I started blogging in May of 2004, and within my first two weeks I had already been driven near the point of aneurism by our local media’s refusal to do simple math. Far from a recent obsession, my focus on numbers and the failure of the press to consistently present them accurately and in proper context, has actually been a recurring theme here on HA since the early days of the blog.
Yes, it’s true that even accurate numbers can mislead (“lies, damn lies and statistics” and all that), and so it’s not always easy to separate the truth from the facts. But what frustrates me most is when journalists simply regurgitate the numbers fed them, without ever bothering to run the equations for themselves.
That’s what happened with the early reports on R-71 signature verification, creating a false impression that the invalidation rate started off low—well below the maximum error threshold—only to rise steadily as the count continued. As a result there are some R-71 backers who now suspect foul play on the part of the Secretary of State’s office, accusing them of toughening up the standards in an effort to keep the measure off the ballot, when in fact the projected invalidation rate, from the very first batch, has consistently remained in the 14.5 to 15 percent range, well above (statistically speaking) the 12.43 percent maximum.
Yes, I know, it was the SOS who initially reported a “clean” count, and who misleadingly juxtaposed the early raw rate against a supposedly 14 percent cushion. But those numbers simply didn’t add up if you took the time to add, subtract, multiply and divide them, and even when I did the math for them, and showed my work, I was mostly ignored by reporters who obviously assumed the SOS had more credibility on these matters than some partisan blogger.
No, I’m not a statistician, and my formal math education never extended much beyond Algebra II & Trigonometry, but I know how to use a calculator and I have some experience with the process stemming from the drama over Tim Eyman’s I-917, and I knew that duplicate signatures always comprise a significant portion of the total errors, and that the number of duplicates always increase at a predictable rate as the sample size is expanded. I also knew that total invalidation rates never fall outside a certain historical range, and that there was absolutely no reason to expect R-71 to do so. These facts were indisputable.
Darryl could run simulations showing a 92 percent chance of R-71 failing to qualify after the first batch, and a near 100 percent chance of failing thereafter, but I didn’t need a PhD in statistics to know what I knew. R-71’s failure was apparent from the very first batch, even if HA was the only site to report it. Okay, maybe my intuition, my expertise and my math wasn’t enough to convince newspapers to write headlines declaring R-71’s failure, but it should have been enough discourage writing headlines and ledes implying the opposite.
While my complaints may come off as petty bitching at least, or gloating at worst, as I’ve written before, numbers do matter, and especially when it comes to elections. Since the excruciatingly close gubernatorial election of 2004, and the highly contentious dispute that followed, public faith in the integrity of our electoral process has been undermined by hyperbolic, selective and downright erroneous reporting. And unfortunately, misleading reports like those we’ve seen regarding R-71, do absolutely nothing to restore public confidence.
It is ironic that a press corps that is often so cynical of government and the words and actions of government officials, can at the same time be so credulous when it comes to the numbers these government officials feed them. And it is an unfortunate disservice to the public as well.
“some R-71 backers who now suspect foul play on the part of the Secretary of State’s office”
Of course, it means nothing to the tinfoil hat crowd that the SoS is a Republican who endorsed the Dino-Wuz-Robbed conspiracy theories by appearing on a stage with other GOP partisans during the height of the ’04 recount. To them, if I-71 fails, it must be because the partisan Republican in charge of counting the signatures isn’t partisan enough.
Number DO matter – and I’m scratching my head over the latest updates on the new R 71 stats page on the SOS website. The numbers at the top – which appear to be the most current, according to the SOS — don’t bear any relation to the daily stats below.
By their current numbers up top, the invalid sig rate is 11.63%, but the numbers checked, accepted, and rejected don’t match the totals below – where even if they’ve found sigs at the county level for most of the missing ones, they should still be over 13% invalid.
What’s going on over there?
But… The Church of Jesus the Homophobe has already named you as the cause of the failure.
You’re doomed!
I told you previously I thought you were right.
What is probably raising the % of rejects is double-signers…or triple-signers.
The more sigs they review, the more chance for a double-signer. I think that was the essence of your point Goldy.
However, I fail to see the “damage” done.
If anything, it damages the credibility of sig gatherers.
Petty whining Goldy? Yup.
“it is an unfortunate disservice to the public as well”
Frankly, I’m not going to miss the legacy print media. They’ve outlived their usefulness — if they ever had any to start with.
Imagine how history might have been different if Germany had an objective and competent news media in the 20s and 30s capable of recognizing ex-Corporal Hitler and his little band of misfits for what they actually were, and had shone a bright light on those cockroaches before they got out of hand.
I see in the news this morning that two townhall meetings, in Pennsylvania and Florida, held by Democratic congresspeople degenerated into scuffling and chaos after being stormed by Republican rioters. This doesn’t happen at Republican congress critters’ townhalls; does anyone see a pattern here? These riots obviously are staged. Yet, the legacy media is still waffling about whether these riots are the spontaneous actions of ad hoc mobs or an organized assault on democracy. Why are they diddling when the truth is plain as the shining sun is bright?
Apparently the folks running the news biz still feel they have some sort of “obligation” to adhere to the “he said/she said” mode of journalism, even when truth is punching them on the nose. This is exactly the hands-off, we’re-not-gonna-take-sides, kind of non-reporting that put Hitler’s nascent Nazi party on the upward road to power.
