Of course, I don’t expect my righty readers to really give a shit about my election contest analysis; this is after all, an admittedly liberal blog, so a degree of skepticism is warranted. But to totally dismiss my analysis in favor of the partisan cheerleading over at (u)SP, is bound to intensify their disappointment when the final ruling comes down.
And so as a service to my friends on the other side of the ideological divide, I point you towards an editorial in today’s Seattle Times: “The heavy burden for Republicans.” Whatever you might think of the rest of the paper, this is a conservative editorial board that wholeheartedly endorsed Dino Rossi for governor. And so perhaps some might find their reservations about “proportional deduction” a bit more credible than mine.
So Republicans will bring in experts who will use math to describe likely voting patterns.
Likely is an important word. The math makes sense in an academic debate. But listen carefully. The experts speak in terms such as “likely” or “most likely,” or “estimate” or “infer.”
The math can be solid and the conclusion all wet. Bridges must be careful before allowing a dry statistical formula to overturn an election. Invalidating an election surrounded by uncertainty should be done only if a new approach provides greater certainty. Proportional analysis raises as many questions as it answers.
How do we know felons vote like the rest of voters in a given precinct?
Felons tend to be male; men vote differently than women. National studies show felons tend to be minorities and from low-income backgrounds who vote Democratic. Are minorities as big a share of the Washington state felon population as they are nationwide?
Another unknown: Gregoire, as former state attorney general, was the state’s top law-enforcement officer. How did that affect voting preferences of felons and other illegal voters?
This is not partisan Goldy raising these questions, but Frank Blethen’s hand-picked editorial board. So if you want to shoot the messenger, you better stop by Wal-Mart and load up on some ammunition.
Ha! Ha! Ha! I’m first! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! SeattleTimes is Marxist! Ha!
Ha! Burn Logan and Sims at the stake Ha!
Ha! Nothing will keep us from the precious! Ha! Ha!
Goldy–
It all comes back to the definition of the word “appears” doesn’t it Goldy. “APPEARS” does not imply absolute.
Statistical analysis is nothing more than a series of underlying assumptions applied to data.
The arguments will be made about both the data and the underlying assumptions. Ultimately, the Judge will have to decide on definitions of both. The formula that meets the Judge’s definition of APPEARS is applied the the DATA that meets the Judge’s definition of APPEARS. Get it?
Setting a high standard for both DATA and STATISTICAL FORMULA is good for the Republicans in many ways.
1) It will make it virtually impossible for either Party to prevail in a Supreme Court appeal…but that’s especially a problem for the Dem’s with a Left-leaning State Supreme Court.
2) Today is the deadline for evidence submission (data). Watch for the Dem’s to try and get an extension of time. They will say 4 months was not enough time. I believe the Judge will say time is up. Huge problem here for the Dems. They started way, way too late on this felon chasing (kind of like the R’s waited too long on the provisional ballot issue…remember?). The Dems lists are highly flawed. There is a huge learning curve on how to identify felons, hatch to voter lists and research things like right’s restored. Had the Dem’s started a few month’s early, their data would be much better. Would it be enough?? Maybe..maybe not. But the Judge set the timetable. Today is the deadline. Sorting thru this will be interesting….and mighty embarrassing for the Dems come May 23rd.
Goldy, you are also missing a couple other major avenues in this contest that are far from dead for the R’s.
Prognostication??
Too early to tell…until the Dems data has been validated/invalidated. I definitely believe the Judge will allow some precindt proportional analysis method to be applied to the data. Once illegal votes are co-mingled with legal votes they cannot be specifically identified. The Court must allow some sort of relief when this happens…otherwise someone could stuff the ballotbox with illegal votes and their is nothing that can be done??? Not likely.
“Appears” can work against the GOP as well. So long as the democrats can show the Republicans missed a significant number of felons from Rossi leaning districts, the GOP’s proportional analysis becomes flawed. The math and the theory behind it could be solid, but the court will not be able to accept that the data it is applied to is reliable or comprehensive. If you take only felons from Gregoire districts and apply the formula, the resulting numbers might change the result. But since it is known that the data it was applied to was not representative, the Court could not say it “appears” Rossi wold have won. If it is apparent that the GOP has missed significant numbers of illegal votes, predominantly from Rossi areas, the analysis loses its validity, no matter how good the theory behind it is.
Wayne–
You seem hung up on making it the Republican’s responsibility in an election contest to identify 100% of all felon’s statewide to prevail. I believe you are wrong. Why in the world do you think the Dems dropped everything recently and began frantically screening Rossi precindt’s??? I think the Judge will take whatever hard evidence proves are illegal votes and apply a by precindt proportional analysis formula.
