Today’s batch of R-71 data has been released. The total signatures examined is now 35,262 (about 25.6% of the total).

Today, there were 4,721 invalid signatures found that were rejected on the first pass. Some of these decisions may be reversed by the “Master Checker.” The preliminary invalid signatures include 4,110 that are not found in the voting rolls, 146 duplicates, and 465 that did not match the signature on file. There are also 101 signatures at various states of processing for a missing signature card.

If all 146 duplicates hold, there is a duplicate rate of about 1.56% for the petition. But some of the duplicates may be deemed valid signatures. What we know now is that 31,199 signatures have been accepted and 4063 rejected. We don’t know exactly what category each rejected signature is classified under, but the daily totals give us some idea. (See Dave Ammons post and the comment thread for more details about today’s surprising revelations from the SoS office.)

Using the best numbers available, I’ve run three different scenarios, making different assumptions about invalid and duplicated signatures. The raw numbers suggest 658 previously rejected signatures have been “saved” by the “Master Checker”. In all three scenarios, I first deduct the 465 from the total number of mismatched signatures (Ammons points out this is the most likely way a rejected signature is “saved”). The remaining 193 are deducted from duplicates and signers not found on the voter rolls (“not founds”) as follows:

1. All 146 duplicates are assumed valid (yeah…this is pretty unrealistic), and deduct the remaining 47 from the “not founds”.
2. All 193 come from the “not founds”.
3. I split them, removing 97 from the “not founds” and 96 from the duplicates.

I use the V₂* estimator to find the expected number of valid signatures. Here are the results:

1. There are 121,824 valid signatures giving an excess of 1,247 signatures over the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate is about 11.52%. This is a 0% duplicate rate.
2. Now we expected 119,598 valid signatures, leaving a shortfall of 979 signatures to qualify. The overall rejection rate is about 13.14%. The duplicate rate for the petition of 1.62%.
3. We expect 121,062 valid signatures, giving an excess of 485 signatures. The overall rejection rate is about 12.08%, and the duplicate rate for the petition is 0.55%.

The truth lies somewhere between scenario 2 and 3. As I found earlier today, the fate of R-71 depends almost entirely on the actual number of duplicates found. Until we get the real numbers, both proponents and opponents will be on pins and needles.

Updated twice

The 6th batch of R-71 data was delivered this morning. The SoS office is pooling numbers from the morning and evening counts, but I’ll treat them separately just so that we can look for big swings in the “semi-batches”. Also, the SoS totals don’t seem to match the daily totals today, but what’s a signature-validation watcher to do? I’ll use the daily counts.

The total signatures examined is now 29,937 (about 21.7% of the total). There have been 3,968 invalid signatures found, for an cumulative rejection rate of 13.25%. The invalid signatures include 3,506 that are not found in the voting rolls, 113 duplicates, and 349 that did not match the signature on file. There are also 89 signatures at various states of processing for a missing signature card (by now, some may be good and some rejected–I’ll treat them all as good until I learn otherwise).

The 113 duplicates suggest a duplication rate of about 1.74% in the total petition. Using the V₂* estimator, the number of valid signatures is expected to be 117,049 leaving a shortfall of 3,528 signatures from the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate should be about 14.99%.

Here is a snapshot of the trends:

Still no unexpected deviations as the counting continues. R-71 continues on track for failure.

Updated

Dave Ammons has posted some new information about the signature validation process and the numbers that have been posted by the SoS.

Elections Division has decided that a more accurate cumulative error or rejection rate (currently 11.63 percent) should reflect the sizable number of signatures that have been going from the rejected pile to the accepted stack after a master checker reviews the checker’s decision to reject. That is 409 so far. As previously discussed, also nearly 100 signatures that have been set aside because there was no voter signature on file will be shifted over to the “accepted” stack once the counties send the person’s electronic signature.

In other words, the SoS office wasn’t giving us the number of invalid signatures. What they were giving as “invalid signatures”, were only invalid in a first-stage of checking. A second-stage check has resulted in some signatures being considered valid again. All I can say is unbefuckinglievable!

I’ve already been treating the “missing signature” counts as valid signatures. But without knowing the ACTUAL number of invalid signatures by category, it is difficult to project whether I-71 will make the ballot.