In short, the traditional media are failing the American people miserably, and it’s now up to bloggers like Goldy and liberal propagandists like Roger Rabbit to save the world from American Nazism. It’s time for the owners of printing shops to stop pretending to be journalists and refocus their enterprises onthe only thing they’re good at — printing and distributing supermarket loss-leader circulars.
You’re off topic and out of line, Roger. As usual. Go away.
While Goldstein and Dickless Darryl preen and swoon about their oh-so-special little anti-initiative algorithm, which was not a lard-ass former Tennessee/Watergate Veep doing the macarena, please recall that the book on algorithms was written by one of those Christianist creationist drooling knuckle draggers at Discovery Institute. What’ll those idiocracy idiots at DI waste our time on next?
Goldy,
From a moderate R that disagrees with you on a variety of things from time to time….this post is one of your best and I wholeheartedly agree!
Thanks for penning this one.
Matty
I agree with brie..
Maybe someone could explain to me why, over at the R-71 site, it shows only 11.63% of the signatures rejected?
@6
Too Damn Funny!!
Imagine, Darryl & Goldy unwittingly referencing Christian logic!
Matty:
I want to complement you on being a moderate republican – there are not many of those dying breed around here.
John McKay was the last one I remember publically around Washington, and we know what happened to him.
I sure miss the days of Dan Evans and others. The republican party nowadays is the land of birthers, no-sayers, Obama haters and racists….
Can someone please comment and clarify the questions Brie @1 and Upton @8 and now myself have? Thanks.
Wow, more numbers over at SOS aren’t adding up. Try adding each days’ Signature’s checked versus the grand total: wrong! Could they be more careful over there on their posts? They don’t have a lot of spare credibility. This is just encouraging the conspiracy theories.
@ 1, 8 and 11, the ultimate answer will come from the secretary of state’s office and probably be posted on their blog. pay special attention the comments, where a lot of useful q & a happens daily.
regarding the present odd numbers, my guess is that somebody simply made a mistake.
**Please go to WAFST.org and volunteer to help tell voters to Vote APPROVE on Ref. 71 to preserve the domestic partnership law. The signature invalidation trends we’re seeing are hopeful, but the results are still too close to call. The referendum may still qualify.
Maybe because the Secretary of State’s office told Big Dave Ross this very morning that R-71 has an 11.6% validation rate.
In short, it’s a close-run thing, but it’s not over, despite what GoldyDarryl want you to believe.
Am awed that, while the right pays the left the sincerest form of flattery by using leftist mechanisms of initiative and referendum against the left, the left gets very mean. And when the right offers the left the sincerest form of flattery by imitating leftist tactics of loud aggressive dissent, the left becomes very disapproving and judgemental.
Hey, you leftist circle jerks, didn’t your mothers tell you? Dissent is patriotic. There’s even a shrieking clip of Shrillery Clinton screaming that we have a PATRIOTIC RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISSENT!!!!!!!!!
So there.
(Meanwhile, a mean angryblackmale named Obama is telling Virginia Democrats that some people just need to shut up. If they don’t, pudless lucy will shut them down with her final solution. After she finishes explaining her new math that gave Reagan a maxed out approval rating of 52% … derived by ‘averaging’ Reagan’s low and high. By that calculus, Obama — who went from 0 a few years ago to about 65 before starting his death spiral, never got above 32%.)
Still no credible answer to @ 12. Even those on the SOS blog are questioning, and it’s been that way a few hours.
@14
OK OK. Just relax. Somebody will get you your bottle of formula in a minute.
AND check your diaper
@6 Lick me.
@12 If you perceive a competence problem in the SoS office, maybe it’s time for voters to replace the Republican SoS with a Democrat.
@14 “Hey, you leftist circle jerks, didn’t your mothers tell you? Dissent is patriotic.”
Does this mean you assholes have finally seen the light and are going to stop spying on, harassing, intimidating, and arresting dissenters whenever your party is in power?
You just stay away from my diaper, @16, unless you want to be even more full of shit than you are now.
As for the bottle, bring it on.
Well, maybe, darling Rabbit. Just as soon as our president stops telling me to shutdafuckup.
Deleted – Never mind, it wouldn’t change anything.
It’s “aneurysm:” because spelling matters, too.
Are you having one, Dad? May I proofread your will for errors and omissions?
(Or, in your case, emissions. Because spelling matters, too.)
Thank you, Goldy. You have this reader’s full support.
Part of the issue with numbers is that for many of us while the math isn’t that hard, it is unfamiliar territory.
I deal with unit costs and simple conversions all the time, vote tabulation algorithms (or whatever you call it) not so much.
Your posts on this have been helpful.
Troll @14 lies as usual. C-250 does not criminalize public statements against homosexuality. C-250 criminalized the behavior of publicly advocating genocide or hatred leading to breach of the peace. The bill states “Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years…’identifiable group’ means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
It also specifically exempts statements made in private conversation and “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text,” among other exemptions.
In other words, Canada is trying to protect itself from the kind of incitement that has lead to the deaths of people in these groups in the past. Can’t see any harm in that.
And Darryl, thanks for the update even if it is bad news. Gives us that much more time to prepare.