WA Governor Recount Ends With 42-Vote Difference

Republican Dino Rossi came out on top of the gubernatorial recount in Washington state, beating Democrat Christine Gregoire by 42 votes. He had won the initial count by 261 votes. King County (where Seattle is) gave Gregoire a 245-vote swing. It's expected that the Democrats will call for a partial hand recount, which they would have to pay for (25 cents per vote), unless they end up winning the recount.

Comments

The should learn from Ukraine

[Anonymous Coward]

Ukraine

Under $1 million for a recount

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Sounds to me like Kerry could finance it from the unused portion of his warchest alone.

No need for recount

[blanne]

Well, with a vote count like that, there's no reason for a recount - it's gotta be the right answer :)

Re:No need for recount

[Anonymous Coward]

But what's the question!?

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[pudge]

Rossi is pro-life.

Here is what I don't get...

[Keebler71]

so what happens now? Just keep recounting until the Democrat wins? And what then? Why not recount one more time? Where do you draw the line?

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[CokeBear]

When its this close, you make sure you get it right. If that means a statewide recount, then so be it. Whats the downside of recounts as long as its done by January 12th?

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[burns210]

Common sense would say:

All elections, unless statistcally impossible, should have a hand recount after the fact, to be finished before the election day. Computer count(secure terminals, obviously, what a REQUIRED paper trail) and what not are fine, they give media the fast count. But those numbers arn't stuck until
1. the thought-to-be losing candidate drops out, or
2. the hand recount confirms the count

if there is any reasonable doubt about the process, the losing candidate(s) can petition a judge that says "X happened, that could have changed how votes were counted, please recount them after fixing this" the judge rules on wether it is reasonable for a recount(not in terms of winning/losing, but in terms of fraud or miscalculation) and then is so ordered.

HOWEVER, true common sense would say:hey, this system (two party, PDC, Diebold-esque voting flaws) we have is bullshit, we need to fix it. Personally IRV looks like the best fix, with electionic machines certified as safe with peer/government reviewed code and testing with a federally mandatory paper trail... and/or hand ballots.

But I am open to ideas

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[mothlos]

The first recount occured automatically because the difference was less than 2,000 votes (and less than a percentage, but in a WA statewide election 2,000 votes is less than that percent). The first machine count gave Rossi a lead of over 200 votes. Just running through the ballots through the machines again and the margin closed to 42 votes with many of the early counties reporting net increases for Rossi.

If the machine error between the two counts is greater than three times the current official margin then what possible problem can you really have with going back and triple checking?

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Alaric42]

According to the Seattle PI this morning:
"But with the recount still favoring Rossi yesterday, Vance (State Republican party chairman) said the Democrats would only be dragging the state into a political quagmire. 'That's wrong,' Vance said. 'If Dino Rossi is ahead at the end of the day tomorrow, he is the governor-elect, this is over, and she (Gregoire) needs to do the right thing, the gracious thing and the honorable thing and concede.'

But if Gregoire is ahead, 'That's fundamentally different,' Vance said."

So, apparently, the line is drawn such that if a Democrat calls for a recount, it's political quagmire, but if a Republican calls for a recount, it's just... different.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because a 42 margin in a race where 2.6-2.7 million ballots were cast, even if it isn't within the margin for error, is enough. You know what. Fuck you, you ass-clown. Votes are sacred, as is the process. World wide many millions of people have died for this right you seem to so flipantly take for granted, and most Americans just don't appreciate. Idealy, every vote should be counted in every election whether they made a difference or not. In elections where the will of the people is particularly difficult to measure, it should be measured very carefully.

And by the way, I happen to live in King County, and know exactly how completely useless each of the candidates really are. But this isn't about them, or their parties. It's about the process. Which is much bigger, more important, and made this country what it is to day for good and ill. It's important enough to fight a civil war over. So next time you advocate getting between a person's vote and the counting of it, think carefully. Because where the rubber meets the road, there are occasionally people like me who take it deadly seriously. And not just out of an inflated sense of self-importance.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

Well, there is a difference, on the *law* recognizes: it's the difference between a recount affirming the result, and overturning it. The law treats those two outcomes differently, as Vance said.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

The problem I have is that this will likely be a hand recount, which is more prone to error, will take longer, and will cost more than a machine recount.

Even the King County elections people today said a hand recount is more likely to produce error.

On machine counts, still, the more often you do it, the more likely error is to be introduced, at some point (as ballots become damaged from handling). I don't think a third time should be a serious problem, but with the race this tight ...

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[TheLink]

But do you know the state of the machines?

If a machine is rigged, proper hand recounts could show the problem even if it's not as accurate as a nonrigged machine. It's like the diff between machine recount: Candidate A has 87.4432% of the votes and hand recount: Candidate A has 56% of the votes. Sure the result is the same: Candidate A wins. BUT you learn that something fishy likely happened.

That said I get the impression that the typical US voter of the winning party wouldn't care, especially given sufficient spin - all they want is their party to win[1].

Over here in my country, when they count the votes, the various different party representatives can be (and usually are) there to observe each vote as it is counted (and dispute if necessary).

Sure our system isn't very anonymous, but I'd rather have our system than be Diebolded as in the US.

If all the party representatives are in collusion to create a particular result then the voters are probably screwed anyway.

[1] If they like that sort of stuff, they should stick to watching WWE and not bother voting.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[mre5565]

> the hand recount confirms the count

Why is a hand recount infallible? What
happens when the counter loses count?
Oh, you were thinking that the they'd count
the ballots in batches, and then add them up
via a computer or calculator? Ooops.

What exactly is hand recount?

> Personally IRV looks like the best fix

How does that prevent a candidate from winning
by fewer than 100 votes?

The Washington state governor's race was a
statistical tie. Recounts just amount to coin
tosses. And besides, recounts ignore the cases
of voters who might have been unfairly denied
their right to vote because for example,
maybe the postmark of the ballot was wrong.
Mail you self a bunch of letters on Friday afternoon
by handing them to the postal clerk, and watch
how many get postmarked on Saturday. I suspect
far more votes that 100 were lost this way in WA

The loser should get over it, and do
a better of GOTV next election.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

If a machine is rigged, proper hand recounts could show the problem

Yes, it could, but if the machine is NOT rigged, the end result will probably be LESS accurate. Maybe they could do a hand recount just to check for significant difference, but use the machine results? :-)

Over here in my country, when they count the votes, the various different party representatives can be (and usually are) there to observe each vote as it is counted (and dispute if necessary).

They do that here too.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[b-baggins]

They're not calling for a statewide recount. They're calling for PARTIAL recounts. Translation: We want to recount in precincts where we have the best chance of picking up votes, and let the counts stand where we have the best chance of losing votes.

It's the same crap that was pulled in Florida that got the US Supreme court involved in the mess.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Phleg]

IRV is *not* the best fix, as it introduces possibilities for a candidate having a better chance at winning by receiving fewer votes. However, the Condorcet Method is very similar and is far more airtight than IRV.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

The Washington state governor's race was a statistical tie. Recounts just amount to coin tosses.

Translation: I don't understand statistics.

It is not a statistical tie. The winner is the one with the most legally counted votes. There's no tie unless the actual number ends up being the same.

Honestly, some of you people can't tell the difference between statistical sampling and actual counting. And it's pathetic.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

No, the Dems have not called for any specific recount yet. And even if it is only in particular locations, if it ends up overturning the result, then a mandatory statewide recount will follow. So there's really no serious problem here with a partial recount, because a partial recount will not change the result.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[TheLink]

Yep. IF the machines are more accurate and not just more precise.

EVEN if the machines are more accurate, if they aren't significantly more accurate, a multi-witnessed count result might be treated with more respect.

Note that with some style of votes, the voters may screw up the ballot sheet so that it is may actually be hard to figure out what the voter was voting for, or whether the vote should be regarded as spoilt. So actual accuracy might be almost subjective...

Also given such a scenario IF the party representative agrees that a vote isn't for his/her party then I'd say it's more _valid_ than a machine saying otherwise EVEN if the machine is more "accurate" based on certain standardized tests etc etc etc.

Because the party representative speaks for his/her party, whereas the machine _should_ be disinterested. So a conceded vague vote is more significant than a machine's guess of that vague vote.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Noksagt]

Your attacks are pathetic. Your blind faith in vote counting is pathetic. Your ad hominem attacks are pathetic. You saying that people don't understand statistics because they don't agree with you is pathetic.

I have 2 pens and a pencil on my desk. Every time I count them, I get 2 pens and 1 pencil. It doesn't make sense to try to find any statistical error in this count.

NowI pick up a ruler and put it against the pencil. I record the number of ticks I count on the ruler (this count is, of course, speeded by the way the ruler marks off groups of mm ticks in cms, etc.). My count of ticks will not be the same if I remeasure after I stop typing this message. The count wouldn't be the same if I called my office-mate over to perform the meaurement. It is too hard to measure--Our eyes can't easily resolve ticks. Our hands can't hold the ruler perfectly parallel to the pencil, nor hold the 0 marker to the tip. Perhaps the eraser or the tip get worn down slightly between measurements. If accuracy is important, it makes sense to measure many times so that you can establish a mean and a standard deviation. A lack of precision in measuing can have substantial impact on our final result. Our precision would be much worse if we had fewer ticks further apart & had to extrapolate more. One individual measurement is less likely to be the "true" measure of the pencil than the mean is.

Counting votes should be like counting the pens and pencils, but is like measuring the pencil. It is hard. Each recount gets a different number. It makes perfect sense to apply error analysis to voting. Though we aren't intentionally making a random statistical sample of votes, we are aware of error.

If you disagree & think that counting votes is like counting pencils and pens, please tell me why there are differences between the counts!!!

. Every time I count

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

EVEN if the machines are more accurate, if they aren't significantly more accurate, a multi-witnessed count result might be treated with more respect.

I wouldn't bet on it. Most people on both sides of the aisle in WA seem to want Gregoire to concede now (I am not one of them).

Anyway, if the less accurate hand recount swings the vote to Gregoire *incorrectly*, doesn't that do a disservice to the voters?

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[burns210]

>Why is a hand recount infallible? What
happens when the counter loses count?

A human makes random mistakes, if they are to miscount X%, it is likely that that X% is even distributed amongst the candidates. A computer doesn't, it tends to make non-random errors... Such as the case where a computer was counting ballots that voted all-democrat and tallying them for the Libertarian party... This actually swung the election to the wrong candidate.

Besides which, the human recount can be, obviously re-recounted, if needed.

>How does that prevent a candidate from winning
by fewer than 100 votes?

My points here were a bit off topic, it was more in reference to the ballot/voting system as a whole. However, if the Govenor didn't get 51% of the vote, IRV would have kicked in.

>I suspect
far more votes that 100 were lost this way in WA

You may very well be right, but this has nothing to do with physical vs. computer ballot counting. It is a potential weakness of all mail-in systems. However, things like ballot day are pretty likely to get sent out the day of. The USPS isn't THAT stupid, they arn't going to hold over(or not do everything they can to avoid holding over...) mail-in ballots on the last day of voting. They would knowingly(if they did it on purpose) be tampering with the election.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Carbonite]

Now I pick up a ruler and put it against the pencil.

This is where the problem lies. What you're doing doesn't make any sense. You're using a ruler to count a discrete value: the number of pens and pencils.

Counting votes is like counting pens and pencils. There are differences between the counts because errors can occur. Once a recount is requested, there's much more scrutiny and the vast majority of counting errors are eliminated.

You've stated that you believe we can accurately count three votes (2 pens and a pencil). What about 30? 300? 300,000? At what point can we no longer get an accurate count? What if we broke the votes into smaller groups? Can we count 100 groups of 300 without errors?

Being aware of error is important, but that doesn't mean we can't accurately count votes.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

When it's this close it doesn't matter. It is within the margin of error of the system, so it is effectively a tie. You may as well flip a coin, or have the candidates arm wrestle to decide it. Recounting the votes will not give you a more accurate picture of the public's opinion.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Noksagt]

This is where the problem lies. What you're doing doesn't make any sense. You're using a ruler to count a discrete value: the number of pens and pencils.