Wayne, the Dems have basically insulated the R’s from your argument by their actions. The Judge will apply the formula to the Dem’s PROVEN ILLEGAL VOTES too. If the Dems didn’t find them all or did a horrible job of compiling them….who’s fault is that Wayne??? The Dems have legally intervened in this election contest. They are a player.
It’s like you are saying the Dems and R’s are playing in the World Series….but the Dems are all blind so the R’s have to throw, catch and run for the Dems too.
THIS IS A LEGAL ELECTION CONTEST WAYNE!!!!
Rather than sitting on your ass blabbing on Blogs, you should have been helping the Dems with HARD EVIDENCE WAYNE!!
Now it’s too late Wayne!
Goldy,
Times is far left, hardly a barometer of the truth or the center
righton–
The Times Editorial staff is pretty LEFT.
But they have 2 reporters (Postman & Ervin) who have done a pretty good job so far…
as opposed to the HorsesTass (errrr….Seattle P-I) and Mr. Shitferbrains Gregory Roberts….
well, in all fairness I don’t know what Roberts actually writes.
I have heard his LEFTIST Editors have done some real hatchet-jobs on Roberts stuff.
Mr..
I think Postman talks nice, but writes left… I don’t see him coming up with much news. He reports from the trial, ran a couple of items, but when did he dig into the records, or grill the players at KC? He seems more a political recorder, than an investigative reporter.
I’m shocked Goldy, you actually did some real reporting instead of just lashing out with ad-hominem and profanity. Congratulations.
I agree, that there are issues with the proportional argument, but there’s issues with a lot of what happened in this election. It may or may not be possible to overturn the election based on the totality of information gathered for the trial.
Either way, the cat is out of the bag regarding the incompetence that made Gregoire’s victory possible. In the long run, this will be factored in, even if not in overturning the election.
It’s pay now, or pay later.
The Times editorial board may (OK, does) have more credibility than Goldy, but they still don’t get it right about what the GOP and Shark are trying to put over on us — their “proportional analysis”, aka “ecological fallacy”, is not credible statistical science in any way.
Their mumbo-jumbo doesn’t make sense in an academic debate. While their arithmetic may be accurate, that is of no import when its underpinnings are unjustified, unjustifiable, and without scientific merit.
It’s just another example of an Excel user demonstrating that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Just about everyone with a computer knows HOW to write formulas in spreadsheet cells, but that doesn’t ensure that they know WHY a particular set of formulas should be used, and why others shouldn’t.
Mr. Cynical, I think you missed the point about what the felons who voted in R precincts are about. The Dems don’t have to prove they won the election or prove they would win in a statistical contest. They merely have to demonstrate that the Rep’s statistical model doesnt work. And if they can show that the Rep’s statistical model is ignoring a significant portion of the state they have done exactly that.
Without their model, the Reps can not make a case that they have won or would have won. You are correct this is a legal case not a PR campaign, so they really have to meet the burden of proof and demonstrate that they won. Which they never will do if they cherry pick their data, and ignoring felon voting in R precincts is cherry picking data.
It’s pay now, or pay later.
I doubt it. Whatever you think of the election, Gregoire wasn’t responsible. In 2008, if she runs for re-election, most folks are going to vote based on how they perceive she did in office. By “most folks”, I mean everyone except those capable of holding a grudge about the election for four years, and those people were never going to vote Dem anyway so it’s no loss to the Democratic cause.
As for Dino, if he’s still around, for all but the true believers he’s just going to be the schmuck who blew millions of dollars making fantastic claims that turned out to be baseless — all because he couldn’t accept his loss. Wingnuts will still sing his praises, but that will help him about as much as it help Ellen Craswell.
Bill @10,
You make an excellent point. Part of the reason that Democrats cherry-picked felon votes in pro-Rossi precincts was not just to counter the R’s felons in pro-Gregoire precincts, but to clearly illustrate the fact that the R’s were cherry-picking all along. In fact, all the counties had pretty much the same policy towards purging felons, and thus felon votes should be as evenly distributed throughout the state as the felons themselves. The judge will consider this in making his ruling.
Of course, I can only speak for myself on this….
My complaint with this past election was never limited to just the issues of the felons who voted for or against Gregoire/Rossi.
I feel that limiting the argument of, if this were a valid election, to just this one tallking point does not due justice to the voters in this state.
