illegal votes changed the outcome.
“Either you're on the wrong end of debating a fact, or you just don't care about the legitimacy of our democracy in Washington because your candidate won.”
What fact have I gotten wrong? The fact the our elections laws require clear evidence to void an election? The fact that the plaintiffs completely failed to provide any such evidence? The fact that the plaintiffs attempted to use a fallacy to void an election? That last fact shows who really didn’t care about laws, evidence and justice-- just so long as their candidate won in the end.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 31, 2006 07:40 PM"The repeated lie that felons had to be taken at their word shows just how desperately the "election fraud" criers need to deny reality."
Absent a unamimous vote, of course the felon voters had to be taken at their "word".
"The intervenors submitted ample evidence that the felons had voted, since even voting in person leaves a paper trail. (Not as good a record as voting by mail, but adequate.)"
It was known before the trial that the felons had voted, that's why they were involved. But we have a secret ballot, thus, by design, the electoral records provide no evidence of who the felons voted for.
"They also submitted evidence that these felons had contributed money to Republicans. (Are we supposed to believe that these felonius financiers then voted against the party to which they had given money?)
Many people contribute to more than one political party. Contributions are evidence of contributing; anything beyond that is speculation.
"Finally, once caught, the felon had every reason to admit the truth, rather than to risk incurring another felony conviction."
What risk? The felons were not on trial. And again, absent a unanimous vote, the secret ballot ensures, by design, that there is no way to link a voter to his vote. So there was no possibility of perjury, either.
So, in fact, the felons had to be taken at their "word".
Posted by: ewaggin on May 31, 2006 07:56 PMIf a known felon and known ineligible voter, who possessed an autographed photo of President G.W. Bush, had claimed, under oath, not to have voted for Rossi, he might well have faced a perjury trial aftwerwards. Any sworn witness can be charged with perjury, if the person gives false testimony, relevant to the matter under investigation.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 31, 2006 08:31 PM"Judge Bridges recognized that 1,678 (if I recall properly) illegal votes were found by petitioners and intervenors."
So far, so good.
"No one presented any evidence to show that those votes altered the outcome of the election."
Not so. Evidence was presented by petitioners, in the form of a given number of felon votes occurring within a known result. Using proportional deduction, petitioners demonstrated that removal of the illegal votes rendered the outcome unknowable. Judge Bridges didn't accept the argument, but not because evidence wasn't presented.
"The only evidence presented showed that five of those votes did not alter the outcome."
The evidence presented by the Dems was that five of the felons had contributed money to Republicans. The felons testified (gave their "word") that they had voted for Rossi. Judge Bridges made a finding that they had voted for Rossi (even though the secret ballot makes it impossible to determine who a voter voted for).
"If you believe that those remaining illegal votes went to Gregoire in sufficient numbers to change the election, then please show us your evidence."
The preponderance of evidence submitted at the contest showed that felon votes were sufficient to render the outcome of the election unknowable.
Judge Bridges chose to ignore that evidence in his decision, but that doesn't change the facts. And while his decision ended the contest, it did nothing to settle the issue. The debate continues, and about 60% of the voters in the state continue to believe that Mrs Gregoire was wrongfully elected.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 31, 2006 08:32 PMPaddy Mac and her ilk love to tout the fact that four felons claimed to have voted for Rossi. Felons, yep, they have great credibility.
Paddy Whack, Republicans would more easily accept Queen Loser's "victory" if Deanron could have reconciled the number of ballots as required by law.
But of course, you and your loser friends don't believe in the rule of law. It's all about what's faaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrr.
Deanron kept finding ballots. You and your Chicago style vote counters don't want to address that fact; all you want to do is "count all the votes." Especially if the votes are "cast" by the union goons that count them.
Give us a clean election and I'll refer to the Queen as Gov, despite the fact that she is a loser as a leader, a despicable POS that couldn't hold a job in the private sector.
Therefore, with regards to a voter testifying how he voted, there is no way to prove or disprove it.
Therefore perjury cannot be proven.
Therefore, there is no risk associated with testifying.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 31, 2006 08:41 PMUnder Washington State's electoral law, the plaintiffs needed to show that illegal votes sent Attorney General Gregoire into the Governor's Mansion. The plaintiffs submitted no evidence to support their claim. The intervenors nicely spiked this fraudulent claim, as Judge Bridges noted. The intervenors' "credible evidence" (to quote Judge Bridges) revealed the plaintiffs' argument to be worthless. All this came as icing on the cake to us liberals, but was merely a sideshow to the main event. The plaintiffs assumed the burden of proof, and they completely failed to heft it; all else is commentary.
Ewaggin, your careful skepticism towards evidence that the court accepted indicates that you never fell for the plaintiffs' lie that Gregoire owed her victory to illegal votes. Am I correct?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 31, 2006 11:25 PMNo it doesn't you lying SOS. It isn't a fallacy, it just wasn't (according to Bridges) a suitable tools for him to use. There is a world of difference (which you know, but you are unwilling to acknowledge).
paddy-whack mewls, Am I correct?
Not yet....
