It appears that Seattle voters chose the new elevated Viaduct as their first choice tonight, although the ineluctable logic went over the heads of the liberal arts majors who are reporting for the Times, the P-I and The Stranger.
The false "obvious" conclusion is that both the tunnel and the elevated lost. But remember, there are four possible choices. YES-NO NO-YES NO-NO and for the creative YES-YES (to simplify the model at the expense of inflating the NO-NO vote, we'll consider a blank vote or overvote to be a NO) The elections office didn't tally each of these choices, they only talled the total YESes and total NOs. So we don't know for sure how each of the four choices did, but we can calculate some upper and lower bounds.
There are two extreme cases to consider -- that nobody voted YES on both the tunnel and the elevated, or that everybody who voted YES on the tunnel also voted YES on the Viaduct. If nobody voted YES-YES, then the other choices had to be:
Elevated YES, Tunnel NO - 42,590
Tunnel YES, Elevated NO - 28,145
NO-NO - 27,895
In the other extreme, If everybody who voted YES on the tunnel also voted YES on the Viaduct, then the score would be:
Elevated YES, Tunnel YES - 28,145
Elevated YES, Tunnel NO - 14,436
Tunnel YES, Elevated NO - 0
NO-NO - 56,049
But it doesn't seem very likely to me that every tunnel supporter also voted for the new elevated. So what is the critical number of double YESes that would make the number of NO-NO votes equal to the number of all elevated YES votes?
That would be a score of:
Elevated YES, Tunnel YES - 14,695
Elevated YES, Tunnel NO - 27,895
Tunnel YES, Elevated NO - 13,459
NO-NO - 42,590
i.e. 15% of all votes cast would have to be YES-YES for the rejectionists to equal the number who are okay with a new elevated. That still strikes me as an implausible high number of YES-YES and would mean that more people voted YES-YES than voted exclusively for the tunnel. The NO-NO people should celebrate only if they believe that more people voted YES-YES than voted for the tunnel alone. And in fact, that scenario would still mean that NO-NO trails supporters of a highway. The only point at which NO-NO beats some form of new highway is at the score:
Elevated YES, Tunnel YES - 21,424
Elevated YES, Tunnel NO - 21,166
Tunnel YES, Elevated NO - 6,730
NO-NO - 49,319
As chair of the "Yes and Yes" campaign I can tell you that our internal polls don't show us at anywhere near the 15 percent you suggested.
And sadly most reporters aren't good at math. Especially those at Capital Hill alternatives who can only count to 21 while in the shower.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 13, 2007 10:02 PM1) Don't send a ballot.
2) Send a ballot both measures un-voted.
3) Send a ballot leave measure one blank two yes.
4) Send a ballot leave measure one blank two no.
5) Send a ballot leave measure two blank one yes.
6) Send a ballot leave measure two blank one no.
7) Send a ballot vote Yes on One,Yes on Two.
8) Send a ballot vote No on One, No on Two.
9) Send a ballot vote Yes on One, No on Two
10) Send a ballot Vote No on One, Yes on Two
My prediction is still that option one will win.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 13, 2007 10:15 PMI am sure that folks working for Capital Hill alternatives are rather creative in the number of places where they are able to count to 21. And that many of them are often able to count to 42, or even 63.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 14, 2007 02:32 AMIt is obvious that something needs to be done, and the solution with the fewer negative votes is a default winner. Therefore, the new elevated seems the way to go.
Posted by: Teen Angel on March 14, 2007 08:53 AMFirst, they voted their advisory opinion against spending billions for replacing the current viaduct with a new viaduct. The majority of voters were not persuaded that the cost and disruption were worth it.
Second, they voted their advisory opinion against spending billions for replacing the current viaduct with a tunnel (so-called "hybrid tunnel"). The majority of voters were not persuaded that the cost and disruption were worth it.
I voted no on both, primarily for reasons of fiscal responsibility, but also because I favor a retrofit as the most cost effective reasonable alternative. Others may disagree with me, but nevertheless that's why I voted no, and that's why many people voted no.
I am opposed to spending billions on any proposal that will worsen, rather than improve, our transportation problems - especially when there is a viable alternative (retrofit) that does not cost billions, does not involve the massive disruption replacement of the viaduct would cause.
I realize that on the other side of the spectrum there are those in Seattle who voted no-no for opposite reasons. Yes, they want to tear down the viaduct. Yes, they are in favor of the disruption that it would cause. Yes, they are willing to raise billions in taxes to pay for the replacement and disruption. But they opposed replacing the current viaduct with any other "pro-automobile" alternative such as a tunnel or new viaduct.
While the anti-automobile faction will try to spin this vote as meaning Seattle voters favor tearing down the viaduct and replacing it with some anti-automobile project, there is no evidence at all to suggest the people of Seattle favor tearing down the viaduct in the first place.
If we retrofit, we don't have to replace it. If we retrofit, we avoid disruption and big tax increases.
You may agree or disagree with a retrofit, and you may agree or disagree with those who don't want to "replace" the viaduct. But there is no reason to disregard that point of view, or to assume that yesterday's vote means the people of Seattle "want" to tear down and replace the viaduct.
Two replacements were offered; both were rejected. To conclude that the people want to tear down and replace the viaduct is not logical.
Posted by: Steve Beren on March 14, 2007 09:19 AM- Send two ballots.
- Send three ballots.
- return one voted ballot and one provisional.
- return one voted ballot and two provisionals.
- return two voted ballots. And two provisionals.
and how about:
- ballot duplicated... and both count.
- ballot interpreted even though it is blank.
- two absentees for same voter counted
- absentee and provisional for same voter both counted
- box of ballots with no 'chain of custody' counted because no one can decide how they got inside the "secure area" exactly.
- employee glances at outside of security envelope... and can see your 'yes' vote through the paper -> ballot shredded as illegible.
- employee sees vote through amazingly thin paper and writes down the name on the outer envelope they still have in front of them.
There was definitely no "winner" option, only losers. The people don't want a new elevated viaduct, and they DEFINITELY don't want a tunnel.
Since the ballot issue was done so poorly, we'll never really know- but what we do know is that both options had at least 56% of the people say "no".
Posted by: Paul on March 15, 2007 03:27 AM