The argument I have found that has credibility is that the election process is so screwed up that no-one knows who one this election. Certainly, to elect a candidate for winning by 40, 60 or 129 votes with so many questions out there is just asinine.
Obviously, my opinions are certainly fuelded with the fact that I just dispise Gregoire.
Unfortunately, what reform could have been gained by this court case has been lost to Legal BS and no matter what the outcome of this courtcase, I will never look at this Governor as being a legitimate one, not will I ever respect the voting process in Washington State.
Cynical,
Has the thought occurred to you, that perhaps the Dems outplayed the R’s on the felon vote? That the R’s produced their list, and their preferred statistical analysis first, giving the Dems the luxury of targeting the analysis at its weakest points, looking for felons in the precincts that would most undermine the R’s model?
You’re not living up to your name.
I would also like to reiterate what Erik has been trying to explain for some time now… under the R’s statistical model, the D’s don’t have to come up with nearly as many felons the R’s to offset their votes, because pro-Rossi precincts tend to be more heavily pro-Rossi than pro-Gregoire precincts are pro-Gregoire.
I may be a “pinhead,” but the D’s attorneys are not.
chew2,
The “statistics” used by the Republican experts Katz and Gill barely qualifies as such involving only simple addition, multiplication, and division. Gill appears to have little or no statistical training, but then his report only involved multiplication and percentages. They both assume what they are supposed to show, i.e. how a felon likely voted. They assume that a felon would vote similarly to those living nearby. They offer no evidence or studies to support this in their written reports, they merely assume it. So far it appears they assume that all the illegal votes were a random draw from the precinct pool, but offer no arguments or data to support this assumption. I had expected more in their written reports. Perhaps they will do so in their oral testimony.
Katz probably could have estimated the likelihood of the male vote for Gregoire or Rossi, using ecological regression techniques which I don’t fully understand and using the precinct voting data, but he didn’t. I wonder why? He implies in his written report that in principal it is possible to estimate the illegal voter propensity to vote for Gregoire, but that he didn’t do so because the “sample was too small”. He therefore assumed that it was identical to that of the legal voters in the precinct. I wonder if the Democratic statistical experts will do so.
I recall some good statistical commentary by “dj” and “richard pope”. Can you guys comment on ecological estimation? Apparently its possible to estimate by special regression methods how blacks or men or woman vote, if you know the racial or sex breakdown of the precincts and the total vote for the precincts.
scottd @ 11,
True to some extent. I belive the pent up frustration will be directed more at the party as a whole and less at Gregoire. However, Gregoire also very clearly stated in her campaign that she would not raise taxes, and then she went ahead and did so.
And more importantly, Gregoire is not charismatic. She does not evoke a sense of leadership and trust with Washingtonians as a whole. She has generally kept a low profile. This does not resonate well with the electorate as a whole. It was great for an AG, and it was also great for the below-the-radar kind of rise that makes for good gubernatorial candidates, but it’s not going to win her a second term.
There’s also the tendency for Americans to root for the underdog. If Washingtonians perceive Rossi as being wronged, even if it was just systemic failure, they will have a soft spot for him in the future.
That’s my biggest beef with this site and it’s commenters. There’s very little acknowledgement of two key points about this past election:
1. There were systemic errors that most likely swayed the election, but the accounting was so poor, now we can’t even double check those areas of the election.
2. Many of those errors were known about before certification and should have been acknowledged.
It may indeed be impossible to change the outcome now within our limited law, but there should be outrage on all sides in both a poor system, very shoddy procedures, and the lack of *timely* *early* acknowledgment of the problems by those directly involved.
Good process does not cost money. All one has to do is look at the batch slips to see that the election was handled by idiots with less organizational skill than the average capable office manager. Good filing, documentation, accounting, etc. are all basic principles of business that were almost totally ignored in King County.
And I don’t buy the volunteer argument. I run a lot of road races where teams have strict volunteer requirements and process is important. The race directors hold meetings with all of the volunteers to educate them on the important concepts. We’ve been holding elections in Washington for more than 100 years. The basic processes and communication should be routine. There should be far fewer mistakes, and a scribled batch slip with several cross outs should be unthinkable.
Goldy,
Wonder why we’re all so cynical? Gotta depend on Dem lawyers outsmarting GOP lawyers…, zero independent review of the election, near zero media investigation. Shouldn’t we strive for the truth, not get bogged down in proportional analysis, chads, provisionals, dem counties, gop counties, etc.