(Now go crawl back under your rock until night falls again)
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 1, 2006 07:40 AMSo, a lawsuit filed to prove that a candidate received illegal votes was just a waste of time from the beginning, right?
"No one presented any evidence to show that those votes altered the outcome of the election."
“Not so. Evidence was presented by petitioners, in the form of a given number of felon votes occurring within a known result. Using proportional deduction, petitioners demonstrated that removal of the illegal votes rendered the outcome unknowable. Judge Bridges didn't accept the argument, but not because evidence wasn't presented.”
You’re wrong in both assertions:
“This Court concludes that the statutes and Supreme Court case law of this state require that petitioner establish not only that illegal, invalid, or improper votes were cast and/or that there has been misconduct on the part of any member of any precinct election board but also, that the petitioners must establish the element of causation, that is, in the language of RCW 29A.68.070, that such irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure Ms. Gregoire’s certification. While there is evidence of irregularity, as there appears to be in every election, based on the testimony of various county election officials, there is no substantial evidence by clear and convincing evidence that improper conduct or irregularity procured Ms. Gregoire’s election to the Office of Governor... The Court concludes that petitioners have not met either the clear and convincing burden or the preponderance of the evidence burden as to the element of causation. The Court concludes further that no matter the number of illegal votes, whether they total 1,678, as determined by this Court, or 2,820, as argued by the petitioners in their closing [argument], this election may not be set aside merely because the number of illegal or invalid votes exceeded the margin of victory, because the election contest statute requires the contestant to show that the illegal votes or misconduct changed the election’s result.”
"Proportional reduction" rests upon a fallacy.
“No it doesn't you lying SOS. It isn't a fallacy, it just wasn't (according to Bridges) a suitable tools for him to use. There is a world of difference (which you know, but you are unwilling to acknowledge).”
Again, completely wrong in all respects:
“The Court finds that the statistical methods used in the reports of Professors Gill and Katz depend on an assumption that determines the outcome they obtain. In particular, they depend upon the assumption, without any collateral indication of validity, that illegal voters in a precinct vote for a candidate with a probability equal to the overall distribution of votes in the precinct among candidates. The assumption relied upon by Professors Gill and Katz has not been generally accepted in their field of science. The principle of insufficient reason was not shown to be scientifically accepted as a substitute for evidence or other scientific proof in these circumstances.
“The Court finds that the method of proportionate deduction and the assumption relied upon by Professors Gill and Katz committed what is referred to as the ecological fallacy in making inferences about a particular individual’s voting behavior using only information about the average behavior of groups; in this case, voters assigned to a particular precinct. The ecological fallacy leads to erroneous and misleading results. Election results vary significantly from one similar precinct to another, from one election to another in the same precinct and among different candidates of the same party in the same precinct. Felons and others who vote illegally are not necessarily the same as others in the precinct.
"The only voters who testified at trial gave credible evidence that they voted for Rossi or Bennett. Yet, the proportionate reduction method advocated by petitioners and their experts would have partially deducted these votes from Ms. Gregoire’s total because these individuals lived in her leaning precincts. The Court finds that the statistical methods used in the reports of Professors Gill and Katz ignore other significant factors in determining how a person is likely to vote. In this case, in light of the candidates, gender may be as significant or a more significant factor than others. The illegal voters were disproportionately male and less likely to have voted for a female candidate.”
I’ll take your apology anytime.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on June 1, 2006 08:05 PM"So, a lawsuit filed to prove that a candidate received illegal votes was just a waste of time from the beginning, right?"
Not at all.
The question attempts to conflate the issue of illegal votes with the issue of the testimony of illegal voters.
The illegal votes cast by the felon voters is a matter of public record.
The testimony of a convicted felon regarding who he voted for is simply speculation, because the secret ballot makes it impossible to prove or disprove.
Such testimony is also irrelevant, because, again, the votes are a matter of record.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 1, 2006 09:13 PMJudge Bridges disagreed. See the above quotes.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on June 1, 2006 09:44 PM""Proportional reduction" rests upon a fallacy, as Judge Bridges explained. The intervenors showed that felons had voted for Rossi and Bennett-- in districts where most of the legal votes went to Gregoire. The intervenors need not have shown this, since the ecological fallacy appears in textbooks on statistical analysis. The plaintiffs employed a fallacy to overturn the election, and Judge Bridges rejected their spurious claim."
The intervenors produced five convicted felons who were willing to testify that they had voted for Rossi or Bennett, and Judge Bridges accepted their testimonies at face value.
In retrospect, this may have been the most repugnant chapter in the contest.
To begin with, allowing convicted criminals (who committed another crime by voting) even to testify, much less taking their word about who they voted for, is sickening.
Secondly, any such testimony by any voter should never have been permitted, because the secret ballot makes it impossible to prove or disprove. A felon voter commits a crime by casting a ballot; how he marked the ballot is irrelevant.
Finally, the felon voters' testimony added nothing to the body of evidence. Votes for Rossi in districts won by Gregoire? Hardly surprising, since it was already a matter of record.