No--this is an independent example. I am counting the length of the ruler by counting ticks on a ruler.

I put forth two different measurements requiring you to count to highlight differences.

Counting votes is like counting pens and pencils.

Possibly counting several millions of pens or pencils of different sizes and shapes and colors. Probably with a few of those multi-chamer contraptions which are both a pen and a pencil and a few highlighers which are neither. While some idiot pockets the pen you let him borrow and naother inadvertently leaves his pencil.

There are differences between the counts because errors can occur.

Is it or is it not possible for errors to change the count? How does one decide when an error has been made or when an error-free count has been made?

You've stated that you believe we can accurately count three votes (2 pens and a pencil). What about 30? 300? 300,000? At what point can we no longer get an accurate count? What if we broke the votes into smaller groups? Can we count 100 groups of 300 without errors?

I'm a scientist and there are no laws governing the counting of pens. I'd count a lot of times in order to estimate the error. I'd acknowledge that no individual count could be said to be dead-on accurate with infinite precision. With enough measurements, the estimate of error could be lowered enough to believe the result with some percentage of assurance. If such assurance was not met, a revote or some other mechanism could be used such that the impact of the choice is made less significant.

Being aware of error is important, but that doesn't mean we can't accurately count votes.

Errors change outcomes. There is no guarantee that with the current system the way people voted will actually dictate the outcome. It could be dictated by a flawed count.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[TheLink]

Sure but where's the proof that the machines are more accurate than hand counts in real world conditions esp in problematic scenarios? Machines are often very good when everything works fine but not so good when things are fubarred.

As I mentioned sometimes the ballots could be vague and subject to interpretation (to make voting less prone to such situations one has to be careful not to push the problem elsewhere or create a bigger problem (ala Diebold)).

If you have very slim margins deciding whether a voting result is correct/incorrect is not so easy nor simple. Any vague vote records become quite significant. e.g. is a selection considered shaded by a pencil or not etc?

Just assuming the machines are more accurate would do greater disservice to the voters.

Precision is not the same as accuracy. Accuracy is not the same as validity.

With such slim margins it's practically a draw. After all any slight "noise" could flip the result. It's hard to say which is the correct reading.

So I argue if that happens it's much better if you have the parties agreeing on the result even _if_ their mutual count is less accurate than a machine - since the signal is so close to noise level anyway. After all that, if they can't agree the "effectively-drawn" candidates might as well play rock-paper-scissors to decide.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously think the republicans wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if they were down by 40-odd votes?

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[cheezehead]

The problem I have is that this will likely be a hand recount, which is more prone to error...

How do you know that a hand recount is more prone to error? It seems to me that a hand recount would be more prone to random error, i.e., humans simply making mistakes. But those mistakes could cancel each other out. On the other hand, if there is a systematic error in the machine recounting process (e.g., not processing damaged ballots correctly, software errors, whatever), then this could influence the outcome just enough to tip the result one way or the other. I just don't think that a machine recount is necessarily more accurate with these small margins.

...will take longer, and will cost more than a machine recount.

So what is the price of getting the right result in terms of time and money?

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[goatan]

Mark parent up insightful. When there are only tens of votes difference any politician in any country in world would ask for a recount, this should to ensure the result is beyond reproach.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[goatan]

When it's this close it doesn't matter. It is within the margin of error of the system, so it is effectively a tie. You may as well flip a coin, or have the candidates arm wrestle to decide it. Recounting the votes will not give you a more accurate picture of the public's opinion

It's because of comments like this that American democracy is held in such low regard outside of the US.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[b-baggins]

I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.

In the Kennedy/Nixon election, Richard Nixon lost the vote under extremely suspect circumstances. He made the deliberate decision not to pursue because of the harm it would do to the nation. In fact, he made a personal phone call to the journalist who was beginning to uncover massive election fraud (in the hopes of winning a Pulitzer), and specifically requested the journalist stop investigating the matter.

In a senate race in Missouri a few years ago, the challenger, lost by a slim sympathy vote when the incumbent died during the race and his wife took his place. The wife replacing the husband in the middle of the race was probably illegal under Missouir law, but the Republican decided not to pursue the matter, citing that it would not be good for the state of Missouri to have the election process dragged through the mud.

The facts would seem to argue against your position that "they all do it."

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[jonadab]

> You seriously think the republicans wouldn't be doing the exact same
> thing if they were down by 40-odd votes?

If they ever do, they'll lose the respect of half their core demographic.
Conservatives (well, many of us anyhow) fundamentally don't think that way.
We think in terms of what's the right thing to do, *not* in terms of what
thing can we do that will obtain the outcome we want. (Philosophers call
these two ways of thinking about ethics "deontological" versus "teleological"
theories of obligation. It's fascinating to read up on, because they're
completely different paradigms -- and you really can't understand someone
coming from the other perspective unless you're aware of this issue. I had
absolutely no understanding of liberals until I understood how a teleological
theory of obligation works.)

I'm sure there are people in the Republican party who *would* do such a thing,
but I could not in good conscience vote for person whom I thought would behave
that way. (Yeah, I mostly believe in voting for the lesser evil, but there is
a point where the evil is too great to endorse, and an ethical system where
the end can justify the means is over the line as far as I'm concerned.)

You have to understand how conservatives think on this issue: it's *wrong*
for a candidate to deliberately undermine the election process just to get
himself elected. It's not just a bad decision or a poor choice; it's
fundamentally wicked. Liberals don't see things that way, which is why
Democrats can get away with pulling such schenanighans without alienating
their support base. If a Republican tried it, even if he *did* win that
election, he'd never win the next one, because his reputation with the
conservatives who voted for him the first time would be irreparable marred.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[tbannist]

Um, according to the numbers I've seen Tom Daschle won his senate seat in 1998 with 62% of the vote count. I doubt that's 500 votes, you might be thinking of the 2002 Senate race in which the Republican Candidate claimed that fraud had taken place, but wouldn't be proven by a recount, and thus declined to ask for one.

In the Kenney/Nixon election, there actually were lawsuits over alleged illegal practices, those lawsuits were lost, though some Republicans claim it was because of politically motivated judicial bias.

I'm not sure how the wife replacing the husband could itself be illegal unless the proper procedures for replacing a candidate weren't followed.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[tbannist]

Hmm. I wonder if this is a reflection on the American educational system. In most countries, three people counting one hundred ballots can come up with an accurate count.

I guess this is only a problem in countries that are S-M-R-T.

If you're thinking "But there are more than 100 ballots!", add "Repeat as Necessary" to above instructions.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

My comment is in no way particular to America. In fact, America's voting systems do not reflect the sentiment expressed in my comment, and I am fairly certain that few Americans share my opinion on the matter.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

You state(without proof) that humans make random mistakes. Please justify this assumption.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Pxtl]

I've looked at that site, and even they admit that Concordet is extremely complicated. I feel that the public wouldn't like a voting system that they are not capable of understanding. IRV is understandable. Personally, I favour approval voting, for the reasons outlined at the Concordet-supporting voting methods comparison site.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[cyberformer]

You have to understand how conservatives think on this issue: it's *wrong*
for a candidate to deliberately undermine the election process just to get
himself elected.

Does this mean that conservatives are opposed to Jeb Bush's systematic disenfranchising of minority voters in Florida? And to the "challengers" the GOP paid to prevent Ohio residents from voting if they looked like they were likely to vote Democrat? And to Kenneth Blackwell making sure that heavily Democratic areas of Ohio don't have enough voting machines? And to the Nevada Republicans shredding Democratic voter registration forms?

If conservatives really are opposed to liars and cheats who will do anything to win, they should probably find a different party...

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[joeyGibson]

Does this mean that conservatives are opposed to Jeb Bush's systematic disenfranchising of minority voters in Florida?

Again with this bullshit charge of Florida minorities being "disenfranchised." What is it with you people? There have been numberous investigations and calls for these supposed legions of disenfranchised voters to come forward and you know what the results have been every single time? Not one damned person steps forward. There have been no systematic "disenfranchising" of minorities. It's just a liberal canard that they can't get past.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[burns210]

Assuming people are not biased, which can be reasonably assured by physical oversight, double-checking, vetting and such, people do not make errors where 'all votes of X pattern' are wrongly given to candidate 'y'. Honest people make candidate-nuetral mistatkes statistically. An honest person does not wrong give candidate Y 500 more votes, the person statistically is likely to make mistakes, very few, and they are likely to go evenly across all candidates.

A computer when it malfunctions normally does so in a biased way. A computer will error where a given timespan of votes is dropped, a given candidate is ignored, a count tally is mis-added, a given pattern of votes is wrongly tallied, etc. This is generally a biased(though not intentional) error, where it more often then not, hurts a given candidate far more so than the others, rather than evenly hurting them.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

To the extent that that the result might change each time it is recounted, as you suggest, then I guess the popular vote was essentially a tie.

In this case, the ultimate winner will depend on who is most determined to fight it out, and on who is best able to use the adversarial system of election law, the courts, and the battle of "spin" in the press. The side that in reality won the popular vote, say by some small fraction of one percent -- and we can't know which side did -- will have a slight advantage because of that.

Is this a bad thing?

The kind of determination to fight, intelligence, and resources that are required to win such an adversarial contest are also relevant to governing well. To me, when the popular vote is basically evenly split, it seems as good a criteria as any to choose the winner.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[jonadab]

> Does this mean that conservatives are opposed to Jeb Bush's systematic
> disenfranchising of minority voters in Florida?

We would be, very much so, if it had happened, or if there was any reason to
believe it had happened. However, it's been well-documented (and demonstrated
clearly in the last gubernatorial election) that Florida in general and
minority voters in Florida in particular have, since the 2000 election, leaned
to the right. The minority voters turned out for Bush in Florida. (This is
not quite as odd as if the minority voters in, say, Washington DC had turned
Republican. Most of the minority voters in Florida are hispanic, and a lot
of them are Cuban, and as a demographic they have never been very solidly
Democrat. Think of them as swing voters.)

There are a collection of theories as to why: discontent at the way the
Democratic party conducted themselves after the 2000 election, approval of
the way the whole hurricane mess was handled, views on foreign policy, a
combination of factors, ... we don't know which of these theories are or
are not correct, but it's clear that in 2002 and 2004 the minority voters
in Florida turned out for the Republicans. This was evident in 2002, and it
was evident in 2004 before the election, from the poll data. It surprised
no one who was paying any attention. Kerry was betting on picking up other
states that Gore had lost to make up for it.

The only *actual* evidence I have seen that could even be construed as an
indication of anything improper here is the fact that in certain counties,
people didn't vote the way they were registered. News flash: swing voters
*frequently* don't vote the way they're registered, and if there are major
current events influencing their vote they often swing like that in rather
significant numbers -- and this swing to the right in Florida is absolutely
no surprise; Florida has been swinging right for about four years now and
was already significantly to the right of party registration numbers in 2002.
The only way you can see anything improper there is if you believe that
it's improper or unlikely for a voter to change his mind and vote for
the other party, but in fact that happens all the time and has never been
regarded as improper by the law -- and if a law was passed that *made* that
improper, that should scare you to death.

> And to the "challengers" the GOP paid to prevent Ohio residents from
> voting if they looked like they were likely to vote Democrat?

Actually, I was opposed to that, but not to the same degree. Several
points are worth making here:
* At least on paper, the goal was to prevent voting fraud (i.e., people
voting more than once, voting on behalf of dead people, and so on and
so forth). Yeah, I know, whether that was the whole motivation is
suspect.
* Nobody was prevented from voting. At worst, voters were issued
provisional ballots that, if the election was close enough that they
could have an impact on the outcome, would be counted if it was
determined that everything was above-board and non-fraudulent. The
treatment of every case was observed by representatives of both parties,
as are *all* election matters in Ohio, and it is worth noting that the
people doing the complaining are mostly not the representatives of the
Democratic party who observed these matters on behalf of the boards of
elections. They are other people, poking into what they didn't observe.
Conspiracy theorists mostly.

