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
(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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, you again pose your ridiculous question. 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.
Since you can't wrap your head around simple statistics
Ha. Just because I don't believe in the numbers you invent out of thin air, that doesn't make me incapable. Rather, it points to the opposite.
What's sad is that you think this is about statistics. This has *nothing to do with statistics.* Statistics -- in this context -- are for drawing conclusions about larger sets of data based on smaller samples. This is about actually counting the larger set of data.
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.
I assume that is a question, despite the lack of interrogatory mark. If so, your question is incomplete: was the law followed, or not? If the law was followed, then the will of the people was followed because the law is the will of the people.
It all depends on why those two votes were excluded and whether that exclusion was in accordance with the previously agreed upon governing laws.
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.
And we never have been. So what? Who seriously argues JFK's election was not the will of the people? Hell, or Sam Reed's, or Maria Cantwell's? OK, there's a few crazies, but most people accept the error, as long as the law was followed. When the law proves inadequate, you fix it for next time.
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.
Ha. You think I don't understand "statistics?"
What about the law behind recounts as it stands have I gotten wrong?
I already told you. You said it assumes no error. You're clearly wrong.
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.
The spread is most likely not statistically significant.
And if this had anything to do with statistics, that would be important.
Show me a law that says the governor will be the one who the people want. There is none.
Well, for people who believe in democracy, that it best represents the will of the people, that is exactly what the law says: that the person with the most votes will be governor. That means the governor will be the person whom the people want. The concepts are synonymous.
Have the source of error for that 219 points of spread that just disappeared been accounted for?
Yes. Some additional ballots were found, some ballots that could not be read were modified. That sort of thing. The sort of thing a hand recount won't do much to improve on, BTW.
Or at least tha third cound would change the spread less than 42 points?!
I am not saying it wouldn't. I am not against a third count, per se. I have strong doubts a hand recount is optimal.
You're the one who hates democracy. You would happily let it die to statistical errors.
There are none. Learn that and then come back, mmmkay?
You don't care about how people really voted. You care that one numer happened to be greater than another.
You're a stupid liar.
But what if we have a situation where candidate B won by a narrow margin--a margin below the (unrecognized legally) statistical error. What if the true will of thepeople was for candidate A to win. How would you know?
You're pretending that I don't want to find out. Why? I've not said one thing that would make anyone think that. Again, you're just making things up. You shouldn't do that.
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.
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.
If we can't count the votes with enough certainty, then decisions can be made by chance. That isn't democracy.
So in your world, a close election means there is no democracy? That's nonsense. That is, it makes no sense. It's irrational.
The error of any count is at least 219 votes.
You're making that up.
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.
The law assumes there will be error, and therefore has plenty of ways to re-check it, multiple times.
I'm not deceptive.
You said something clearly false. You said the spread is "virtually non-existant[sic]." The fact is there is a spread. It does exist.
No--that isn't all that matters. Accuracy in voting also matters.
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your silly statement about "strong opinions." That does not matter in regard to *anything at all.*
Of course you want to count as accurately as possible. Duh.
Wrong. If you aren't sure of 1 in 100,000 votes, how the hell can you say it is significant?
Do you practice pulling fake numbers out of your ass, or does it just come naturally?
But this isn't some definition. It is a legal illusion.
No. Whoever legally wins represents the will of the people, period. There is no illusion. There's only ingrates who hate democracy, like you.
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).
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
Slashdot Mirror
u r dum
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
(1)Seek out all forms of systematic error an extinguish them. Make the first count a complete count--the same as any recount.
... 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.
This is what is done, as much as possible. So you agree with the status quo, nice
(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.
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.
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?
You're an idiot.
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.
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.
If the vote can be trusted completely, there would never be a need for a recount.
... only you avoiding the legitimate and logical question of what if the outcomes change due to these errors.
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
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
I can compute, therefore I am a computer!
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?
Yes, you again pose your ridiculous question. 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.
Since you can't wrap your head around simple statistics
Ha. Just because I don't believe in the numbers you invent out of thin air, that doesn't make me incapable. Rather, it points to the opposite.
What's sad is that you think this is about statistics. This has *nothing to do with statistics.* Statistics -- in this context -- are for drawing conclusions about larger sets of data based on smaller samples. This is about actually counting the larger set of data.
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.
I assume that is a question, despite the lack of interrogatory mark. If so, your question is incomplete: was the law followed, or not? If the law was followed, then the will of the people was followed because the law is the will of the people.
It all depends on why those two votes were excluded and whether that exclusion was in accordance with the previously agreed upon governing laws.
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.
And we never have been. So what? Who seriously argues JFK's election was not the will of the people? Hell, or Sam Reed's, or Maria Cantwell's? OK, there's a few crazies, but most people accept the error, as long as the law was followed. When the law proves inadequate, you fix it for next time.
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.
Ha. You think I don't understand "statistics?"
What about the law behind recounts as it stands have I gotten wrong?
I already told you. You said it assumes no error. You're clearly wrong.
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.
The spread is most likely not statistically significant.
And if this had anything to do with statistics, that would be important.
Show me a law that says the governor will be the one who the people want. There is none.
Well, for people who believe in democracy, that it best represents the will of the people, that is exactly what the law says: that the person with the most votes will be governor. That means the governor will be the person whom the people want. The concepts are synonymous.
Have the source of error for that 219 points of spread that just disappeared been accounted for?
Yes. Some additional ballots were found, some ballots that could not be read were modified. That sort of thing. The sort of thing a hand recount won't do much to improve on, BTW.
Or at least tha third cound would change the spread less than 42 points?!
I am not saying it wouldn't. I am not against a third count, per se. I have strong doubts a hand recount is optimal.
You're the one who hates democracy. You would happily let it die to statistical errors.
There are none. Learn that and then come back, mmmkay?
You don't care about how people really voted. You care that one numer happened to be greater than another.
You're a stupid liar.
But what if we have a situation where candidate B won by a narrow margin--a margin below the (unrecognized legally) statistical error. What if the true will of thepeople was for candidate A to win. How would you know?
You're pretending that I don't want to find out. Why? I've not said one thing that would make anyone think that. Again, you're just making things up. You shouldn't do that.
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?
That is not margin of error. That is actual error (if it is error). It's a completely different concept.
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.
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.
If we can't count the votes with enough certainty, then decisions can be made by chance. That isn't democracy.
So in your world, a close election means there is no democracy? That's nonsense. That is, it makes no sense. It's irrational.
The error of any count is at least 219 votes.
You're making that up.
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.
The law assumes there will be error, and therefore has plenty of ways to re-check it, multiple times.
I'm not deceptive.
You said something clearly false. You said the spread is "virtually non-existant[sic]." The fact is there is a spread. It does exist.
No--that isn't all that matters. Accuracy in voting also matters.
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your silly statement about "strong opinions." That does not matter in regard to *anything at all.*
Of course you want to count as accurately as possible. Duh.
Wrong. If you aren't sure of 1 in 100,000 votes, how the hell can you say it is significant?
Do you practice pulling fake numbers out of your ass, or does it just come naturally?
But this isn't some definition. It is a legal illusion.
No. Whoever legally wins represents the will of the people, period. There is no illusion. There's only ingrates who hate democracy, like you.
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.
Oops. I changed the wording along the way and didn't fix it properly. Remove "never."
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
I really think that elections should have margins of error and something should happen if candidates don't win by at least that much.
.5%, so they had a mandatory recount. This is what happened!
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
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.