The matter of the alleged ecological fallacy is not so much repugnant as sad. Sad, that Judge Bridges fell for the misrepresentation given by the intervenors' expert witness.
The ecological fallacy
(http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed260/freedman549.pdf)
"...consists in thinking that relationships observed for groups necessarily
hold for individuals".
But proportional reduction is about groups, not individuals, so the expert's claim of ecological fallacy was a deliberate (given his credentials) misrepresentation.
For example, in King County there were 754 votes by felons, and the overall vote went about 58% to Gregoire and 40% for Rossi. If those felon voters were considered individually, claiming that a particular individual must have voted for Gregoire, because all KC did, would be an example of the ecological fallacy.
Had it been the case that the felon voters were spread out over the state, such that there was no more than one per district, then an argument for proportional reduction would indeed have committed the ecological fallacy.
But a group of 754 is not an individual, and the probability that the distribution of votes in the group differs significantly from the distribution in KC overall is very low.
The expert used batting averages to illustrate the ecological fallacy, something like "the Major League batting average is about 0.260, and so-and-so (a league-leading hitter at the time) is in the Major League, so his batting average must be 0.260". Given that the hitter's average was known to be much higher, the fallacy was obvious.
And they say that statisticians have no sense of humor.
But the expert's example was not on point. With regards to proportional reduction, the relevant analogy would be to take any 754 players, calculate the average for the group, and compare that to the Major League average.
Regarding the statement about "plaintiffs overturning the election", clarification of terms is critical.
There were two legal standards that could have been applied.
The stricter one, which Judge Bridges used, applies when the claim is that the loser got more legal votes than the winner. For that, the petitioner is required to identify the actual illegal votes, prove that they are illegal, and of sufficient quantity that deducting them from the winner results in the loser having more votes.
This standard is almost impossible to meet. The one successful occurrence was in a race that had a small number of total votes, and a large share of which had been tampered with. The tampering was evident, and experts for both sides agreed on it.
The other standard applies when the claim is that errors and mistakes rendered the outcome of the election unknowable. This was the claim that Rossi made, and the remedy he requested was a re-vote. Judge Bridges ruled early on that he did not have the authority to order a re-vote, in the event that the contest was successful.
For this reason, the term "overturning" is not a good description, as it may well be taken to mean that Rossi was asking to be declared the winner of the election. In fact, he had gone on record to the effect that he believed the election to be tainted, and did not want to take office under a cloud.
The use of proportional reduction is consistent with the claim that the election was tainted, and the outcome unknowable. It addresses the reality of the known number of illegal votes, in a realistic and practical manner.
Most people get this. It's why the debate continues, and why ~60% of the voters believe that Gregoire was wrongfully put in office.
Also, the facts that have come out since the contest have drastically undermined Judge Bridges' decision. Logan's stonewalling may have helped to defeat the contest, but the story on the election just gets worse and worse.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 2, 2006 01:30 AMThe elections-challenge law should be used for cases where fraud or tampering was evident. It should not be used in cases where mere doubt clouds the outcome.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on June 2, 2006 06:46 AMThanks for another exhibition of the desperation of the left.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 2, 2006 09:41 AMThis example is not on point. To get a representative sample, we must choose a sample with two properties. First, it must have sufficient size to reflect the variations in the overall population. (If three candidates received votes, then we must sample more than two voters.) Second, we must choose our sample entirely at random. Any selection criterion, no matter how seemingly-innocent, will filter our sample, and thus skew the results. When we assume that a too-small sample represents the population, we commit the ecological fallacy. When we assume that a non-random sample represents the overall population, we commit the ecological fallacy. If we choose a non-random sample, we must then somehow prove that it still represents the overall population.
But we did not take "any" 754 voters. We chose them by their non- eligibilty, and thus we cannot assume that their behavior represents the population of King County's eligible voters. Unless we can somehow prove that it did, we must assume that it did not.
"But proportional reduction is about groups, not individuals, so the expert's claim of ecological fallacy was a deliberate (given his credentials) misrepresentation."
Professors Gill and Katz did indeed commit deliberate misrepresentation, simply by claiming that we could assume the suitability of a non-random sample. But they did far worse than just that. They told us that their non-random sample behaved (voted) like the overall population. But these persons were not eligible to vote exactly because they had once behaved unlike the overall population! An eligible voter, by definition, has not committed a felony. Gill and Katz thus deliberately selected a bad sample, and claimed that it was good. This was deliberate, "given [their] credentials", misrepresentation.
"Secondly, any such testimony by any voter should never have been permitted, because the secret ballot makes it impossible to prove or disprove. A felon voter commits a crime by casting a ballot; how he marked the ballot is irrelevant."
So, a felon gave a large sum of money to one party; he voted in the closest gubernatorial race in twenty years; but yet we cannot conclude that he marked the ballot for that party's candidate. The Court's standard was reasonable doubt, not every (last desperate) claim of doubt.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on June 2, 2006 08:36 PMIf the intent was to estimate how the population would vote, by using statistical analysis to extrapolate from a sample, then it would indeed be necessary to ensure that a random sample was selected.
But that is not the intent.
