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:
- Assume there are 60 fewer duplicates.
- Assume 60 signatures were subsequently found in the voter rolls
- 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:
- The measure makes the ballot with
120,519120,591 signatures. The estimated duplicate rate for the entire petition is 0.78%, and the overall rejection rate is 12.42%. - 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%.
- 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.
“R-71 continues on track for failure.”
And fail it should.
No actually the referendum is on track to qualify. You see, this is why it is utterly idiotic to tell people it’s over before it’s over:
R-71 update: ‘Error rate’ changes as process continues
by David Ammons | August 7th, 2009
Confused? So were we when the Referendum 71 webpage posted a signature-rejection rate that was different — lower — than we had been seeing before, and in the daily postings.
So here’s the scoop: 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….
@2 Regardless of whether it’s on track to qualify or fail, this bigot initiative should fail. If, however, it somehow ends up on the ballot, my November vote on R-71 will be a “Hell No!” vote. There’s no place for bigotry in Washington. Anyone who wants to live in that kind of state should move to Idaho.
Roger Rabbit:
If you want to retain the Domestic Partnership law you would want to vote “yes”, not “no”.
@3 Roger, your support is wonderful but if you vote NO in November, you will be voting to rescind the new domestic partnership law. If the referendum qualifies for the ballot, (all signs are it easily could) the question you must answer with your vote is should the new law be APPROVED or rejected? Here are the ballot language and summary:
Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law.
DONATE TO WASHINGTON FAMILIES STANDING TOGETHER !
PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE HANDOUTS AND PLACARDS !
Remember, the way it’s worded you either vote to Approve or Reject, but what you are approving or rejecting is not the bigot’s referendum, but the underlying law. So, to PRESERVE the expanded rights for domestic partnerships you have to APPROVE the referendum.
Yeah, it’s confusing, but just remember that if this ill-thought-out piece of bigot-bait does manage to squeak by the signature verification and make its misbegotten presence on the ballot, we all have to vote APPROVE to keep the bigots from winning.
APPROVE R-17!
@2 One has to wonder who or what this “master checker” is…
If, after only 21.7%, 409 signatures are switched from the invalid to valid category, doesn’t it follow that future signatures are going to continue to make the same change?
If the same trend were to continue, after a full counting that could involve approximately 2000 signatures. Throwing any estimation that Darryl or Goldy have made completely out of whack.
Anyone know how many people signing more than once can be expected on about 138,000 signatures?
Never count your chickens before they shit.
If the SoS had any sense, they’d report three figures:
a) The number of completely processed valid signatures
b) The number of definitively invalid signatures
c) The number of partially processed signatures pending validation
It would be helpful to break down the last category by the type of validation processing, i.e. “duplicate check”, “awaiting signature card from county”, etc. But that’s not really necessary.
Each report could then give us updates for each of the three groups. They could subdivide each group’s change from the previous report:
Valid = [previous Valid count] + [newly examined and valid] + [formerly pending, now valid]
Invalid = [previous Invalid count] + [newly examined and invalid] + [formerly pending, now invalid]
Pending = [previous Pending count] + [newly examined and pending] – {[formerly pending, now valid] + [formerly pending, now invalid]}
Goldy–
Why not just wait until they finish counting??
I’m just sayin’———-
You are tormenting yourself to the point even I feel sorry for you!
@10 That would be nice. I’m cutting them some slack since this is apparently the first time they’ve made daily public reports like this during the validation process. It’s a tall order to create a new daily reporting system while you’re doing the work of the actual signature checking. Hopefully by the time this referendum has been checked they’ll have the bugs worked out of the reporting system and it’ll go more smoothly next time around.
Mr. Cynical,
Goldy didn’t write this post.
“Why not just wait until they finish counting??
I’m just sayin’———-“
Suit yourself.
“You are tormenting yourself…”
Are you fucking kidding me?
oh, I forgot Darryl..
you are the only one soooo bored & stupid as to continue on with this nonsense.
What is your point Darryl?
They have to try to validate sigs.
When they reject a sig, it is prudent to go back and take a 2nd look.
You are tied up in knots Darryl.
Guess you love it…for whatever good it does.
N in Seattle @ 10,
I agree completely. Hopefully they will correct for this “episode” by being fully transparent and releasing correctly classified numbers in the future.
Past numbers would be nice, too.
Mr. Cynical,
“oh, I forgot Darryl..”
Forgetfulness an early warning sign, Mr. C…
“you are the only one soooo bored & stupid as to continue on with this nonsense.”
Could be…
“What is your point Darryl?”
My point is primarily to provide an accurate projection of the final number of valid signatures.
“They have to try to validate sigs.”
No shit, Sherlock!
“When they reject a sig, it is prudent to go back and take a 2nd look.”
Perhaps so…but they should make clear that, what they are calling “rejected signatures” haven’t been rejected. Furthermore, they should release the numbers that have been rejected at both phases.
“You are tied up in knots Darryl.
Guess you love it…for whatever good it does.”
LOL…Cynical. Am I loving it AND tied up in knots. Perhaps a small case of projection?
Darryl–
I’m doin’ fine myself.
Just funnin’ with you Darryl.
I suspect your daily physical masterbation session has concluded and out of sheer boredom you turn to this.
Darryl,
Is that a typo, or new math? My old math makes 120,519 < 120,577. Should that be 120,591?
The second update here cheers me a bit, because if those calculations bear out, the referendum would fail to qualify in all three scenarios. They need 120,577 to qualify, and the first calculation came to 120,519. That’s one hell of a squeaker, and we’d probably spend some time in court, but it’s better than it might have been.
Not counting any chickens here, and in fact, I’ve been quite glum for hours now, but maybe we’ll avoid a ballot fight, after all.
And I, for one, thank you for doing the wonky calculation thing.
Don Joe,
“Is that a typo, or new math? My old math makes 120,519 < 120,577. Should that be 120,591?”
Yep…in my haste, I transposed the last two digits.
brie @ 19,
The measure goes to the ballot under scenario 1.
But a duplicate rate under one percent seems most unlikely to me. On the other hand, I haven’t watched very many referenda, and there are good reasons to believe initiative duplicate rates would be higher.
That’s just what this caper needed … more suspense!
I just wish the same scrutiny would apply in our regular elections. Rossi would be a two term Governor and our State would be in much better shape.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
@23 Rossi lost. Twice. It wasn’t even close the second time. Get over it, kindergartner.
@17 Were you jerking off a goat when you wrote this?
@5 Thanks for the clarification. I’ll keep my eye on that. Hell, I’ll keep BOTH of my eyes on it and my butthole, too!