Oh, yeah, i think the dude w/ the earing will give this one to the Dems, and 6 months later the Supremes will back him up (whadya expect in a dem state)
Goldy @ 14
What is your source for the following statement? Are you referring to precinct data or county data?
“because pro-Rossi precincts tend to be more heavily pro-Rossi than pro-Gregoire precincts are pro-Gregoire.”
righton says “yeah, i think the dude w/ the earing will give this one to the Dems, and 6 months later the Supremes will back him up (whadya expect in a dem state).”
This is more preparation for defeat, of course.
But it’s also kind of extraordinary in its wrongness, isn’t it?
1. Bridges, a Republican in a Republican part of the state, was initially HAILED on uSP as an antidote to supposed leftist bias. A good number uSP folks even trumpeted the idea that he would be biased toward their side. Oh, and Repubs like to argue too that at least half of the population of this state and the country (ie, those Democrats or Democratic voters) are corrupt and will do anything to win, but that Repubs have the corner on fairness and virtue. Now that one of their own decides some issues against them, he’s no longer acceptable or fair — he must be part of the great left wing conspiracy! The evidence reported so far: it has apparently been suddenly discovered by Repubs after months of review of documents, televised hearings, and photographs that yes, Judge Bridges does in fact…..wear an earring. (That, and the fact that he sometimes decides issues their way and sometimes doesn’t. Obviously, this guy’s the Dems’ tool!)
2. The other part of the nasty left-wing cabal is, of course, the state Supreme Court. They are clever, those justices. Notice how they cloaked their obvious bias for Gregoire and Dems by deciding the first election lawsuit 9-0 FOR ROSSI. Clever. With that, no one would suspect that the 9-0 ruling for Gregoire a week later was, in fact, a crowning achievement of the state’s left wing conspiracy. Man, are we good or what?
And to think that we got Sanders and the other supposed right-wingers on the court to go with us……brilliant. Yep, righton, Sanders is secretly a great fan of Gregoire’s — despite the fact that he’s on record as thinking Gregoire’s AG office did him a heinous wrong and cost him tens of thousands of dollars by electing not to defend him against ethics charges. He even publicly considered recusing himself because of possible bias or appearance of bias against Gregoire resulting from that. Great smokescreen, eh?
righton, you’re brilliant to see through our schemes and figure out that we’ve got this whole thing wired through Bridges and the Supreme Court. Keep up the good work.
JeffB @ 16: Good response, but I think part of it makes my point. If Gregoire loses in 2008 due to the gas tax and other executive actions, then it’s due to the fact voters don’t approve of her actions, not payback for flaws in the 2004 election. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but that’s a different argument :-)
I will agree that there’s a lot that can be improved in the election process, but I don’t think that’s restricted to King County. The two biggest issues in the election challenge are felon voters and improperly processed provisional ballots. We’ve seen that those are not problems unique to KingCo, and we’ve seen substantive steps taken to fix those problems in later elections.
As for your comments on sloppy batch slips and other accounting documents — I mostly agree. I just don’t think they affected the election outcome and I also doubt that KingCo is alone with this problem. Furthermore, I think this kind of carelessness builds up over years, so I don’t think it’s Logan’s fault. Someone needs to instill a greater sense of professionalism in those workers. I don’t know if Logan is up to the job, but I also don’t think he’s had much of a chance so far. I think his time in office up to Nov 2004 was focused on fixing other problems.
Bluebeard: It’s not about fairness, due process, rule of law, evidence, or any of that stuff. It’s about winning — getting your way at any cost. Any process that doesn’t lead to that result is obviously corrupt.
Bill@10–
If you are right, then why have the Dems scoured the Rossi precindts looking for felons????
They claim to have scoured the Rossi precindts Bill and found 544. Don’t you think the Judge will view that as a reasonable effort to cover the whole state??
The Dems were in a predicament. If they ignore the felons and the R’s have enough and the Judge agrees they lose. They would need to “go all in” on your theory that the R’s cherry-picked and therefore their argument is flawed.
They didn’t do that Bill.
Why??
Because they decided your argument may not work ESPECIALLY when the Dems are party to this suit. The Dems had time and chose not to gather felons. Then, in the last month or so, the Dems decided ohno!!!! we goota go.
And they did a half-assed job. However it may be good enough…we will see.
However…this IS NOT the only issue still alive in this election contest Bill.
Goldy–
I’m not denying that the Dems MAY have come up with enough to counter what the R’s have identified. All the evidence will be on the table today and we will see.