> And to Kenneth Blackwell making sure that heavily Democratic areas of Ohio
> don't have enough voting machines? And to the Nevada Republicans shredding
> Democratic voter registration forms?

These allegations I had not even *heard* before, despite fairly regular
reading of slashdot, which leans rather far to the left on average (check th

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[mre5565]

>>Why is a hand recount infallible? What
>> happens when the counter loses count?

> A human makes random mistakes, if they are to
> miscount X%, it is likely that that X% is even
> distributed amongst the candidates.

As likely that if you flip a coin 10 times, the numbers of heads versus tails will be evenly distributed. Which is not the same as saying there will be 5 heads and 5 tails, exactly.

It is "likely", but it is not guaranteed to be exactly X%. Again we are talking about a margin of less than 100 votes out of X% cast.

Hire 10 vote counters to each independently count all the votes in the WA election and I guarantee you that you'll have 10 different totals from each counter.

> The USPS isn't THAT stupid,

It has nothing to do with stupidity. It has to do with human error. If I carry a ballot to the USPS office at 4pm the day of the deadline, there is a greater than zero chance that ballot might be missed in the nightly postmarking (maybe it falls on the floor). The next morning someone finds it, picks it up, and post marks it with the *next* date which is too late. Or are you suggesting that the USPS is not only full of very smart people, but they routinely fake post mark dates?

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[mre5565]

> Translation: I don't understand statistics.

I understand that humans make errors. Therefore,
ballot counting of the magnitude of the
WA governor's race amounts to statistical sampling.

> It is not a statistical tie. The winner is the one with the most legally counted votes.

Only in your fantasy world where humans don't
produce errors.

> Honestly, some of you people can't tell the difference between statistical sampling and actual counting. And it's pathetic.

If the shoe fits.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[strike2867]

It wasn't so much that the dead guy got the sympathy vote, it was more that the challenger was John Ashcroft.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Robert The Coward]

> And to Kenneth Blackwell making sure that heavily Democratic areas of Ohio
> don't have enough voting machines? And to the Nevada Republicans shredding
> Democratic voter registration forms?

These allegations I had not even *heard* before, despite fairly regular
reading of slashdot, which leans rather far to the left on average (check the
slashdot poll results from "Who will you vote for") would be sure to discuss
any such thing ad nauseam, if there were any real evidence for it at all, or
quite likely even if there weren't (as with the Florida minority thing).

It was there. There were at least 2 That I saw.

Point to orignal artical.

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/ 13/169218&tid=103&tid=219

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Robert The Coward]

If you disagree & think that counting votes is like counting pencils and pens, please tell me why there are differences between the counts!!!

That one is easy. A Computer look at a ballet with a circle to fill in and say is it dark or light. Dark +1 Vote. Light goto next circle. People look at it and see a circle around that circle. A computer would never see that idiots vote but a human will say that was his intent.

What stops someone from miscounting. Easy The other 2 People 1 Rep and 1 Dem who is sitting next to you the whole time. Just try not to count a vote someday. Why do the numbers change because the 1% of votes that don't get done right. If all votes were done right then all votes would come out the same. If they are not then there is room for recount issues. 1 Judge says that mark is a vote the other says no it isn't. Maybe on one count it was in one it wasn't. Since tring to figure out the incorrectly failed out votes isn't 100% the same everytime. It makes it imposible to get the same number twice.

Most judge don't want to throw out people votes so they do there best to figure out what the voter was tring to say.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[slam smith]

What we have here in Washington state is in essence a tie. And unfortunately in our electoral system isn't that accurate. 42 votes is well within the noise limit of the system. Given the limitation of the system, and in particular the voters, I don't think the system can ever be that accurate. At some point there has to be a cut off for doing recounts. We will never really know if "we got it right". Absent fraud at some point we need to have a winner and the legal challenges should end. I do think that we still have time for recounts, but I think the cutoff should be at least 15 days prior to inaguration.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

Yes, machines are more prone to systematic error. I would be in favor of perhaps doing a (partial?) hand recount to make sure the machine recount numbers makes sense, and then using the machine recount numbers unless the hand recount is wildly different.

So what is the price of getting the right result in terms of time and money?

The "right result" is whatever the actual result is once the legal process has been completed, so I don't really understand the question. Perhaps you mean "most accurate" result? And the price is whatever the people say it is, via the law.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[pudge]

You're not thinking well.

Yes, there is error. No, it is not statistical error. This is not about statistics. If there are three pencils in front of me and someone asks me how many there are, and I say four, that is not statistical error. It's just error. There is no margin of error, there is no sampling. It's just bad counting.

And making it 2.8m pencils instead of 3 does not make any difference, unless you are actually doing sampling instead of counting, which would be illegal.

Re:Here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Demicans prided themselves on the word "quagmire". Now, the Republicrats can use their words against them and rub their nose in it. I love it.

Predictable

[aelbric]

Dear Voter,

See? We told you recounts would have no affect on the results. Move along.

Sincerely,

D. Ashcroft

Re:Predictable

[pudge]

No recount has never changed the result of an election in WA in recent years. What gets me is that usually there is a huge swing in the Democrats' favor, including in the two recounts in 2000. Makes you wonder if the Democrats in King County aren't cheating.

And who is "D. Ashcroft"? Do you mean John? And what did John Ashcroft ever say about recounts?

You appear to be uninteresting.

Re:Predictable

[cicatrix1]

No, double negatives do not never confuse me, neither.

Re:Predictable

[pudge]

Oops. I changed the wording along the way and didn't fix it properly. Remove "never."

just fix the system

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole recount thing is embarrasing. At least in the Ukraine it is a deliberate attempt to falsify election results. In the US it's just plain incompetence. The result is the same: the wrong guy elected.

You don't just lose hundreds of votes using modern technology. What kind of retards are doing the counting anyway? How can you guys preach democracy to others if you can't even organize an election in your own country?

Re:just fix the system

[Ironsides]

You don't just lose hundreds of votes using modern technology.

Ah yes! The hand recount! Such modern technology we've been using it for a meezley 3,000 years! (at least)

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Not by my standards he isn't. Can't be a millionaire and still be truly pro-life; the guilt would get to you and you'd end up giving it all away to homes for unwed mothers (thus doing your own little part to reduce the abortion rate). No rich person is pro-life, regardless of what they say.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[pudge]

You're an idiot.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, I'm a CATHOLIC- I believe in the right to life from conception until natural death- and that we should support that right at any cost.

Re:

[infonography]

Actually Rossi is Pro-life white trash. Also Dems had the biggest turnouts in the Convention in the states history. There was too much critical mass to be this close an election. Same for the national. There was fishy things going on here as well. Well We'll see. I personally support a recount.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

I believe in the right to life from conception until natural death- and that we should support that right at any cost.

Why did you change from "I" to "we". If it's so fsking important to you, you defend that right at any cost, but don't ask "me" to. I don't remember ever signing up for that.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[pudge]

I don't care what you are. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" commonly refer to beliefs about abortion. Whatever you want those words to "really" mean is irrelevant, and saying Rossi -- also Catholic -- is not pro-life based on your unclarified redefinition is stupid.

Your ideas behind those redefinitions are stupid too -- if Bill Gates gave away all he had upon becoming a millionaire, he never would have been able to become a billionaire, and give away the *billions* he has donated to charity -- but that's beside my point, which is that saying Rossi is not pro-life based on your own pet definition is not conducive to reasonable communication.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Why did you change from "I" to "we". If it's so fsking important to you, you defend that right at any cost,

We're all human- and should act like it. Part of being human is protecting the next generation from harm and being social. It's also important to you too- because without a consistent right to life, there's nothing to prevent somebody from aborting YOU now. Murder, War, Euthanasia, The Death Penalty, Abortion- it's all the same thing. Kill one person for excess profit that you'll never actually spend anyway- and you've already taken on the sin.

but don't ask "me" to. I don't remember ever signing up for that.

Because I believe EVERYBODY should be pro-life- you signed up for it by being born into a social species. Sorry about that- next life maybe you should be born as something that isn't social and doesn't interact with others of their own species.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I don't care what you are. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" commonly refer to beliefs about abortion.

And somebody who says they believe in something and then does nothing about it is what?

Whatever you want those words to "really" mean is irrelevant, and saying Rossi -- also Catholic -- is not pro-life based on your unclarified redefinition is stupid.

Hey, I'm not the one who's being hypocritical, claiming to be pro-life and then refusing to do everything possible to reduce abortion.

Your ideas behind those redefinitions are stupid too -- if Bill Gates gave away all he had upon becoming a millionaire, he never would have been able to become a billionaire, and give away the *billions* he has donated to charity

Ah, you mean the billions he has pretended to donate to charity to enhance Microsoft's position in the marketplace.

but that's beside my point, which is that saying Rossi is not pro-life based on your own pet definition is not conducive to reasonable communication.

I never claimed to be REASONABLE when it comes to protecting human life from conception until natural death. That's not something that is REASONABLE- it doesn't come from human reason, it comes from faith in God.

Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

I'm such a nerd. I really think that elections should have margins of error and something should happen if candidates don't win by at least that much. Something tells me that 0.0015% quantifies as sufficiently small to be below it.

Oh well--I really do think that this reflects the will of WA voters (and I am one). We didn't have a strong preference. Approximately 50,000 (2% or 1000x the margin of victory for Dino Rossi) more people voted for president than voted for our governor. Our divided state house & senat also bears out how moderate we are.

Re:Margin of Error

[pudge]

I really think that elections should have margins of error and something should happen if candidates don't win by at least that much.

Not a "margin of error," but yes, that is precisely what does and did happen. The difference was less than 2,000 votes and under .5%, so they had a mandatory recount. This is what happened!

Oh well--I really do think that this reflects the will of WA voters (and I am one).

Well, in fact, it does. There's no getting around it. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. Whoever wins the legal vote is the choice that reflects the will of the people, by definition.

Re:Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

Not a "margin of error," but yes, that is precisely what does and did happen. The difference was less than 2,000 votes and under .5%, so they had a mandatory recount. This is what happened!

I was actually thinking that such a number shouldn't be arbitrarily chosen & that it should have consequences for the Governor's term in office (other than the implicit hard time he'll have getting any partisan issues steam-rolled through). Furthermore, this is a particularly interesting case. The initial spread of 261 was greater than 150, which would have required a manual recount. Yet on the machine recount, the spread dropped to less than this threshold. If such happens, they should really require a manual recount anyway.

Well, in fact, it does. There's no getting around it. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. Whoever wins the legal vote is the choice that reflects the will of the people, by definition.

If you want to be curt, that is fine. I was actually saying that this debacle of a virtually non-existant spread is indicative of how we really don't have a strong opinion for either party. They were calling us a swing state for the presidential race, but the Kerry-Edwards 7% edge is orders of magnitude larger than this. It is also larger than the FL presedential race of 2000.

Yes, the one with the most votes legally wins the election. But if you think that the margin of voter error is larger than the marger of victory then no, you can't say that the choice scientifically reflects the will of the people (or even of the voting people).

Re:Margin of Error

[pudge]

I was actually thinking that such a number ... should have consequences for the Governor's term in office

So, you're saying you don't like democracy.

The initial spread of 261 was greater than 150, which would have required a manual recount. Yet on the machine recount, the spread dropped to less than this threshold. If such happens, they should really require a manual recount anyway.

You miss the point of the recount. It's assumed that a machine recount will still be accurate, if the initial spread is greater than 150, unless it overturns the result, in which case they WILL have more recounts.

