Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WA Governor Recount Ends With 42-Vote Difference

Posted by pudge on from the it's-a-sign dept.

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.

15 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. No need for recount by blanne · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  2. Here is what I don't get... by Keebler71 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    1. Re:Here is what I don't get... by CokeBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    2. Re:Here is what I don't get... by burns210 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:Here is what I don't get... by mothlos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:Here is what I don't get... by Alaric42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Here is what I don't get... by pudge · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Here is what I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    7. Re:Here is what I don't get... by b-baggins · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    8. Re:Here is what I don't get... by jonadab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  3. Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  4. Margin of Error by Noksagt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Margin of Error by Noksagt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

  5. Voting on a large scale subject to fraud by jgardn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  6. Re:Tell Michael Mooron to change his electoral map by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.