All I can tell you is the Dems have included a lot of legitimate voters on their list of felons because it is a complex process that takes a lot of time to figure out how to hone a credible list. The R’s were at it for several months before the Dems figured out they were vulnerable. The Judge will evaluate the evidence on the table as of today. He will decide on an acceptable formula to apply.
Judge Bridges will apply his acceptable formula to the acceptable data and do a simple calculation. Then it is what it is!!!!
Plus Goldy, THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE STILL ON THE TABLE.
Oh and I do want to actually agree with you on your statement that you may be a pinhead!
The Dems attorneys are not pinheads…they just had a very tough call to make and waited too long. I think they underestimated how difficult the felon identification process is.
scottd,
You’re absolutely right. But I think at least some folks like righton might actually believe what they’re saying (I give righton, and most others, at least that much credit). Regardless, when somebody makes a clumsy argument in support of supposed bias, lack of due process, etc. in a situation like this it’s nice to show ’em how wrong they are. Plus, if there’s any chance of convincing any of the rightons of the world, it will only come by showing them why they’re wrong, not by simply responding that they’re only interested in “winning at any cost” — no matter how true that may be.
Isn’t what ulitmately really matters not on what has happened, but on what will happen in November of 2006 in terms of meaningful, reliable election reforms. Playing the rah rah rah, neener neener neener we’re number one, you’re a loser songs in these posts, over and over, rehashing less and less salient points for no real apparent purpose may make some feel somehow superior to others, but it doesn’t help anything at all. We in this state, and in this nation, cannot afford another election cycle in which there are so many “irregularities” that those on the left and right bicker and rant and belittle and insult simply because of the deep and unforgiving frustration of never really knowing for certain.
We need elections that leave all parties willing to acknowledge the one common ground necessary to facilitate a representative democracy–a fair and accurate election in which all votes cast by individual citizens are counted and notated as such. If we do not create such an election system, then all of this rhetoric and sniping and abusing one another is useless and senseless.
Bluebeard and others
OK, I’m lazy on this, you know at work, trying to sneak some blog comments out. Sorry I give you an argument unworthy of your respect.
I think you (or rather the powers that be) could silence about 1/2 of the right wing anger if they simply gave an open, factual accounting for all aspects of the election. Its obvious to all that they muffed this one, and if they could just admit it (not just the brief statements by Logan, but an honest to gosh, “man we screwed up”.
But they won’t do that, and that just feeds the cynicism. I would not bet a paycheck that I’m right on the election being corrupt/bought….but I would bet X paychecks that the number of valid votes in the election has a greater than 1% variation from the votes that KC counts. I think there is ample evidence of a lot of variation, be it from missed ballots, double provisionals, a small number of dead/felons, whatever.
The fundamental flaw in the republican strategy remains the assumption that the felon population votes in the same pattern as the non-felon population. They have demonstrated by their behavior that they act differently.
Hey Republicans: You lost. Get over it.
Hey dems, you lost the first 2. Playoffs aren’t over yet.
Another unknown: Gregoire, as former state attorney general, was the state’s top law-enforcement officer. How did that affect voting preferences of felons and other illegal voters?>>
And which particular law did she “enforce” that might deter the felon vote? Like I said before people that make these outlandish statements really must have crainial rectal removal problems…
Brilliant post, as always, chuckie boy LMAO
Chuck: the disease is called AssFacia. Donnageddon, tj, scottd and dj have that disease.
Gregoire – She was there supporting John Carlson’s 3 Strikes Your Out. NOT Go back and Google and you’ll see she was not for it. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. So you ask you wonder why? She wanted to run for governor someday and she would lose a voting block. I said this three days ago. Glad to see others agree with me.
Pudster
Goldy, If King Co were totally Republican and this election
had Gregiore winning the first two counts and the Republican
election officials let workers take home blank ballots with
them to be filled out as needed, what, eleven times by accident.
Not to mention a dozen or so other irregularities. You would
be okay with that?
and quizzing voters after the election was over (running away though if the voter was a repub)
Goldy
Go ahead and accuse me of being a hack, but I’d bet half the felon voters didn’t even know Gregoire was AG. Which throws your theory out the window.
Who knows, maybe the Republicans can get the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the election. They’ve done it before.
Puddybud@32
She supported 3 strikes? you are delusional….
Chuck, you can show me the quotes now as she saw it pass. But when John Carlson was first promoting it she was dead set against it, as it would overcrowd our prisons with petty criminals. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Try again chuck. Go to the source of the law, Mr. Carlson.
Pudster.
Puddybud@38
I think you are arguing against me but we are on the same side of this….
fuck you all