If you want to be curt, that is fine. I was actually saying that this debacle of a virtually non-existant spread

If you want to be deceptive, that's not fine. There's nothing non-existent about it, virtually or otherwise.

is indicative of how we really don't have a strong opinion for either party

You say that as though it is in any way meaningful. All that matters is who wins: that person is the governor, period, with all the rights and powers and obligations that entails.

if you think that the margin of voter error is larger than the marger of victory then no, you can't say that the choice scientifically reflects the will of the people (or even of the voting people).

You have it backward. As long as one candidate has more votes, no matter if it is 1 or 1 million, that candidate represents the democratic will of the people, period. That's a fact, definitionally. Unless you dislike with democracy, of course, which you already said you do, so why I am bothering?

Re:Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

So, you're saying you don't like democracy.

If we can't count the votes with enough certainty, then decisions can be made by chance. That isn't democracy.

You miss the point of the recount. It's assumed that a machine recount will still be accurate, if the initial spread is greater than 150, unless it overturns the result, in which case they WILL have more recounts.

The error of any count is at least 219 votes. If the election is decided by only 42 votes, then that is below the error! I realize the law behind recounts. I just say that the law inaccurately assumes no error. It may be politically significant that Dino won in both counts, but it isn't statistically significant because his margin of victory was so slim.

If you want to be deceptive, that's not fine. There's nothing non-existent about it, virtually or otherwise.

I'm not deceptive. I have stated how the law will handle it. I just say that elections aren't accurate enough to handle cases where someone narrowly wins like this. How is that deceptive? What dream-world do you live in where all votes are cast perfectly and all recounts lead to the same numbers? We just can't count with a precision of 1 in 100,000.

You say that as though it is in any way meaningful. All that matters is who wins: that person is the governor, period, with all the rights and powers and obligations that entails.

No--that isn't all that matters. Accuracy in voting also matters. This wouldn't be a story if who won was all that mattered. We didn't see 49 other stories on governorships. Furthermore, given the closeness of the vote & the many put who chose not to vote, I don't think who would actually win really matters to as many people as you think.

As long as one candidate has more votes, no matter if it is 1 or 1 million, that candidate represents the democratic will of the people

Wrong. If you aren't sure of 1 in 100,000 votes, how the hell can you say it is significant?

That's a fact, definitionally.

I didn't say that anything else would happen. But this isn't some definition. It is a legal illusion.

Unless you dislike with democracy, of course, which you already said you do, so why I am bothering?

No--you said I don't. If you can't even tell me from you, we have bigger problems.

Re:Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

So in your world, a close election means there is no democracy? That's nonsense. That is, it makes no sense. It's irrational.

No it isn't. I again pose the question: If you can't trust the counting of the votes, how can you say that it is the will of the people?

Since you can't wrap your head around simple statistics, let's simpify it. There are 11 voters. 6 want to vote for A and 5 for B. If 2 of those votes aren't counted, how can you say the will of the people is followed. Candiate A will not win if both votes that weren't counted happened to be for him. Candiate B would win 5 to 4. But that doesn't reflect the will of the people.

Fortunately, we don't have errors of 2 in 11. But the same kinds of problems exist when you scale up the number of voters. Not only do people not win by margins of 1 in 11 and not only are some votes not counted, but some are counted more than once. Some valid votes are lost or destroyed. Some votes that are counted shouldn't be--some are cast by people who aren't state residents, some people manage to vote more than once, it is a real mess.

We need to do as much as we can to make sure that that mess is small enough that it won't change the results of an election. We aren't there yet.

In my world, close elections remind us that we need to be as careful as possile to lower errors in the voting and counting processes. We can make laws that minimize the errors and can encourage candidates to both seek votes from as many people as possible and have an election which are as fair as possible. We have few such laws.

The error of any count is at least 219 votes.
You're making that up.

No. They counted the same votes twice & got different numbers. This was the difference in the two spreads. That's error. If there was no error, the counts would be exactly the same.

I realize the law behind recounts. I just say that the law inaccurately assumes no error.
Since the latter statement is false, it disproves the former.

What about the law behind recounts as it stands have I gotten wrong? Saying that the law should be some way is different than saying the law is that way. I think I've been clear with which I'm talking about. How does the recount law account for statistical errors? It is mute on error. It says if there is a spread of an arbitrary percentage or number of votes that there will be an automatic recount and that that the results from that recount will be legally certified. We don't report election results the way that people report pulls. We don't say so-and-so won with 53+/-1 %.

You said something clearly false. You said the spread is "virtually non-existant[sic]." The fact is there is a spread. It does exist.

Fine. The spread is most likely not statistically significant. Election laws don't account for statistics--they don't care about them. Dino won. That doesn't mean that statistics don't exist or that you can't apply them to this case--it just means that the state doesn't choose to do this when they put someone in office. This is why who is put in office isn't always what eh will of the people would have otherwise had. The will isn't perfectly communicated through the counting of votes.

Show me a law that says the governor will be the one who the people want. There is none. It says that it will be the candidate who has the greatest number of votes in the final count. Given that counts aren't perfect, there is a difference here.

No. Whoever legally wins represents the will of the people, period. There is no illusion. There's only ingrates who hate democracy, like you.

I don't hate democracy. I love democracy so much that I want the will of the people to ring loudly and clearly over and above the din and noise of fraud and mistakes. Look--the spread changed by 219 votes between two counts. That is gr

Re:Margin of error

[pudge]

That is not margin of error. That is actual error (if it is error). It's a completely different concept.

Re:Margin of error

[Antony-Kyre]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=margin

A limit in a condition or process, beyond or below which something is no longer possible or acceptable: the margin of reality; has crossed the margin of civilized behavior.

An amount allowed beyond what is needed: a small margin of safety. See Synonyms at room.

A measure, quantity, or degree of difference: a margin of 500 votes.

Re:Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

You make stuff up about how the count can't be trusted, and then you say therefore the count can't be trusted. It's called begging the question.

If the vote can be trusted completely, there would never be a need for a recount. Mistakes are real & few deny that. I see no circular reasoning on my part & only you avoiding the legitimate and logical question of what if the outcomes change due to these errors.

Just because I don't believe in the numbers you invent out of thin air

I didn't make them up. They dont, of course, represent the actual error. They are a more reasonable guess of the order of magnitude for some sources of error. I'd be happy to entertain any reasonable estimates that you might offer instead.

This has *nothing to do with statistics.* Statistics -- in this context -- are for drawing conclusions about larger sets of data based on smaller samples.

I've said we aren't trying to extrapolate anything from random sampling. But statistics is a broad field and isn't useful for only random samplings. If you make multiple measurements & they differ, you can reconcile those differences using statistics.

When you make a measurement, there is a combination of nonrandom systematic errors (likely something like single-county screwups or outright fraud) and random statistical error. I am quite optimistic and believe (though do not present as fact) that there was no fraud. We still have to care about that statistical error.

If you don't want to call that "statistics," fine. Rename it as you please. If you don't think this matters, offer proof. Offer an explanation for why each and every vote migh be different between two counts and say why they intentionally didn't count correctly the first time through.

I assume that is a question, despite the lack of interrogatory mark. If so, your question is incomplete: was the law followed, or not?

It was rhetorical, but thanks for pointing out the bad grammar. I expect you can find a lot of that in my posts, just as I can find some in your posts.

If the law was followed, then the will of the people was followed because the law is the will of the people.

Now that is some good circular reasoning. It is the will of the people because it is law which is the will of the people? No. The will of the people as to who their leader should be is how the people actually voted. If the counting process fails to measure that, the will of the people as to who the leader should be can't be followed. Yes, the people elected leaders who made the law as to how votes are counted and how close races are handled. No, those laws dont fundamentally change how they tried to vote.

When the law proves inadequate, you fix it for next time.

Which is exactly what I'm making a case for. There is evidence that the margin of victory is less thanthe margin of error. You seem to throw up strawmen & assume I mis-state current laws.

I already told you. You said it assumes no error. You're clearly wrong.

How am I wrong? They count two times. They certify the later result. At no time do they even say "oh crap--this guy won by fewer votes which were 'miscounted' the first time around." Nor is there any mechanism to judge the merit of an individual count. Recounts can be as bad or worse than the initial count.

How does the recount law account for statistical errors?
It does not and should not, as I already noted, since this is not about statistics, and there are no statistical errors.

Ah. So you are now willing to admit that the law doesn't account for statistical errors, although you used my claim that they didn't as evidence that I didn't understand or was misrepresenting the law as it now stands.

The spread is most likely not statistically significant.

Re:Margin of error

[pudge]

I can compute, therefore I am a computer!

Re:Margin of Error

[pudge]

If the vote can be trusted completely, there would never be a need for a recount.

That makes no sense. A recount is part of the process to make sure you count it as accurately as possible.

Mistakes are real & few deny that.

Duh.

I see ... only you avoiding the legitimate and logical question of what if the outcomes change due to these errors.

Yes, you do see things that don't exist; I am well are of this.

They are a more reasonable guess of the order of magnitude for some sources of error.

So before you stated as fact, now you concede you were wrong. It's a start.

I've said we aren't trying to extrapolate anything from random sampling. But statistics is a broad field and isn't useful for only random samplings. If you make multiple measurements & they differ, you can reconcile those differences using statistics.

No, you don't. You reconcile them by counting again.

We still have to care about that statistical error.

There is none.

Offer an explanation for why each and every vote migh be different between two counts

Very few votes were different between the two counts. Why do you think all of them were different? That's ridiculous!

and say why they intentionally didn't count correctly the first time through.

Someone INTENTIONALLY didn't count correctly? Where's your evidence of this?

The will of the people as to who their leader should be is how the people actually voted.

Which is determined according to the legal process previously agreed upon by the people.

No, those laws dont fundamentally change how they tried to vote.

How people "try" to vote is irrelevant, if they don't do so according to the law.

There is evidence that the margin of victory is less thanthe margin of error.

Get it through your thick skull: there is no margin of error. That concept has nothing to do with actual counting of votes.

You seem to throw up strawmen

No, I responded to what you actually wrote.

& assume I mis-state current laws.

I never said anything of the sort. I said you didn't understand the law, not that you misstated it. I don't recall you stating any law, so it would be odd for me to think you misstated when you didn't even attempt to state.

But you did say the law assumes there is no error, which is clearly false: if it did, it would have no provision for recounts. Duh.

Ah. So you are now willing to admit that the law doesn't account for statistical errors

I never said otherwise. Please stop lying. I said the law does not assume there is no error. I did not say it "accounts" for "statistical error." There is no statistical error in counting votes, as anyone who isn't you knows. There clearly is error, and the law recognizes this, and does what it can to account for it.

The sorts of things that should have been done right the first time around. The sort of things that would mkae a third count different from either of the first two.

Actually, no, some of those things should NOT have been done the first time around, because ballots came in after the count had been completed (Reed wants to change the law so this is less likely to happen in the future).

But yes -- duh -- you don't want there to be problems, and we should strive to get it right the first time. No kidding.

But if a third count was able to overturn the election, most of your argument is burned to the ground

Uh, no. None of my argument is harmed in the slightest bit. You clearly have no clue what my view is. That's pretty damned pathetic.

For whatever reason, the first counts got it wrong. If the third count hadn't been conducted, the wrong guy would be in office.

No. The

Re:Margin of error

[Antony-Kyre]

You said it wasn't margin of error. I said it was. I gave you a definition of "margin". I'm not here for sarcasm.

Re:Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

A recount is part of the process to make sure you count it as accurately as possible.

By throwing out the initial count in certified totals, we aren't being as accurate as possible.

If you make multiple measurements & they differ, you can reconcile those differences using statistics.
No, you don't. You reconcile them by counting again.

I said can, but of course we don't. Duh. I know what we do now. That doesn't mean what we do now is right. How is the law of counting again and using the latest tally better in theory or practice than my proposition that we shouldn't just throw out the old count? Just because that is the way it is now?

We still have to care about that statistical error.
There is none.

Machines and human eyes make fundamentally unpredictable and random errors in counting. If you could predict them please tell me how. Anything which isn't a systematic error is statistical error. Statistical errors that go uncaught are handled the way I have said statistical errors are handled--they're ignored.