In this case, the population and the results are known quantities. What needs to be determined is the probability that the distribution, in aggregate, of the 754 felon votes varies significantly from the distribution of votes in the population.
The ecological fallacy ("EF") is not a factor, because individuals are not of interest here, only the group. Again, the EF
(http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed260/freedman549.pdf)
"...consists in thinking that relationships observed for groups necessarily
hold for individuals".
Deteriming which felon cast which vote is not germane to the exercise. Indeed, any attempt to do so risks the EF, by moving from the group to the individual.
Individuals behave in all sorts of different ways for different reasons. But in the matter at hand, we have a record of how the population behaved.
"We chose them by their non- eligibilty, and thus we cannot assume that their behavior represents the population of King County's eligible voters. Unless we can somehow prove that it did, we must assume that it did not."
Interesting claim. Why would one assume that "they" have a "behavior"? And how would one prove that "their" "behavior" does or doesn't exist?
This claim seems especially far-fetched when applied to the group labeled "felons".
What support do you have for this claim? Are you asserting that felons, who are identified as such because they broke the law, behave differently from the rest of us? How many of us have never broken the law?
Or perhaps your assertion is that it is not merely a matter of breaking the law, but of being convicted of a felony? If so, isn't chance (or other factors beyond the control of the felon) a significant factor?
Hypothetically, consider five nearly-identical individuals. Four of them separately commit the same felony; three of the four are caught, but the fourth one gets away. The fifth one commits no crime, but is arrested due to a mistaken identification. One of the three then gets plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor, the second one and the fifth one are convicted, and the third one has his case dismissed due to error on the part of the authorities.
Do you still maintain that "they" can or cannot be shown to have a "behavior", and that this "behavior" can or cannot be shown to match that of the population?
On what basis would you assert that felon (a status) constitutes a personality trait? On what basis would you assert that this trait (if it does exist) is the one that dominates over all of the other personality traits?
"Professors Gill and Katz did indeed commit deliberate misrepresentation, simply by claiming that we could assume the suitability of a non-random sample."
A straw man. A random sample is required if the goal is to extrapolate a characteristic of the population from the sample. But in this case, the population is known, so the task is merely to calculate the probability that the distribution of votes in the group varies significantly from the distribution of votes in the population.
"But they did far worse than just that. They told us that their non-random sample behaved (voted) like the overall population."
The random sample straw man again.
"But these persons were not eligible to vote exactly because they had once behaved unlike the overall population!"
So, behaving once unlike the population makes one ineligible to vote? Whoa, way harsh, dude. Even a Republican would allow at least two instances of behaving unlike the population before being ineligible to vote.
And I'm really bummed to hear this. I once behaved unlike the population by scoring 1450 on the SAT, so I'm ineligible to vote, too.
"An eligible voter, by definition, has not committed a felony."
Really? Even the ones that committed a felony, but didn't get caught, and the ones that got caught, but served their sentence and had their voting rights restored?
"Gill and Katz thus deliberately selected a bad sample, and claimed that it was good. This was deliberate, "given [their] credentials", misrepresentation."
Another straw man. The group of felon votes is not a "sample", and was not "selected". And the intent was not to extrapolate the population from a sample.
"So, a felon gave a large sum of money to one party;..."
Only one party? Never any of the others?
"...he voted in the closest gubernatorial race in twenty years;..."
Relevance?
"...but yet we cannot conclude that he marked the ballot for that party's candidate."
That is correct. You may assume that he voted for a particular candidate, but since the secret ballot makes it impossible, by design, to prove who he voted for, you can only take his word for it.
"The Court's standard was reasonable doubt, not every (last desperate) claim of doubt."
I believe you are contradicting yourself. You previously wrote: "Under Washington State's electoral law, the plaintiffs needed to show that illegal votes sent Attorney General Gregoire into the Governor's Mansion." That standard is much stricter than reasonable doubt.
But on the subject of reasonable doubt, consider the following: (running totals are mine)
(http://www.effwa.org/enforcement/#king)
Illegal Votes that Counted:
754 felons voted.
At least 2 non-citizens voted.
--(756)--
175 provisional ballots were improperly counted,
--(931)--
because 785 provisional ballots were mishandled.
348 provisional ballots were put into the voting machines and as a result 96 ballots were
--(1027)--
improperly counted.
437 provisional ballots were cast without labels and as a results 79 ballots were improperly
--(1106)--
counted.
Signatures were forged on absentee ballots.
At least one signature collected by party workers to validate provisional ballots was forged.