Update 2:

I’ve run three scenarios based on incomplete numbers posted at the SoS site.

We know there were 409 signatures that failed at the first checking phase that were subsequently accepted in phase 2. We don’t know which of the bad batches they came from (signatures not found on voter rolls, duplicate signatures, or signature mismatches) .

If I had to guess, I think the majority came from the signature mismatch pile. But there were only 349 signature mismatches, so we have 60 that were either considered duplicates or not found on the voter rolls. Subsequently, they were considered not duplicates or found on the voter rolls. Both seem equally likely (or unlikely) to me, but I don’t really know what the “Master Checker” does.

So here is what I did. First, I assumed 349 of the 409 came from the signature mismatches. The remaining 60 I dealt with in three ways:

1. Assume there are 60 fewer duplicates.
2. Assume 60 signatures were subsequently found in the voter rolls
3. Assume a 30/30 split between duplicates and “found”

Remember, 120,577 signatures are needed to qualify. Here is what happens using the V₂* estimator:

1. The measure makes the ballot with 120,519 120,591 signatures. The estimated duplicate rate for the entire petition is 0.78%, and the overall rejection rate is 12.42%.
2. The measure fails to make the ballot with 119,375 signatures. The estimated total duplicate rate is 1.66% and the total rejection rate is 13.30%.
3. The measure fails to make the ballot with 119,983 signatures. The estimated total duplicate rate is 1.22% and the total rejection rate is 12.86%.

Obviously, the biggest determinant of R-71’s fate is the number of duplicate signatures in the phase one check that are subsequently accepted in phase two. With any luck the actual number of signatures rejected in each category will be released.

Today was not a good day for R-71 supporters. With the 5th batch of data, the total of signatures examined is now 27,288 (almost 20% complete), with 3,695 invalid signatures found.

The number of duplicates has risen to 90. (Consider that there were only 7 found by the end of the first day, and you can see how the duplicate count snowballs as the sample grows.) Ninety duplicates in a sample of 27,288 reflects a duplicate rate of 1.67% in the total sample.

Using the methods described here, a good estimate of the number of valid signatures is 118,184, a shortfall of 2,393 signatures of the 120,577 needed to qualify the referendum for the ballot. The total rejection rate should be about 14.2%.

Here is the trend since the start of signature verification:

This graph shows the daily estimates of valid signatures (red) and the number needed to qualify (blue). What is most salient here is that the estimate of valid signatures is extremely stable from day-to-day. If the trend continues, R-71 fails.

Starting today, signatures will be checked in two shifts, with an update in the morning and the afternoon.

The full numbers from Wednesday’s counts were released this morning by the Secretary of State’s (SoS) office. They’ve driven another nail in the coffin of R-71.

A total of 23,457 signatures have been checks, which is 17% of the total. Overall 3,054 invalid signatures have been found and eliminated, including 68 duplicates, 2,764 individuals not on the voting rolls, 221 signature mismatches, and 69 signatures for which the corresponding signature is missing.

The cumulative error rate is 13.3%, if the signatures with missing signature cards (hereafter “missing”) are thrown out, or 13.0% if the missing signatures are fully counted. As Goldy has explained, the cumulative error rate for the sample is misleadingly low. This is because duplicates are exponentially underrepresented as the sample size goes down.

Given the number of duplicates found in this sample, the best estimate is that is about 1.7% of signatures are duplicates on the petition. That gives an estimated total rejection rate of 14.7% (treating all “missing” signatures as valid). A rejection rate over 12.4% keeps R-71 off the ballot.

Rather than focus on percentages, we can use the number of good and bad signatures to estimate the expected number of valid signatures. This figure shows the daily estimated number of valid signatures on the petition (red line) and the number of signatures required (blue line) for the measure to make the ballot:

These estimates are conservative because I am assuming all “missing” signatures will be treated as valid. (I’ve changed my methods a bit since yesterday—a journey through the methodological details begins below the fold).

The important things to notice here are:

• The estimates are stable rather than bouncing around from day to day. This means that there is little evidence for non-sampling error. Such errors can arise if batches of petitions showed widely different error rates (more generally, from non-independence among signatures on petitions and in batches of petitions).
• The 95% confidence intervals are now so small that sampling error is no longer relevant. If God plays dice, she clearly doesn’t want R-71 on the ballot.