How people "try" to vote is irrelevant, if they don't do so according to the law.

The law does recognize this, which is why hand counts are valid. The intent of the voter could be clear but our flawed machines might not be able to discern that. Those votes should be counted. If you followed all laws and directions when you cast your ballot, it should be counted. Unfortunately, you can "lose your vote" through no fault of your own.

Get it through your thick skull: there is no margin of error. That concept has nothing to do with actual counting of votes.

You're arguing semantics. The number of votes that changed between counts is greater than the spread.

But you did say the law assumes there is no error, which is clearly false: if it did, it would have no provision for recounts. Duh.

Read it in context. I was clearly describing statistical error. The same can be said to uncaught systematic errors. Recounts don't address errors which might be introduced in the recount that weren't present in the initial count. They don't address errors that can't be caught or are random between multiple recounts. They don't look at how many votes change between recounts.

The sorts of things that should have been done right the first time around. The sort of things that would mkae a third count different from either of the first two.
Actually, no, some of those things should NOT have been done the first time around, because ballots came in after the count had been completed (Reed wants to change the law so this is less likely to happen in the future).

When I say should, I am not saying the law currently says this is the way it should be done. I am arguing from my idealism. But this semantic argument is old:

ME->Hey--the voting system isn't perfect we should change it.

YOU->That's not how we count votes. This is the way we count votes.

ME->But that isn't how we should do things.

YOU->It is right because it is the law because it is the will of the people because it is right.

ME->We could apply these tools to make things better

YOU->The law doesn't recognize those tools. We should do what the law says

ME->The elected leader should really be chosen by the true count of votes. Since every count has error, we should not only do what we can to minimize the error in a single count, but to add more certainty to the measurement.

YOU->You don't understand the law. You hate democracy. Duh. You hallucinate. I have no arguments that aren't phrased as inflammatory attacks. Duh. I like to prescribe feelings and thoughts to you and call you a liar when you sink to my level. Duh. The law says blah-blah-blah. That is the way it should be. Oh. Yes. There are

Re:Margin of Error

[beakerMeep]

They have this in some european countries AFAIK. Some also have rules that state in order for an election to be considered valid at least 50% of the population needs to have turned out to vote. I am not sure what the effect of these laws has been as I admitedly know less than I would like to about how it works. Although, your comment has sparked my interest to see what I can find out. I think there may have been laws like this in some of the former Yugoslavian countries. But the sucess there should obviously be qualified against some of the other problems they are having in creating stable societies there.

Here is a quick goog search for anyone who wants to learn more
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&q=election+yugoslavia+50%25+valid

Re:Margin of error

[pudge]

Since you didn't accept reason, I was hoping sarcasm would work. You're using the phrase to mean something it does not mean. That you don't get that is sad.

Re:Margin of Error

[pudge]

(1)Seek out all forms of systematic error an extinguish them. Make the first count a complete count--the same as any recount.

This is what is done, as much as possible. So you agree with the status quo, nice ... unless you mean literally that all systematic error should be entirely done away with, which is not possible at the current time, and may never be possible.

(2)Infer the remaining errors of our voting process by performing many recounts.

That's not possible. You can only uncover actual errors, not infer (extrapolate, guess) errors (this goes back to your lack of understanding of the difference between statistical sampling and actual counting). And at some point, the more recounts you do, the more error you introduce, so "many" is unreasonable.

(3)Use the lessons learned in 2 to define logically-defensible (rather than arbitrary) spreads where a recount would take place.

First, this is largely unreasonable: you could only use what you learn in one election for the next election, and elections these days are changing so much (new types of voting, differences in voter demographics, addition of provisional ballots, etc.) we don't know if the difference between counts in this election would hold up for the next.

Second, you assume without any evidence that the currently used margins are arbitrary.

(4)In the recount process, don't throw out the old results. The first several steps will keep that first count relevant. Use multiple counts and the estimated error to assert a statistical level of confidence in the count.

Again, this is utter nonsense, and shows you don't understand the difference between sampling and actual counting.

(5)If there is not a high enough level of confidence, make another recount (especially when the loser gained more votes).

That is what happens now.

(6)Consider implementing laws addressing someone who didn't win by a statistically significant amount's role in office.

And this is absolutely anti-democratic, as I already noted.

Well, you laid out your plan, and it is exceedingly lame. Sad.

Re:Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

This is what is done, as much as possible. So you agree with the status quo, nice

This isn't done as much as possible. The fact that you think it is & don't even defend that thesis shows the idiocy of your quote-unquote arguments. You are an ostrich who has stuck his head into the sand of the way things are currently done & (worse) the PR of those currently doing it. Doing this doesn't make the real world go away.

If it were done as much as possible, the first count would be trusted as much as the second count! We'd already have voter-verifiable audit trails, accurate/transparent/uniform standards for provisional ballots/role purged, etc. I still vote using puch cards, which have long been known to be less than perfect (the criteria for a human counting a vote is very different from what the punch card machines can actually do). We've had alternatives, but haven't gone to any. Touch screen machines are still miscalibrated and parts of the process are still open to fraud by people of either political party.

Many machines can be fixed, but we don't fix them. Voting machines are contracted out & once we've bought them, we're basically stuck with them. Why can't we handle voting like we handle acquiring equipment for energy, science, aerospace, or defense? Though we contract a lot of work out, it is funded federally & scientists and engineers are hired by the government so that the contractor doesn't have free-reign.

That's not possible. You can only uncover actual errors, not infer (extrapolate, guess) errors

Bull. It is possible to accout for that the statistical errors and uncaught systematic errors, by adding an error to the number. When I measure something with a ruler, I don't need to know why I get different measurements in order to estimate my precision of those measurements. I can say that the length is the mean value +/- some error. It is the same with all measurements, including vote counting.

(this goes back to your lack of understanding of the difference between statistical sampling and actual counting).

No--but it is great that you keep going back to statistical sampling which you brought up & which I have repetitively said isn't what I am considering. You've failed to refute my claim that the differences in counts can be explained by experimental (statistical and systematic) error. You've failed to say why we can't or shouldn't use statistical tools to acknowledge and account for error. I'll give you a few: many Americans (such as yourself) don't really understand that measurements don't have perfect precision & have an even harder time knowing what "56+/-2" actually means. It would be slightly more expensive to do it "the right way" and act as if the accuracy and precision of our elections was as important to us as anything funded by the NSF, DOE, ORNL, etc.

And at some point, the more recounts you do, the more error you introduce, so "many" is unreasonable.

This is the stupidest thing you've mentioned to date. The only way to introduce significantly more error would be to damage or lose ballots (in which case we shouldn't even trust a small number of recounts). If you're really worried about this, look at samples of recounts. Compare the first three to the last three to three randomly selected. Once again, you scream your ignorance of error analysis.

First, this is largely unreasonable: you could only use what you learn in one election for the next election, and elections these days are changing so much (new types of voting, differences in voter demographics, addition of provisional ballots, etc.) we don't know if the difference between counts in this election would hold up for the next.

Well, then you should prove it. Recount ballots from the last several elections. If the evidence supports claims that you pull out of thin air, then we wouldn't be able to do it. But we

Re:Margin of Error

[pudge]

If it were done as much as possible, the first count would be trusted as much as the second count! We'd already have voter-verifiable audit trails,

Objection: assumption of facts not in evidence. What you say is only true if it is possible to do it significantly better than it is done, and yet you have offered no evidence to support this assumption.

We'd already have voter-verifiable audit trails

Those are coming; they did not get them in time for this election. So what? We had less percentage of error in this election than in 2000, when we DID have an audit trail.

accurate/transparent/uniform standards for provisional ballots/role purged

Provisional ballots are new for this election, and the handling of them is defined by federal law (which the King County court violated). It's new, and it does have serious problems. I never said that all possible problems were fixed, I said that we are currently seeking out and fixing the problems as much as is possible. This is a new problem, and we are working to get it fixed better for next time around.

I still vote using puch cards, which have long been known to be less than perfect

So? Every voting method is less than perfect. This is not an interesting thing to say.

Bull. It is possible to accout for that the statistical errors

There are none, moron.

When I measure something with a ruler, I don't need to know why I get different measurements in order to estimate my precision of those measurements. I can say that the length is the mean value +/- some error.

Yes, you can say that. If you're an idiot. It's nonsensical. Such thing can only make sense when you are doing sampling, which you are not doing.

it is great that you keep going back to statistical sampling which you brought up & which I have repetitively said isn't what I am considering

You did say that, but then you went back to talking about it anyway, because you're stupid. Statistical error ONLY applies to sampling.

You've failed to refute my claim that the differences in counts can be explained by experimental (statistical and systematic) error.

There is no such thing as experimental error in these matters. There's no experiment. There's no statistical error. There is systematic error, but it cannot be estimated, only identified and then fixed.

You've failed to say why we can't or shouldn't use statistical tools to acknowledge and account for error.

Yes, I have failed to say why we can't or shouldn't listen to the color green.

I'll give you a few: many Americans (such as yourself) don't really understand that measurements don't have perfect precision

If you must lie, don't make it so obvious, reject. I quite positively affirmed that our methods are not perfect, several times.

It would be slightly more expensive to do it "the right way"

There is no "the right way." It is not possible given current technology to get a perfect count.

This is the stupidest thing you've mentioned to date. The only way to introduce significantly more error would be to damage or lose ballots (in which case we shouldn't even trust a small number of recounts).

And since such damage and loss *always* happens in large recounts, then you agree with me. Maybe you shouldn't call it stupid, then?

Well, then you should prove it.

It's not possible to prove. We know the facts: all the differences I mentioned, and more. Whether the difference in recounts now matches previous differences will not prove I am right or wrong. If the difference is the same, it could be mere coincidence. If it is different, it could be for other reasons.

Someone who didn't have his head up his ass would instinctively know this.

The point is not what can be proved, but the simple and obvious principle th

Re:Margin of Error

[Noksagt]

Objection: assumption of facts not in evidence. What you say is only true if it is possible to do it significantly better than it is done, and yet you have offered no evidence to support this assumption.

Do you have any evidence that it isn't possile to do it significantly better? We can both play the lack-of-evidence game. It is a great game to play as far as I'm concerned because the answer to it would be: we both admit it isn't perfect. Where's the objection to sponsoring significant studies to determine how not perfect it is and how to improve it?

Those are coming; they did not get them in time for this election.

There is proposed legislation to do this federally. There isn't any passed legislation to assure it will be in place at federal, state, county, and city levels by next year. While the notable bills that would give us voter-verifiable audit trails don't seem to be poisoned & should be passed, they aren't exactly being fast-tracked either.

So what? We had less percentage of error in this election than in 2000, when we DID have an audit trail.

And exactly how much error was there in 2000 and how much in 2004? You're making this up. (And after accusing me of doing something similar?!?!

Provisional ballots are new for this election, and the handling of them is defined by federal law

Some states had provisional ballots prior to the election. Congress made them required in all states this year. It is the states who determine which provisional ballots will be counted. Some throw out the provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place. Some don't. Some require a form to be completely and accurately filled out. Some don't. There aren't even state-wide standards, as a 2002 court case in Colorado highlighted: three counties had three different standards in a statewide election.

Bull. It is possible to accout for that the statistical errors
There are none, moron.

You'd agree that there are some if you knew what they are. Please provide a definition and say why counting votes is so perfect that there are none. If we can't find the systematic cause of all errors, explain why. If we can, please explain why we can't make a perfect count after we resolve all systematic errors.

If you don't want to go to the trouble of checking out either of the books I mentioned from the library, feel free to use the web.

Yes, you can say that. If you're an idiot. It's nonsensical.

Way to go calling everyone publishing scientific papers and even many engineers idiots! You can (and often should) apply error analysis to any measurement that you can make repetitively that has a different value each time you measure it. It isn't nonsensical at all. If the standard deviation is sufficiently low, you might have wasted time or money. But we can gather from many recounts that the deviation is higher than small spreads & so could be worthwhile.