--(1107)--
Up to 178 double voters have been identified
--(?)--
8 dead people were credited with voting
--(1115)--
One man destroyed his dead wife’s ballots, but she was credited with voting
--(1116)--
89 ballots counted with envelopes correctly
--(1205)--
marked “Fatal Pend,” because of an incomplete voter registration. Election officials overruled the rejection and instructed that the ballots be counted
30 Provisional ballots were cast by unregistered
--(1235)--
voters were discovered. Most of these voters were assigned to Precinct 1823, home of the King County Administration Building, even though their residential addresses are in different jurisdictions
146 Provisional ballots were counted even though
--(1381)--
markings on the envelope show that it was known that the same voters had already cast absentee ballots. Both ballots were counted
At the Life Care Center in Auburn, signs indicated a meeting was held before the general election for all residents to attend and get help filling out their absentee ballots, although most of the residents do not have the ability to objectively fill out their ballots
A Parkinson's Disease patient's husband signed and submitted her ballot
--(1382)--
35 voters who registered after October 18, 2004,
--(1417)--
the eligibility deadline for the November 2004 election voted provisional in the November 2004 election. Their registrations were back-dated in the database, which allowed their provisional ballots to be improperly counted
More than 100 ineligible unregistered voters had their federal write-in votes counted although they did not comply with state and federal law for submitting overseas write-in ballots
Legal Votes that didn’t count:
96 absentee ballots were not counted, because King County lost them until after the second recount
More than 40 valid ballots from overseas and military voters were incorrectly rejected for having a late postmark
Several military ballots, not including the above, were not counted, for no apparent reason
More than 30 voters who cast party-line votes on federal write-in ballots had their votes incorrectly not counted
(Possibly) Illegal Actions by Election Officials:
Election officials modified ballots where voter intent was not clear
Observers saw enhancements made by 1 election worker (not 2 as state law requires) and the enhancements were being made with black markersbr>
At least 340 military ballots were mailed out late
King County Elections Director Dean Logan admitted that he fraudulently certified an election with information he knew to be incorrect—a class C felony
Dean Logan knew before certification that some number of provisional ballots went through the Accuvote voting machines
There were 1,802 more votes than voters, including 875 more absentee ballots than absentee voters. Possible reasons for the wrong numbers include:
Before all absentee ballots were verified, provisional ballots were being processed and counted, in violation of the WAC
The absentee ballot audit trail did not account for all ballots returned into the building. The lack of internal audit controls allowed ballots to go missing or appear from nowhere with no internal audit controls
King County did not have an inadequate accounting of blank ballots. How many were printed, how many were returned unused; how many ballots were printed "on demand" in the office, or which of the office staff even had the access and ability to print ballots on demand
Polling place inspectors (who were appointed by the Democrat Party in 2004) were given blank ballots to take home the Friday before the election—the number of ballots is known only to the nearest 20. The inspectors were not required to account for and return any remaining unused ballots after the election. They were told to return the destroyed ballots, but no one in Elections counted the number of destroyed ballots to ensure that all ballots were accounted for
3500 duplicate ballots were sent out and no measures were taken to ensure that the duplicate ballots were not counted
3 uncounted ballots were discovered in election facilities after final certification
King County election workers began tabulation of absentee ballots early—in violation of the RCWs
County election workers failed to complete and present their poll site ballot reconciliation to the Canvassing Board as required by WAC 434-253-204
King County Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens transported 573 unsecured ballots by himself
Canvassing board counted both a “Christine Rossi” ballot and a “no” vote for “Christine Gregoire” as “yes” votes for “Christine Gregoire”
Absentee Ballot Supervisor Nicole Way (with the knowledge of her supervisor, Assistant Superintendent of Elections Garth Fell) filed a false report on mail ballots
Illegal Registrations:
King County illegally registered individuals who gave the County Courthouse as their residence and mailing address. 82 were registered there and 18 were permanent absentee voters
527 people were registered at King County Administration building, including a Judge who works there and voters who reside overseas
Miscellaneous Fraud:
Provisional ballots were reproduced at Kinkos
Homeless advocacy groups issued written instructions for registering homeless that said to only get their signature when registering them to vote
A voter registration drive was held for convicted felons in King County
===========================
Oh yeah, the story just keeps getting better and better.
A final thought:
1417 illegal votes in KC.
Gregoire's margin of "victory" (including 4 votes deducted from Rossi on the "word" of convicted criminals): 133.
Out of 1417 votes, the probability (using the binomial distribution) is 99.95% that at least 760 went to Gregoire (vs 822 expected, based on getting 58% of the KC vote).
626 votes to Rossi, based on getting 40% of the vote, and 2% for other (vs 567 expected on 40%).
Delta: -134 to Gregoire (vs -255 expected delta).
Rampant "errors and mistakes" (very charitably speaking) by KC Elections, therefore, illegal votes should be aggregated at county level, not precinct level.
Gee, I can't imagine why any thinking person should have "reasonable doubt".
Posted by: ewaggin on June 3, 2006 04:15 AMAsk paddy whack if he GAS.....the next time he crawls out from under his rock he'll sputter something about "if the judge didn't rule on it, it doesn't exist" or "Dismissed, with predjudice (sic)."
Fact is paddy whack doesn't care that fraudoire won...simply that a Republican lost. He doesn't care how, as long as his team comes out on top. He continues to whine like a loser and dredge this stuff up when the rest of us have moved on. I know that he takes delight in shoving it (the Republican challenge defeat) in our faces with schoolboy taunts, but each time becomes more shrill and unhinged in his dogmatic and pedantic interpretation of the contest.