The trends, so far, indicate that, short of a miracle, this measure will not qualify for the ballot.

At this point, I am going to totally geek-out and discuss methodological stuff. If you’re interested, venture below the fold.

[Read more…]

Imagine ten years ago as Bill Clinton was approaching the end of his second term as President. Whodathunk that ten years hence, Hollywood superhero Arnold Schwarzenegger would become an emasculated politician, and Bill Clinton would become a real-life superhero:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv7pIBMYGfw[/youtube]

Join us tonight at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

We may have a little entertainment with discussions about the history of Kenya this evening. Or, perhaps, we should be looking at Australia?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqodzZ4Ssg[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 335 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to get lost at.

Bill Maher on Birfers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmtEecwdgPc[/youtube]

(And there are almost 70 other clips from the past week in politics at Hominid Views.)

The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the quasi-Birthers who suggest that “anti-Birthers” are the real conspiracy theorists by refusing to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate. Those are the double-nutburgers, soaring in the outer reaches of the solar system.

What’s next…calling the moon-landing “believers” conspiracy theorists for not calling on Obama to investigate the “faked” moon landings. You know…just to put the whole faked moon landing thing to rest. (As if any such investigation could do any such thing.)

“But, but, but, but ALL Obama has to do is release the long-form birth certificate,” I hear Mr. Joseph and Lou Dobbs protest. The statement simply dismisses the fact that Obama has released a birth certificate that is fully valid for all legal purposes.

The “long form” birth certificate offers more information about the medical circumstances of the birth, but adds nothing relevant to any legal question of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen. I mean, seriously, Obama’s citizenship is neither strengthened nor falsified by the physican’s name or the start date of his mother’s last menstrual period prior to the birth. The constitution does not specify a minimum birth weight or crown-heel length to hold the office of the President. All the information required to establish citizenship is on the “short form” birth certificate that was released by Obama.

Let me say it again: eligibility to be President is a legal issue. All legal questions about Obama’s eligibility are fully addressed by the birth certificate that Obama has provided. Nothing is left to “faith” or “belief”. People calling for the long-form certificate are either (1) unaware of the legal issues or are (2) basing their calls on irrational, emotional needs, not legal ones.

But, according to Mr. Joseph, I’m the conspiracy theorist because I don’t buy into the (1) ignorance or (2) emotional angst. Whatever, dude!

And now I want to take this post in another direction. Joseph and many birfers suffer from fundamentally misunderstanding birth certificates. I find the misunderstanding both ignorant and annoying. For example, Joseph states:

Release the original [birth certificate] and let’s be done with this madness.
[…]

During the last campaign, John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original birth certificate.

Both of these statements are incorrect. Obama cannot release his “original birth certificate” and McCain did not release his “original birth certificate”. Both Obama and McCain released certified copies of their birth records. The “original birth certificate” is a document that is possessed by the legal entity responsible for maintaining vital records (typically a Registrar of Vital Statistics). All “birth certificates” that we possess aren’t birth certificates. Rather, they are certified reproductions of the birth certificate or certified copies of the information contained in the original birth certificate.

For example, I was born in Santa Maria, CA, just a month and a few days before Obama’s birth. My parents were originally given a Notification of Birth Registration. This only showed that the “Certificate of Birth” had been legally filed. It states, “a certified copy of the birth certificate may be obtained from your Local Registrar of Vital Statistics”

I have what is probably the first certified copy of my birth certificate. It cost my father $2.00–he paid by check about two months after my birth. The document has white print on black background, and is a photographic reproduction of the original (possibly duplicated from microfilm). There is a piece of paper attached to the reproduction that says, “This is to certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the vital record which is on file in this office and of which I am the legal custodian.” It is signed and sealed by the Santa Barbara county health officer.

Let’s call this the “long form” certified copy of my birth certificate.