Such thing can only make sense when you are doing sampling, which you are not doing.

Neither are scientists doing sampling when they measure the speed of light.

then you went back to talking about it anyway, because you're stupid. Statistical error ONLY applies to sampling.

You're stupid. Read the references provided & explain to me how making a fixed measurement (as done in examples in many of the references) is sampling. It isn't. Statistical error applies to any repeatable measurement that don't lead to identical results.

There is no such thing as experimental error in these matters. There's no experiment.

Re:Margin of Error

[pudge]

u r dum

Re:Margin of error

[Antony-Kyre]

I'm not here to trade insults. If you need the definition of "margin" go find a dictionary.

Re:Margin of error

[pudge]

What you are here for is of no consequence to me. That you choose to invent arbitrary meanings for phrases is also of no consequence to me, but I will correct you if I deign to.

Re:Margin of error

[Antony-Kyre]

You're saying I'm creating arbitrary meanings for phrases.

If you need the definition for "margin" of error, these might help

A measure, quantity, or degree of difference: a margin of 500 votes.

5 : measure or degree of difference

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&as_q dr=all&q=%22margin+of+error%22+votes should explain a lot more

Re:Margin of error

[pudge]

You're saying I'm creating arbitrary meanings for phrases.

Yes, I have used those words.

If you need the definition for "margin" of error, these might help

I know you know the meaning of the words. But you do not know the meaning of the phrase. For example, the phrase "cult of personality" takes on a new meaning if you define it by its discrete components.

And yes, Google shows many people using this phrase incorrectly. You expect me to be surprised? Although gratefully, most of them are not using it incorrectly. All the ones talking about sampling and predictions are using it, more or less, properly. Those using it to refer to actual counting, as you did, are not.

Re:Margin of error

[Noksagt]

If I'm allowed an interjection, phrases can have more than one valid meaning. While I agree with pudge that it wasn't the best phrase to use (because it is so commonly used in sampling and because other phrases would have less semantic ambiguity), I do not believe that the phrase only has the narrow definition which he attempts to prescribe. Indeed, the fact that he found many (common) "incorrect uses" should have been a clue. But, hopefully, he will respect the authority of the OED where the explicit definition and the examples of usage are incongruent to his perception of proper usage:

margin of error, a permissible or tolerable degree of deviation from a correct or exact value or target; a small allowance made for the possibility of miscalculation, change in circumstances, etc. (also margin for error); also fig. and in extended use.

1867 Chambers's Jrnl. 16 Feb. 106/2 For silver coin, the remedy or margin of error is fixed at one pennyweight per pound Troy. 1897 K. S. RANJITSINHJI Jubilee Bk. Cricket 169 In playing back to a fast bowler, the thing to remember is, that there is very little time to make the stroke, the margin of error being exceedingly small. 1927 A. L. BOWLEY & J. C. STAMP National Income 1924 vi. 52 The margin of possible error in the 1924 estimates must lead to caution in these comparisons. 1937 H. LONGHURST Golf I. xxii. 198 The blaster gives no margin for error above the ball, but an almost infinite margin below it. 1949 H. MACLENNAN Cross-country 7 The climate of Canada allows for less margin of error in economic life than does the climate of the United States. 1986 J. HUXLEY Leaves of Tulip Tree (1987) iii. 69 Julian..did not allow for the margin of human errors, and demanded implicit acquiescence. 1991 Newsweek 28 Jan. 23/2 If recent advances have brought the margin of error down to 30 feet or less..then the age of surgical bombing is finally at hand. 1996 Sunday Tel. 13 Oct. (Sport section) 3/6 The United goalkeeper had much less margin for error in the second half, when he had to save headers..and smother a close-range shot from Collymore.

Re:Margin of error

[pudge]

The problem is that he was using the phrase to have the same meaning as it has with sampling. His first post on the subject said 42 votes is "within a margin of error." That usage is nonsensical in this context. If he had said the margin of error of the first vote was 219 votes, that would have been fine, but saying 42 is "within" some margin of error is nonsense.

Re:Margin of error

[Anonymous Coward]

margin schmargin.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[pudge]

And somebody who says they believe in something and then does nothing about it is what?

When did you stop beating your mother?

Hey, I'm not the one who's being hypocritical, claiming to be pro-life and then refusing to do everything possible to reduce abortion.

Actually, you have done precisely that. By your own standard, you are certainly hypocritical.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Marxist Hacker 42]

When did you stop beating your mother?

When I was born- it was a lot harder to do it from the OUTSIDE! :-) Back to the point though- or at least my point- I don't hold with hypocricy for any reason.

Actually, you have done precisely that.

How so? I give as much as I possibly can to Fr. Taft- and his homes for unwed mothers.

By your own standard, you are certainly hypocritical.

Really? Once again, how so? Making something illegal doesn't reduce a practice- it only turns the people that do that into criminals. I'd be happy to have even 3x the taxes I currently pay- making me earn nothing- if I could be guaranteed such a right to life for everybody. Can you Republicans say the same? I challenge you to live up to that level of respect for human life!

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[pudge]

How so? I give as much as I possibly can to Fr. Taft- and his homes for unwed mothers.

No, you do not. Sell your computer and give the money to charity, and then we can start talking.

It's not over & comment regarding plurality

[Antony-Kyre]

There's going to be a hand recount if I'm not mistaken. 42 votes is within a margin of error especially with the anomalies with provisional ballots or whatever.

Does anyone think the plurality system is partly responsible for such a close race?

Re:It's not over & comment regarding plurality

[Noksagt]

This was the machine recount. If the initial numbers had gone this way, there would be a mandatory hand recount. As it is, they've already conducted the mandatory recount & any additional recount will need to be petitioned for my the participants.

I agree it is well below the margin of error. But that doesn't matter. Scientists have a number, an error, and a unit. Everyone else (including politicians who write the laws) doesn't use "error" and often neglects "units."

Re:It's not over & comment regarding plurality

[Antony-Kyre]

I said hand recount. 0.0015% is a very small difference, well within the margin of error.

Re:It's not over & comment regarding plurality

[pudge]

So many people have spent so much time trying to understand polls, that they don't realize an election is not a poll. There is no "margin of error." The concept does not apply to an election. It makes no sense.

What you mean to say is that there is some amount of error in the counting, which is necessarily true. But that is a very different thing from margin of error. Further, we have absolutely no idea how much error there is.

To say the results are "within the margin of error" is quite meaningless. You might as well say the Internet tastes good.

Re:It's not over & comment regarding plurality

[Noksagt]

Right--but it isn't a forgone conclusion like you initially implied. The first recount was a forgone conclusion. This one will need to be paid for.

While I agree that there is a scientific concept of margin of error, it isn't legally recognized in an election.

Re:It's not over & comment regarding plurality

[bar-agent]

You might as well say the Internet tastes good.

It tastes like...burning?

No, I kid, it actually tastes like purple.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, you do not. Sell your computer and give the money to charity, and then we can start talking.

Did that a long time ago- what computers I own that are worth selling (not every computer has value anymore- the majority of mine are homebrews from scrounged parts that nobody would WANT to buy- that in fact, they paid me for hauling off). The one I'm typing on right now I don't own.

Rossi with 261 lead drops to 42 lead

[Antony-Kyre]

I think I'll be satisfied with whomever wins as long as the hand recount is done properly. One more time is all we should really need.

Re:Rossi with 261 lead drops to 42 lead

[(H)elix1]

I think I'll be satisfied with whomever wins as long as the hand recount is done properly. One more time is all we should really need.

Did not read the article, nor do I care who wins... but one recount is all we should really need. I'm so sick of both parties gaming the election with legal loopholes. Just because you can, does not mean you should...

Re:Rossi with 261 lead drops to 42 lead

[TheLink]

You miss the point. It's about showing respect to the process. Otherwise why bother all the spiel about the USA being a democracy?

The Ceremony is to indicate the importance the public considers the event.

EVEN if it's all a show (and the relevant votes have already been Diebolded), you have to make it seem like a good show. Go through the _proper_ motions.

Just try telling a kid a story, and skipping everything except for "And they all lived happily ever after".

I suppose maybe nowadays they are content with that and they'll go off to watch MTV and stuff themselves.

Re:Rossi with 261 lead drops to 42 lead

[(H)elix1]

You miss the point. It's about showing respect to the process.

I think we are on the same page. Way I read it (did go back and read the article) is they have a process - if the vote was within a certain threshold they order a automatic machine based recount. If it was even closer, they do a hand based recount. They did the machine recount and it is real close, but one party had a majority. Respect the process...

What scares me is either side will look to do what a bad D&D player who has every module or book and pulls out a obscure rule to try and change the outcome. Yes, they allow for the possibility to pay for a hand recount - but the last thing I want to see is our election process turned into a clever bit of lawyering in tactical areas. Watching both major parties even hint that they had thousands of lawyers on contingency for the election day was sickening. Watching some of the minor parties invoke rules that seemed more for the press and public relations just made me mad.

Anyhow, not a flame... just not happy about the new legal strategies setting precedence for how a campaign is won. Nothing like telling your kid - I don't know who won the election, it is still in the courts...

Re:Rossi with 261 lead drops to 42 lead

[tbannist]

There are two issues, in scientific study, the scientist must recognize that every instrument has minute biases based on the way it was made and that consistent bias may taint results. Vote counting machines are no different.

So given that the change in the vote between the original count and the recount is 5924% of the new margin of victory, it may be worthwhile to use a different system to make sure any systemic unreliability or bias is removed.

Of course the fact that the total change was more than 60 times the current margin of victory conceals the fact that if you were to enumerate the individual changes to each county, you'd end up with an even larger swing.

Ignoring a systemic bias, we've only reduced the chance that those results are incorrect to 25%. We can see that the margin of victory is less than the error margin on the machines.

I know several people have claimed that hand recounts are less accurate than machine recounts. I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that if hand recounts were necessarily less accurate, then you would not mandate their use in the closest races.

Of course, the main advantage of a hand recount is that you have observers from all parties confirming the count, thus once it's done, you can't ask for another one, you've already confirmed that this one is correct.

Re:Rossi with 261 lead drops to 42 lead

[Ironsides]

Me thinks that you do not know how to do percentages. The change in the margin of victory was 219. 219/42=5.21 This is 521% the margin of victory, NOT 5924%. I note there is a larger percentage difference between your 5924% and the correct 521%

Re:Rossi with 261 lead drops to 42 lead

[tbannist]

You be wrong, demonstrating poor reading comprehension, and inability to think independently.

I said the change in the *vote* not the change in the margin of victory. Running the ballots through the machine a second time increased the number of votes by 2428 which is almost 60 times the margin of victory.

All this recount has done is tell us that, ignoring instrument bias, it is statistically probable the correct margin of victory lies between 2297 votes for the currently loosing candidate and 2558 votes for the currently winning candidate. I'd like more precision than that.

As I previously said, even though that value is problematic, it is a still a large underestimate of the inaccuracy of the machine count, because I'm only examining the total change in the reported votes, not the changes in the individual districts. From what I've read, two thirds of those changes cancelled each other out in the final tally. So the actual margin of error for these machines could be as high as 180 times the margin of victory.

Voting on a large scale subject to fraud

[jgardn]

Now that I think about it, the electoral college is good for a reason. Can you imagine a national recount? It would be absolutely terrible. Even a state-wide election is hard enough to run.

Why don't we just have electors for the governor's seat? We can send one elector from each legislative district, and then have them choose the governor. This way, a recount would only be warranted in districts that are close. (Districts in WA are about 100,000 people). Since the voting is much more local, it is much less subject to fraud and thus the unwarranted accusation of fraud.

Re:Voting on a large scale subject to fraud

[cyberformer]

You've got it backwards: The electoral college is much more likely to turn on a few votes than the popular votes. So if you don't want recounts, you should support its abolition.