A couple of things that paddy crap refuses to acknowledge - the debacle of the 2004 elections carries a stigma that hasn't (and won't) go away. Voters - almost all Republican and increasingly more Dhimmicrat voters - distrust the elections mechanism in this state. Elections officials and politicians recognize this, although they won't do anything other than feel-good measures for fear that it might break their grip on "ownership" of the outcome. This is going to have a blowback effect in future elections.
The fraudoire regime has been (and will continue to be) disastrous for the state. Dissatisfaction in all things governmental is high, has been high, and is trending upward. People don't like her and she is bad for business. She broke promises (and faith) to the electorate in favor of paybacks to unions. People won't forget. Her administration is ham-fisted, corrupt, politically tone-deaf and is p!ssing off her base (the rest of us never supported her in the first place), and this is going to have a blowback effect in future elections.
Voters are fickle and sometimes capricious critters. If they sense that things are going badly or that they are being taken advantage of, they have a way of showing it at the polls.
paddy crap has inadvertently shown us the intrinsic failure of the system. We can't protest the outcome of a failed election if the rules of protest lock us out. We can't change the rules if the rule makers are our enemies. We can't vote out our enemies if the elections are rigged. Hugh Hewitt had it right: "If it's not close, They can't cheat".
We have to make sure that it isn't close next time.
Proportional analysis itself was not the actual problem; the "problems" were limited to the specific proportional analysis techniques "cherry picked" by the Democrats experts, and the compulsory evidentiary burden. Appropriate use of proportional analysis is the core stuff of statistics, and it's purported inappropriate use was highlighted artfully by the Democrats to claim that the importance of an election should not rely on the same statistical probabilities we use to run the rest of our government and most of our society, and nearly all of legitimate science. The Democrats did not directly address the efficacy of the proportional analysis techniques proposed by the Republicans. Rather, they belabored erroneous hypothetical techniques inconsistent with them, and used them to demonstrate fallacies inapt to the instant circumstance.
Nevertheless, in context with the Borders case, an ecological fallacy calls into question an inference of precision or “inductive probability” reliant on thinking that relationships observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals. Bridges accepted the accuracy argument because he was bound to meet the clear and cogent evidentiary burden. Had the burden been a preponderance of the evidence, one of several reliable proportional analysis techniques would very likely have been used, and Rossi would be our governor.
No matter how you slice it, the Borders case has nothing to do with Gregoire’s or Cantwell’s legitimacy now. Both were elected through deliberate Democratic Party corruption.
Today, thanks to Stefan Sharkansky we have hard evidence that there was fraud and illegal voting by individuals in large numbers in the 2004 election, and we know that it was overwhelmingly done by Democrats. We also know (thanks to the Borders case) that the Democrats have designed a legal system in which it is very difficult to prove electoral fraud in court even with a solid case. Real proof of fraud is not invalidated in any way because they were unable to produce evidence of it in the Borders case. If anything, the hard evidence supports the efficacy of the proportional analysis proposed by the Republicans because it proves in a more certain way, that which proportional analysis was proffered to obtain through statistics ensuing from a lack of time and an inequity of evidentiary power.
Paddy Crap can niggle and cavil about proportional analysis into the dark night forever if he likes, it means nothing except that he is desperate.
Amusing.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 3, 2006 10:41 AMA sample from the population MUST be random, to be representative. If we take a non-random sample, we cannot assume that it represents the population. We must somehow prove that it does. Gill and Katz falsely claimed that we could assume the validity of a non-random sample. First-year students of statistics know better than this.
We have no reason to assume that felons vote like the rest of the population. (If we take a sample of persons who score above whatever on the SAT, then we have no reason to assume that this group votes like the rest of the population, either.) The plaintiffs' entire case rested upon this point, and their failure to prove this point doomed their case.
No one has yet provided any proof to link either Governor Gregoire or Senator Cantwell to a single illegal vote, and the dismissal, with prejudice, of the lawsuit in the former case means that no one ever will. See you at the next election.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on June 3, 2006 03:23 PMCantwell was probably elected through the same deliberate Democratic Party corruption that permeated the 2004 election. The facts establish that the 2004 election was a fraud and the Borders case an utter irrelevancy in that regard.
Cantwell corrupt? No!!! In Borders v. . . . .
Do you understand the difference between, a) extrapolating the makeup of a population from a sample; and, b) calculating the probability that a group from a known population differs from the population?
For a), a random sample is indeed required. This is what pre-election polling is.
For b), the election is over, and the population is known. It is a matter of record how many votes were cast in KC for Gregoire, Rossi, and others. Now the intent is to calculate the probability that some group of votes differs from the population.
When the group is large, the probability is very small that it differs from the population.
The errors, mistakes, and deception by KC Elections rendered the result of the election unknowable.
But feel free to continue to defend a position that grows less and less tenable with each new revelation of wrongdoing by KC Elections.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 4, 2006 07:34 PMSince one cannot possibly do (a) without first doing (b), the answer is: no practical difference.
"For b), the election is over, and the population is known. It is a matter of record how many votes were cast in KC for Gregoire, Rossi, and others. Now the intent is to calculate the probability that some group of votes differs from the population."