I also have a later certified copy of my birth certificate that was issued in 1992. This one is printed on fancy certificate paper with a blue engraved border and a red serial number. The document is titled, “Certification of Vital Record, Santa Barbara County.” In the middle of this very beautiful form is an ugly photographic copy of some of the birth certificate, this time black printing on a white background. The 1992 certified copy is missing a bunch of information that was found in the 1961 version, like my mother’s birth history, length of gestation, my mother’s last menstrual period, my birth weight, my length at birth, when prenatal care began, check-boxes to denote any congenital anomalies, injuries, complications of deliveries, “operation for delivery,” etc.

Huh…so that makes the 1992 certificate a “medium form” certified copy of my birth certificate. I wonder if birfers would accept a similarly abbreviated image for Obama? (I can only imagine: “Only God and Obama have no known weights or lengths at birth.”)

While I haven’t ordered a recent certified copy of my birth certificate, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to receive something without the image, but with the relevant legal information printed out. This is because some jurisdictions computerized their vital records, and did so in an era were computer data storage was expensive. Rather than scanning all original birth, death, marriage, divorce, etc. certificates as images (leading to big storage issues), they entered the relevant legal information into the computer as text. From there a certified vital record could simply be printed, which is is much easier than pulling out the microfilm, slogging through it to find the proper record, and then printing the record onto the certification form. Whence the modern “short form.”

But legally, all three forms—short, medium or long—provide the information necessary to establish citizenship.

Does the heat have you feeling disorderly or acting stupidly? Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence, where the lion will have a refreshing beer with the lamb.

This little taste of beer diplomacy takes place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. tonight beginning at 8:00 pm. Or stop by earlier for dinner.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRs28aO-mYs[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 335 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

The panel is joined by Mike Lux of Open Left to discuss his new book The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came To Be. Some introspection about bloggers, journalists, and progressive politics happens.

Next, the panel collectively holds their nose and looks at the “situation” in California. Has Prop 13 lived up to its promise? What does the California situation tell us about the future in other states with pending TABOR-like legislation? Would a successful I-1033 turn Washington state into a dysfunctional disaster, à la California?

The conversation turns to pork. And how did your state’s Senators vote on the F-22s that both Obama and the Military didn’t want? At least we received money for ferry system infrastructure. Speaking of transportation infrastructure, Seattle’s light rail service started this week. Will people ride it and actually enjoy it? Or is there a telling (one-day) trend toward low ridership?

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Mike Lux of Open Left, and Effin’ Unsound’s & Horsesass’s Carl Ballard

The show is 48:41, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_jul_21_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

Join us tonight at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

Author Mike Lux will stop by Drinking Liberally tonight (around 8:30) to discuss his new book The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came To Be.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n0AqdxstI0[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 332 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to get lost at.

Apparently, the Party of ‘No’ is also the Party of ‘Doesn’t Know’:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUu-_QOOoO4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFH390hvKAI[/youtube]

Yeah…I mean, why bother “doing policy” when you don’t believe in government?

Join us tonight at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

Tonight’s crowd will, no doubt, be filled with wisdom and empathy.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KDExqKZBIU[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 332 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to get lost at.

Here is a quick introduction to Republican-inspired neologisms:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRdzRF97NlE[/youtube]

(And there are nearly 70 more media clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)

The podcast makes another surprise return from its summer vacation, giving Goldy and his panel of bloggers a chance to attack the political issues of our day over beer and nachos. The panel takes delight in the splendidly bewildering surrender of Gov. Sarah Palin. After a brief sojourn into rumors about imminent indictments, the panel delves into the big question of whether Palin has spoiled herself politically.

[14:01] It was a big day as Senator Elect Al Franken shortened his title to just Senator Al Franken. Goldy finds in this great hope for foul-mouthed politicos everywhere. The panel wonders when the sobered former satirist will again be able to get his humor back on.

[24:01] Finally, the panel examines Initiative 1033 that would limit future state spending to inflation plus population growth. Two major flaws of the initiative are discussed—the downward ratchet from economic dips and use of the wrong inflation index. If passed, will I-1033 cause Washington State to follow in the dreadful fiscal footsteps of California? A raucous debate ensues over whether angry scare tactics are the right approach for fighting the initiative.

Goldy was joined by Group News Blog publisher Jesse Wendel, Peace Tree Farm’s N in Seattle, and Horses Ass’ Will Kelly-Kamp.

The show is 47:04, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_jul_7_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]