No recount would have found half a million extra votes for Bush in 2000, or 3 million extra votes for Kerry in 2004. But when the whole election depends on just one state and that state is close, everyone will (rightly) demand that the votes be counted and recounted until they get an accurate number.

Re:Voting on a large scale subject to fraud

[Ironsides]

But when the whole election depends on just one state and that state is close, everyone will (rightly) demand that the votes be counted and recounted until they get an accurate number.

Given that the 2004 election led bush by 34 votes, which single state decided the election? a hcnage of 17 votes would tie the outcome? So, which state? Florida, Ohio or Texas? How many other elections could have been changed by one state? Any election with a difference less than 55. That goes back a long time.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Rufus88]

It's also important to you too- because without a consistent right to life, there's nothing to prevent somebody from aborting YOU now.

Don't tell *us* (i.e., me and the grandparent poster) what's important to *us*. We believe in the right to life among persons, but don't believe that a mere fertilized egg is a person, any more than we believe all the skin cells we scratch off our arms whenever we scratch an itch constitute living human persons, despite the fact that they are all living human *tissue*.

And there *is* something preventing people from aborting *us*. We've been born. Abortion is the termination of a *fetus*, prior to the point at which it becomes a person. We are already people. If someone kills us, it's murder, not abortion.

Because I believe EVERYBODY should be pro-life- you signed up for it by being born into a social species.

And I believe that EVERYBODY should be pro-choice - you signed up for it by being born into a social species that respects individual freedom.

The Ultimate Question

[Rufus88]

And thus spake Deep Thought:

"By how many votes will Dino Rossi win the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election recount?"

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[pudge]

So sell everything else. Donate your time instead of being on Slashdot. It's quite clear that when you say you do everything possible, you're lying.

They are ignorant/stupid or too partisan

[TheLink]

Yep that's how things should be. There's a big difference between a machine counted result of 77.434% of the votes and a hand counted result of 60.2% of the votes.

Even though a hand recount could have less precision (e.g. 100 times less precise), it may be more accurate esp if representatives from the affected parties and independent(?) observers are there to witness each count (this is how vote counts are done in my country btw). And anyway even if it is all a show, rational and reasonable voters should be more likely to accept such a result counted that way[1].

BUT the widespread lack of commonsense, ignorance and stupidity is quite staggering though. So it seems that the voters don't really care anyway.

Also get the impression that many if not most voters of the winning party stupidly don't and won't care either- as long as their party wins they are happy. The degree of partisanship in the US is gross - "No matter what happens - XXX is right".

If these people like that sort of thing they should not vote - just stay at home and watch "pro wrestling" on TV.

[1] If the electorate are going to be screwed anyway, at least make them take a lot of trouble to do so. Don't make it easy for them by just settling for machine counts.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Thunderstruck]

I've followed this thread for quite a while, fascinating stuff. Does anyone else see that the reasoning proposed by Marxis Hacker, that a man must do absolutely everything he can to support an idea if he really believes in it, is exactly the same sort of reasoning that led to the reformation in the first place?

I'll wager that no matter how much you do to support any cause, I can think of something else that you could have done. Perfection is an impossibility, and when you impose it on others you only drive a wedge between them and your beliefs.

-1 off topic...

Margin of error

[Antony-Kyre]

The "margin" of error could be said to be this...

Provisional ballots that weren't originally counted
Ballots that were spit out and set aside
Diebold optical machines wrongly counting the bubbled in sheet

Forty-two

[Anonymous Coward]

Forty-two.
That's it. That's all there is.

--
This post is a troll, but Mr. Adams is insightful.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Anonymous Coward]

I've followed this thread for quite a while, fascinating stuff.

I hope you mean "fascinating what an idiot Marxist Hacker is being". Or perhaps "fascinating that pudge is even bothering to waste his time arguing with this idiot".

Other than that, I see nothing fascinating about it at all.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Anonymous Coward]

> You're an idiot.

You're a troll.

somehow this became an abortion debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you speak for the group, what clearly definable event prior to which it is not alive and after which he/she is alive?

What i mean is, at which point has the fetus tagged 'base' and is 'safe'?

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pro-choice, except when it comes to pro-lifers. Then I'm pro-abortion. Not pro-choice, pro-abortion. Those yahoos need to be prevented from reproducing.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Tikiman]

Don't tell *us* (i.e., me and the grandparent poster) what's important to *us*. We believe in the right to life among persons, but don't believe that a mere fertilized egg is a person, any more than we believe all the skin cells we scratch off our arms whenever we scratch an itch constitute living human persons, despite the fact that they are all living human *tissue*.

Except, at one point in your life, you were a fetilized egg. "Were" is the past tense of "to be". A fertilized egg is, by definition, a "human being" because contains the entire existence of a human. A skin cell or cancer cell is not a human being because it never represented the entire totality of a human.

And there *is* something preventing people from aborting *us*. We've been born. Abortion is the termination of a *fetus*, prior to the point at which it becomes a person. We are already people. If someone kills us, it's murder, not abortion.

So the termination of a fetus, 10 minutes before it would have been born, as somehow "not as bad" as killing the infant ten minutes after it has been born? Sorry, but "personhood", as you say it, has nothing to do with whether or not you still happen to be in the womb. Even the Supreme Court says the same thing by allowing states to criminalize third-trimester abortions. Surely you agree with that!

And I believe that EVERYBODY should be pro-choice - you signed up for it by being born into a social species that respects individual freedom.

You are a priori deciding that a fetus is not an individual, which is what the entire debate is about. Personally, when I see something with human DNA, 10 fingers, 10 toes, all functional organs, a beating heart, and brainwaves (in other words, a 10 week old fetus), I say "Aha! There is an individual who deserves all the protections of the 14th amendment". The view that a fetus is a person is fundamentally incompatible with belief in abortion-on-demand, which is why people like yourself go through such mental gymnastics, against all moral logic and scientific evidence, to convince themselves that a fetus is not a person that deserves the same protection as an adult.

Funny?

[Whyte]

Moderators: Was this funny because the poster doesn't know John Ashcroft's first name, or because the poster fails to understand that Ashcroft has nothing to do with state recount issues?

That was then, this is now.

[khasim]

I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.

Great. But that was then. Try looking at what is happening NOW.

The Washingtong State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance says: "If Dino Rossi is ahead at the end of the day, he is the governor-elect, this is over, and she (Gregoire) needs to do the right thing, the gracious thing and the honorable thing and concede."

But if Gregoire is ahead at the end of the recount? "That's fundamentally different," Vance said.

Vance is also talking about how "...we will preserve all our options,...".

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 20 02099856_webgovernor24.html

Rather than crying about the Democrats, in this case, the Republicans should be joining with them and pooling their resources to pay for a state-wide hand recount.

But they aren't doing that.

Nor are they willing to say right now that they will accept whatever the results are.

And I find it hilarious that you are quoting NIXON about "the harm it would do to the nation". What's next? Quoting Clinton about morality? :D

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[tbannist]

Except, at one point in your life, you were a fetilized egg. "Were" is the past tense of "to be". A fertilized egg is, by definition, a "human being" because contains the entire existence of a human. A skin cell or cancer cell is not a human being because it never represented the entire totality of a human.

Actually, everyone was also at one point an unfertilized egg and a sperm cell. Should we consider all sperm and all unfertilized eggs to be people too?

Actually a skin cell or potentially a cancer cell* could represent the entire totality of a human. Either could probably be used as the basis of a clone.

* The genetic material in the cancer cell might be damaged though, I'm not sure about that.

Ohio

[js7a]

Looks like we've got more than 150,000 valid equal rights claims in Ohio, based on the evidence that voting queue length correlates to historical precinct support. I wonder whether any nonlocal Democrat lawyer wants to be destracted by Washington. However, based on the clear evidence emerging from Florida, I would not advise any Democrat with the ability to pay for a recount to give up anywhere.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[InfiniteWisdom]

Because I believe EVERYBODY should be pro-life- you signed up for it by being born into a social species. Sorry about that- next life maybe you should be born as something that isn't social and doesn't interact with others of their own species.

Humans are not the only social species. Many animals live in herds and hunt/shelter together. Many of them also eat their young if they're weak and sick and leave the old or wounded to die. Many human cultures do/used to do that too... protecting the weak goes against nature's "design". I'm not saying we should kill off the weak and diseased or anything like that... but just because we interract with others of our own species doesn't mean we need to interract in ways you approve of. You can make other arguments, but don't make broad claims about "characteristics of species" because nature is cruel at times and nature doesn't care about individuals.

Moreover, I happen to believe that there's more to life than having a pulse. If I were vegetative, I would much rather die with dignity than have air and blood bt pumped through my body by someone like you claiming to be "alive".

You are entitled to your beliefs and you're entitled to try and convince other people of your beliefs, but get off your high horse. There's more than one way to look at things, and to claim that you're right and everyone who disagrees with you isn't is intellectually dishonest.

But if they win...

[ilyanep]

Who pays for the recount if the dems win?

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[DAldredge]

Then sell your computer(s) and donate the money to help unwed mothers. Otherwise shut the hell up.

Yet again...

[Guuge]

the error in the initial count favors the Republican.

Re:Yet again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, selective recounts are favoring the Democrat. Just like they tried, and failed to do in Florida in 2000.

What America REALLY Needs...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is a strong third party or two which will serve to split the vote somewhat. This will help avoid the 50-50% elections we always have. But the two big parties have put pressure on the media not to mention the Libertarians or the Greens at all if possible. The two big parties don't WANT third-parties having a chance. And the bullies fight third-parties, even though it would benefit society as a whole in multiple ways.

It's not about left or right anymore; it's about class warfare. Rich vs. poor. And by poor I mean anyone earning under $750,000 per year. You probably don't know it, but your quality of life is being silently stolen from you right now, and unless things in America change, all will be lost by the time our children can vote.

The facts

[Anonymous Coward]

>>The facts would seem to argue against your position that "they all do it."

Since when do facts matter to you neo-cons? *rimshot*

Not this urban myth again

[Aexia]

In the Kennedy/Nixon election, Richard Nixon lost the vote under extremely suspect circumstances. He made the deliberate decision not to pursue because of the harm it would do to the nation.

Republicans persued (fruitless) recounts in about a dozen different states and dragged (fruitless) investigations in Illinois out for a year.

Nixon presented a public front of not challenging for the "good of the nation"(which you've obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker) but did everything in his power to challenge the results behind the scenes.

The wife replacing the husband in the middle of the race was probably illegal under Missouir law

She didn't replace him on the ballot. Ashcroft lost to a dead man. The (Republican I think) Governor just made it known that if Mel Carnahan won, he'd appoint Jean Carnahan in his place, which he did.

the Republican decided not to pursue the matter

What would he persue exactly?

I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.

You're thinking of Thune's loss to Johnson and he *did* drag investigations out with allegations of massive fraud. And guess what? Nothing turned up.

And who can forget Bob Dornan who dragged out investigations of his narrow loss to Loretta Sanchez in 1996 for two years? Again, Republican alleged massive vote fraud and nothing materialized. And then Dornan got his ass smacked by Sanchez in 1998.

Basically, here's the pattern:
Republicans lose narrowly.
They allege massive vote fraud when it doesn't exist so as to taint the victory of their opponent.
They publicly say they're taking the high road and not persuing any legal options.
They privately persue any and all legal options.
They come up empty.

What outcome?

[Aexia]

Well, there is a difference, on the *law* recognizes: it's the difference between a recount affirming the result, and overturning it. The law treats those two outcomes differently, as Vance said.

What result? Until the machine recount was finished last week, there was no result. No winner was certified.

Re:What outcome?

[pudge]

Yes ... that is what I was referring to. The outcome of the recount. If Gregoire had finished on top, the law would have treated that differently than if Rossi had finished on top (which is what happened).

What part don't you get?

This is how it works

[Aexia]

so what happens now? Just keep recounting until the Democrat wins? And what then? Why not recount one more time? Where do you draw the line?