Gill and Katz made no effort to do this. They asserted, without proof, that their sample behaved like the population. It should be obvious that felons do not behave like the rest of the population. Felons commit serious crimes; most of the voting population does not. A felon's crime affects his voting behavoir: he's not allowed to. Thus, we have destroyed the assumption that Gill and Katz asserted. Here's the rub: if you claim that felons did vote like legitimate voters did, you have to show actual proof of how some of the felons voted. Yet, you have demanded that we should never recognize such evidence, no matter how well documented. (Under your argument, we could never believe that Kenneth Lay voted for G.W. Bush, because the former has been convicted of multiple felonies. Mr. Lay was one of Mr. Bush's largest contributors, and Mr. Bush spent much of 2000 riding on an Enron jet.)
Finally, I would argue if 754 is considered "large" when compared to 1.1 million, or if 1,678 is "large" when compared to 3+ million. Once again, a proponent of proportional reduction has assumed something that he needs to prove.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on June 4, 2006 11:21 PMPaddy crap argues his hackneyed version of merits of that case in this context because
he is desperate to make that into the subject.
"Since one cannot possibly do (a) without first doing (b), the answer is: no practical difference."
That is a remarkably silly statement.
Pre-election polling is an example of a). The population is the electorate. The size of the population is unknown, and the distribution of the characteristic of interest (e.g., support for Candidate A or Candidate B) within the population is unknown. By selecting a random sample of the population, and determining the distribution of the characteristic of interest within the sample, the distribution of the characteristic of interest within the population can be extrapolated, for a specified margin of error and confidence level.
Now suppose that the election mentioned in the previous paragraph has occurred. The size of the population is now known (the number of votes in the election), and the distribution within the population of the characteristic of interest (percentage of votes for Candidate A and Candidate B) is now known. Now, for b), the probability can be calculated that the distribution within a group, any group, differs from the distribution within the population.
Your claim asserts that a) cannot be done without first doing b). But b) can only be done if the size and distribution of the population are known. So, in other words, one must already know the result, before one predicts the result.
I am quite certain that the many pollsters who make a living doing a) would beg to differ.
"It should be obvious that felons do not behave like the rest of the population. Felons commit serious crimes; most of the voting population does not."
I dealt with this in detail in a previous post. Briefly, "felon" is a status applied to those convicted of committing felonies; it is not a personality trait. And there is a significant element of chance in the way the status of felon is applied.
"A felon's crime affects his voting behavoir: he's not allowed to."
No, it affects his voting status. And if that last part were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The law says that felons are not to be registered to vote, and that the registrations of those already registered are to be cancelled, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, including the completion of sentence. But many county auditors, and especially KC's, did not remove felons from the rolls, and did not check felon status of new registrants, thereby (as a matter of procedure, not necessarily policy) allowing felons to register.
According to accounts in the news, many felons were under the impression that their sentence was automatically completed when they were released from prison, and were unaware of the other requirements (full restitution, application for restoration of rights). More than one said something to the effect of, "They let me register, so I thought it was okay."
If such a felon then votes, believing in his mind that he is within the law, then how can his "voting behavior" be said to differ from any other voter?
"Thus, we have destroyed the assumption that Gill and Katz asserted."
What you have done, is used faulty logic to reach a false conclusion. You have argued that because two things differ in one respect, they must also differ in another respect. For example:
Tennis balls are round.
Footballs are not round.
Therefore, footballs are not balls.
"Here's the rub: if you claim that felons did vote like legitimate voters did, you have to show actual proof of how some of the felons voted."
Actually, since you are the one asserting the claim that voters convicted of a felony vote differently from other voters, it is incumbent on you to prove your case. Which is to say, you must prove that the status of felon overrides all of the other personality traits that influence how an individual votes.
"Yet, you have demanded that we should never recognize such evidence, no matter how well documented."
There is no such evidence. Because of the secret ballot, there is no way to link voters with their votes. Perhaps you will now say that there are studies that claim to show that different types of voters vote differently. But any such would be based on how the voters SAY they voted, and not the actual votes.
"(Under your argument, we could never believe that Kenneth Lay voted for G.W. Bush,"
To the contrary, you are free to believe whatever you wish. But belief does not constitute proof.
"because the former has been convicted of multiple felonies."
Because of the secret ballot, no voter can be linked to his vote. Please note the lack of qualifiers in the foregoing statement. Felony convictions, or lack thereof, are irrelevant.
"Mr. Lay was one of Mr. Bush's largest contributors, and Mr. Bush spent much of 2000 riding on an Enron jet.)"
I have no idea where you are going with this, but by moving from felon voters as a group, to one individual, you are committing the ecological fallacy.
"Finally, I would argue if 754 is considered "large" when compared to 1.1 million, or if 1,678 is "large" when compared to 3+ million."
Indeed it is large.
Consider a tossed coin. Assume that the coin is balanced, so that heads and tails are equally likely (neglecting the very remote possibility of the coin landing on edge). Flip the coin 1.1 million times, or 3 million times, and the probability of heads, or tails, fill be found to be 1 in two, or 0.5.
Now flip the coin 754 times. The expectation is that there will be 377 heads, and 377 tails, based on the distribution of the population. The probability of all 754 tosses being the same is (0.5)^754 (to the power of 754), or one in 1.055 x 10^227.
There is only way for that to happen, but there are 754 ways to get 753 tosses the same, so the overall probability is one in 7.968 x 10^225. There are more ways to get 752 the same, etc.
The probability of 435 the same is 1 in 100,000, which is equivalent to a probability of 99.999% that there are no more than 434 the same.
Now consider a coin that lands tails 58% of the time, and flip it 1417 times. The probability that it lands tails at least 760 times is 99.95%. Exactly the same as the probability that out of (at least) 1417 illegal votes, Gregoire got at least 760.
"Once again, a proponent of proportional reduction has assumed something that he needs to prove."
Q.E.D.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 5, 2006 09:34 PMThe last line should be:
"Q.E.D. Errors, mistakes, and deception by KC Elections rendered the result of the election unknowable."
Posted by: ewaggin on June 5, 2006 09:41 PMThanks for the energy it took to prove once again that Paddy crap can throw bull$hit onto a wall . . .
but it is still bull$hit.
Cantwell was most likely elected through the same deliberate Democratic Party corruption
that permeated the 2004 election. The facts establish that the 2004 election was a fraud
and the Borders case an utter irrelevancy in that regard.
Paddy crap argues his hackneyed version of merits of that case in this context because
he is desperate to make that into the subject. No sale.
Nicely done. Reminds me of 200 series "Critical Thinking."
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 6, 2006 08:58 AMNow, a felon voted in a precinct where the vast majority of the votes went to Gregoire. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT HE LIVED THERE? Do you trust his entry on the registration form? What if he resides in Bellevue, but drives his Hummer on 520 every weekday morning to his business in Seattle? He could produce lots of mail, "showing" that he lives in Seattle. Many neighborhoods in Seattle have businesses and residences side by side, so the county registrar could easily fall for this ruse. (Didn't a local blog spend much time and effort berating King County for lax oversight of voter registration?) Plus, his actual neighbors in Bellevue might know of his ineligible status. It would be safer for him to cast his illegal vote in a neighborhood where almost no one could identify him on sight.
I can't wait to see you justify your assumption that we can trust a felon when he writes a voter registration form. Hey, maybe now you'll amuse me with a lecture on your amazing psychic ability?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on June 7, 2006 08:27 PMI see in the future, many more in an endless tedious stream of silly-ass irrelevant nonsensical bullshit
from Paddy crap on Sound politics in a vain desperate attempt to justify obvious liberal democrat corruption and degeneracy.
One of the points that I made was that distribution probability is calculated on the population aggregated to the county level, but you keep talking about precinct results.
Your example is a straw man.
You might as well have asked, "How do you know he was a human being, and not a Martian?" And your example used Seattle and Bellevue; since both are in King Co, there would not, of course, be any difference in the probability calculation.
"Let's ignore gender, skin color, income level, education level, identities of the candidates, and every other factor which we know to have influenced American voting for centuries."
How do "we" "know" what the precise influence of these factors has been?
For example, it has been suggested that income is a reliable predictor of vote distribution - lower income people voted Democrat, higher income voted Republican. But it could be argued that recent trends have gone the other way, if one took the words and actions of people like George Soros, Rob Glaser, Theresa Kerry, etc, as evidence of how they're voting.
Studies may not be reliable, as they will have been based on how people SAY they voted, and not their actual votes (which cannot be known, due to the secret ballot).
Also, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to control for all of those factors (that is, to isolate the effect of each). If the factors are not properly controlled for, there is no way of knowing which are dominant and which are not. (There was a very good discussion on this matter at the link I included a couple of posts back.)
What you would have to show, in order to validate your claim that felon status affects distribution, is that all felons vote the same, regardless of gender, ethnicity, income, location, etc, etc. Good luck with that.
In any event, the issue is moot, because whatever effect those factors had is built into the results when the population is aggregated to the county level.
One again, please bear in mind that we are not attempting to extrapolate the distribution in the population from a sample. Rather, we are using a known population, with a known distribution, to calculate the probability that the distribution within a subset of the population differs from the distribution within the population.
"Plus, his actual neighbors in Bellevue might know of his ineligible status. It would be safer for him to cast his illegal vote in a neighborhood where almost no one could identify him on sight."
Even if he voted absentee?
"I can't wait to see you justify your assumption that we can trust a felon when he writes a voter registration form.
Where does trust enter in? If it's all about trust, why do we need any voter registration laws? Why not just trust that all registrants will enter their actual residence, and not a rented mailbox?
The county auditor, by law, is to check for felon status, and for a valid address, before registering someone to vote. Logan's decision to abandon longstanding procedures in these matters (and, let it be noted, against the advice of his own staff) is what led to this mess.
"Hey, maybe now you'll amuse me with a lecture on your amazing psychic ability?"
Paddy, I'm disappointed that you are now choosing to resort to ad hominem. Is that all that you've got left?
Posted by: ewaggin on June 8, 2006 02:26 AM