The line's drawn in the law. The machine recount was automatic because of the close margin. (A manual recount would've been done if the margin were 100 votes closer initially)

Now that a winner has finally be certified. A manual recount can be requested. Once/If it's done, that's it.

This it how it works:
Gregoire can request a manual recount of certain or all counties, but she has to put down a deposit of 25 cents for each vote to pay for the recount. That would be roughly $700,000 for every vote in the state. If it changes the margin, she gets the deposit back and the state pays for the recount. If not, the money is gone.

Obviously, $700,000 is a lot. But she can request a recount just in certain counties and put down a smaller deposit. If the count there is enough to change the results, the state initiates and pays for a statewide recount. If it doesn't change the outcome, she loses her deposit.

Either way, that'll be the end of the matter. Our state election laws are pretty well laid out. Given the tight margin and given that some counties somehow came back with *fewer* votes in the machine recount than the original count, I don't see how anyone can argue that a manual recount shouldn't be done.

dude, let me save you a lot of typing by...

[Scudsucker]

...pointing out that Pudge is a good modern Republican. One who knows that he'll lose his card carrying GOP status if he doesn't engage in blatant double standards and hypocracy on a regular basis. Do you think for a nanosecond that he wouldn't be taking the opposite position if Gore had won by a few hundered votes in 2000 and the Democratic candidate was leading by 42 today? This isn't about statistics or democracy, this is about smearing recounts because the GOP candidate is ahead. Just like 4 years ago.

Re:dude, let me save you a lot of typing by...

[pudge]

You're an idiot.

Summary

[Noksagt]

I love it when people resort to this childishness, although they seem otherwise quite intelligent (if not particularly educated about particular subjects (this is not a slam--I don't know about everything & not even about everything I try to talk about either)).

In summary, though, we mostly (perhaps begrudgingly) agree that:

1. There should be a study conducted of how much votes swing with recounts. This may also help us find (and therefore compare) the errors in elections.
2. There is no guarantee we will have a voter-verifiable audit trail. Most think it is a good idea, so we will hopefully have one.
3. The handling of provisional ballots isn't completely dictated by federal law, but perhaps it should be for the sake of uniformity
4. A hand recount wasn't mandatory in this case, but perhaps it should have been.
5. Voting isn't perfect now, but is being improved.

There are also some points that I think I'm right about that I'd probably never convince you of, unless you read up on error analysis:

1. Error analysis can and should be used in vote counting, in the same way it is used in the physical sciences for any measurement
2. The law should acknowlege that the precision of the vote isn't perfect. If there is a procedure for ties (such as sending it to the legislative branch), perhaps there should be a procedure to handle cases where the lack of precision could undermine accuracy.
3. All counts should be done at a high enough level of quality that there'd be no reason to implicitly trust a later recount over an earlier count. The value of a recount would then include adding to the statistical confidence of a decision.

And, in the interest of fairness, a few concessions:

1. I shouldn't have used the phrase "margin of error." Though I would not be the first to use it to describe the lack of precision in a measurement, it is most commonly used by pollsters in sampling. People, especially those who have read a lot of newspapers & not so many scholarly science papers, would easily misconstrue me.
2. I shouldn't have said that the ability to govern shouldn't be changed based on how confident we are that the candidate won the majority of votes cast. This is quite radical & reflects my cynicism of government more than common sense. There are already mechanisms for ties & few (if any) change the powers of the office. These can be leveraged instead.
3. I should clarify the back-of-the-envelope calculations I make & what research I've done before making some claims. I should also be upfront about the things I am unsure of. Finding no record of statisticians being consulted or of a budget expenditure for a study into the precision of an election doesn't mean that such things didn't actually occur. It means I can't find evidence of them occurring & that I should suggest they should occur if they haven't already.
4. I shouln't resort to childish namecalling. I don't like it being used against me or seeing it be used against others. It doesn't convince me, and it doesn't seem to convince others if I use it against them, even if (especially if?) they have used it against me.

Re:Summary

[pudge]

I love it when people resort to this childishness

I was just responding to your post using the same maturity you offered. I was just more succinct.

There should be a study conducted of how much votes swing with recounts. This may also help us find (and therefore compare) the errors in elections.

We should do whatever it takes to uncover and fix errors, yes.

There is no guarantee we will have a voter-verifiable audit trail. Most think it is a good idea, so we will hopefully have one.

Yes.

The handling of provisional ballots isn't completely dictated by federal law, but perhaps it should be for the sake of uniformity

No, it shouldn't be. It should only be loosely governed by federal law to the extent of protecting the rights of individuals in that state (such as the privacy provision that the King County judge ignored).

A hand recount wasn't mandatory in this case, but perhaps it should have been.

No, it shouldn't have been. There's no reason to think a hand recount is more accurate (and in certain cases, such as the voting machines in Snohomish County, would certainly be less accurate).

Voting isn't perfect now, but is being improved.

They are working to improve it. It's hard to say if it has been improved.

Error analysis can and should be used in vote counting, in the same way it is used in the physical sciences for any measurement

I never disagreed with this. I disagreed with the idea that you can use statistics to conduct that analysis. You can only make actual measurements to measure error.

The law should acknowlege that the precision of the vote isn't perfect. If there is a procedure for ties (such as sending it to the legislative branch), perhaps there should be a procedure to handle cases where the lack of precision could undermine accuracy.

No such condition can possibly exist, so there's no need to have a procedure for it.

All counts should be done at a high enough level of quality that there'd be no reason to implicitly trust a later recount over an earlier count.

That ignores the reasons why the recount is considered to be more accurate. It's not because it is later, it is because it includes ballots that were excluded the first time around. That was the overwhelming majority of the difference between the first count and the recount: ballots that were excluded because they were late in coming in (postmarked in time, but not delivered in time), or lost, or the machines did not count them properly, etc.

No doubt we should work to improve those, but that is what the recount is *for*: to find those errors and fix them, and as long as errors exist -- that is, forever -- recounts will be given greater confidence than initial counts.

Re:Summary

[Noksagt]

I was just responding to your post using the same maturity you offered. I was just more succinct.

In that case, I apologize for the childishness & am sorry it trumped supporting evidence and references I presented.

No, it shouldn't be. It should only be loosely governed by federal law to the extent of protecting the rights of individuals in that state (such as the privacy provision that the King County judge ignored).

OK. Sorry for misunderstanding your reply of "the handling of them is defined by federal law" in response to my suggestion that there should be "accurate/transparent/uniform standards for provisional ballots." Perhaps you should have said you disagreed with me, rather than implying we already had uniform standards.

No, it shouldn't have been. There's no reason to think a hand recount is more accurate (and in certain cases, such as the voting machines in Snohomish County, would certainly be less accurate).

Fair enough. But you admit that you were wrong when you said "Right, because it just concluded" to my statement "There isn't a mandatory hand recount being done now." (I assume you merely skipped over the word "hand" before replying to me.) I'm sure you acknowledge that in especially close races a hand recount is mandatory, so do you think that law should be changed too?

They are working to improve it. It's hard to say if it has been improved.

I agree with this revision.

No doubt we should work to improve those, but that is what the recount is *for*: to find those errors and fix them, and as long as errors exist -- that is, forever -- recounts will be given greater confidence than initial counts.

My argument would be that the first count shouldn't be certified as complete until all votes come in if it is so close that those votes could decide the race. (As you have pointed out, this snag will hopefully be improved.) If there is a third complete count, it would have very few ballots that weren't included in the second & it would be very difficult to defend having misread the ballots the second time around. Perhaps there is a lot of pragmatism into making the first count as quick as possible, even if we lose precision. But it seems quite wasteful to have a third count that renders the second useless. (The first was for speed, the last for precision, but why the counts in the middle?!) It wastes time and money. Either we should accept the second "precise" and "all-inclusive" count as definitive or we should say it is just as good as the third count & shouldn't give the third count ultimate weight. I'd opt for the later.

If specific errors were found in the second count & we want to discount it, we should make it easier to make revisions rather than going to the time and expense of completely redoing the count. If no specific errors were found, either don't bother counting or don't pretend it will be better than the second count.

Re:Summary

[pudge]

But you admit that you were wrong when you said "Right, because it just concluded" to my statement "There isn't a mandatory hand recount being done now." (I assume you merely skipped over the word "hand" before replying to me.)

If that is what you said, that I replied to, then yes, I was wrong, and most likely did indeed just miss the word "hand."

I'm sure you acknowledge that in especially close races a hand recount is mandatory, so do you think that law should be changed too?

I think it should be reexamined, studied, etc. to come up with the best rules we can come up with. That may include eliminating hand recounts, or expanding them. A hand recount may be more reliable under some circumstances, while it is clearly less so in others.

For example, where the law says that the WILL of the voter is the important determinant, and punch cards are used, we know that overvotes, undervotes, and rejected ballots can be more reliably examined by a human. But this is not necessarily the case for other types of machine-tabulated votes, and certainly is not the case for electronic voting machines, where there is no physical ballot to examine, except that which the machine generates after the fact.

My argument would be that the first count shouldn't be certified as complete until all votes come in if it is so close that those votes could decide the race.

Right. Pushing the primary back will allow more time for the general, which will allow the deadline for postmarks to be pushed back. Still, this is imperfect, when you are dealing with human beings carrying votes from place to place, including provisional ballots (oops, we found another box under the table!).

Either we should accept the second "precise" and "all-inclusive" count as definitive or we should say it is just as good as the third count & shouldn't give the third count ultimate weight. I'd opt for the later.

Well, the second is for precision, and the third is for uncovering possible anomalies, at the discretion of the parties, who have to pay for it. If they uncover such anomalies, more power to them. I don't have a big problem with this.

And again, if they do uncover anomalies, then of course that count should be given more weight. But maybe we could make it so that specific problems need to be identified in the third count, instead of just doing a retabulation. Which is I think kinda what you were saying.

But they've already done a hand recount?

[stanlpf]

Washington state has adopted new, uniform rules that apply to all 39 counties, defining what is a vote and what is not. Also, the rules now require that all counties check all ballots by hand before they are run through the machines the first time. That's one reason the vote count changed so little between the first and second counts: In effect, we've combined a hand count with a machine count. So why do another recount just by hand when it's already been done and double checked by a machine?

Let's do it better ...

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, for anyone who thinks the little "I voted" receipt they recieved means diddly, it doesn't. There is no way for ANYONE, in any state in our union to verify that their vote was in fact counted, and NO way for anyone to verify that votes were not made up, and so on, and so on.

We need a major FEDERALLY MANDATED VOTING REFORM ACT with complete transparency in the whole process including voter registration, vote casting, tabulation, and accounting and auditing. The end result will inevitably combine computers and the internet, public key encrtyption, AND a paper trail, into a system where EVERYONE can validate their vote (while still absolutely retaining their privacy), where EVERYONE can count the votes (how long does it take a computer to count to a million these days? 2 seconds?), where EVERYONE can verify that no more votes were counted than voters registered, and where blind trust in counts done behind closed doors (whether by machines, by hand, or by aliens from planet zork) is eliminated.

Finally, please remember that paper ballots are not the answer ... otherwise the term "stuffing the ballot box" would never have been invented.

For an interesting study on the beginnings of such a system, and to get an idea of the social changes that would be required, check out

http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~cis/voting/herschberg-t hesis/all.pdf

By this time it's not as simple as counting...

[dan_sdot]

By this time, it is not as simple as counting.
The problem is that there are many ballots that are misused. Maybe provisional ballots wrongly cast, ballots with two votes for the same office, etc.
That is what they want to review.
The better word the recount would be to make new judgement calls. Should this vote count? What about this, it seems like candidate x is more filled out for this office than candidate y (since they are both filled in). Etc.
So, more recounts beyond this point would hand the election over to lawyers. So whichever laywer gives the best arguments wins the election for his candidate.
The recounts need to stop.

Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map

[Anonymous Coward]

Not by my standards he isn't

Nobody is concerned with the standards of a fool. Get a life.