Washington State Recount, Part Deux

[CARLHAYDEN]

[


. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You said:

I'm not misunderstand this at all...it is not an "assumption".

I reply:

Please cite where I said what I am emphatically denying!

You said:

I ran an analysis of the data and found that votes correlated to population in this election with a coefficient of .995...a near perfect correlation. 

I reply:

Your "correlation" is faulty. People used to "correlate" women's hem lines with stock market results, etc.  I gave you a specific example of how turnout rates vary markedly and you reply with with a dam the specific examples.

You said:

Giving me one example of an exception doesn't disprove the correlation for the entire data set.

I reply:

How many examples WILL it take to disprove your fallacious correlation?

You said:

Are you suggesting that the Washington state election law  mandates that the two recounts have an equal chance of gaining and losing votes?  No matter what the law is, this clearly isn't the case.

I reply:

I specifically did NOT say what you are imputing to me.  Your technique of assuming things I did not say is reminescent of the debating style of the late Richard Nixon.

You said: 

In the hand recount, excluding King County, the candidates together gained a total of 1211 votes, and lost a total of 46.

So a candidate is overwhelmingly more likely to gain votes in the recount than lose them. 

I reply:

So, based on this one example, all recounts will result in an increase in votes counted?

You said:

When this happens, the change in votes will be much more closely correlated to population than the square root of population. 

I reply:

I don't know whether you are unable to understand what I have posted or are simply deliberately mistating my posts.  I NEVER based my analysis on population.  YOU based YOUR analysis on population, which is faulty for the reasons I have repeatedly pointed out (giving specific examples).

You said:

Finally, even if all of your assumptions are correct, you haven't given any reason at all why the "easily explained margin of error" should be the square root of population rather than the square root of population times some constant related to the standard deviation.

I reply:

Talk to a professor of social sciences familiar with statistical analysis.  He/She may be able to explain it to you.  It is Generally Accepted as a form of analysis.  Your 'linear' method is rejected!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You said:

 In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I reply:

You really should take the time to look at the structure of the King County government.

Ask Cheryle A. Broom if she is in charge of elections in King county?

[Alcon]

You said:

 In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I reply:

You really should take the time to look at the structure of the King County government.

Ask Cheryle A. Broom if she is in charge of elections in King county?

Would you further explain yourself?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You said:

I'm not misunderstand this at all...it is not an "assumption".

I reply:

Please cite where I said what I am emphatically denying!

You said:

I ran an analysis of the data and found that votes correlated to population in this election with a coefficient of .995...a near perfect correlation. 

I reply:

Your "correlation" is faulty. People used to "correlate" women's hem lines with stock market results, etc.  I gave you a specific example of how turnout rates vary markedly and you reply with with a dam the specific examples.

You said:

Giving me one example of an exception doesn't disprove the correlation for the entire data set.

I reply:

How many examples WILL it take to disprove your fallacious correlation?

You said:

Are you suggesting that the Washington state election law  mandates that the two recounts have an equal chance of gaining and losing votes?  No matter what the law is, this clearly isn't the case.

I reply:

I specifically did NOT say what you are imputing to me.  Your technique of assuming things I did not say is reminescent of the debating style of the late Richard Nixon.

You said: 

In the hand recount, excluding King County, the candidates together gained a total of 1211 votes, and lost a total of 46.

So a candidate is overwhelmingly more likely to gain votes in the recount than lose them. 

I reply:

So, based on this one example, all recounts will result in an increase in votes counted?

You said:

When this happens, the change in votes will be much more closely correlated to population than the square root of population. 

I reply:

I don't know whether you are unable to understand what I have posted or are simply deliberately mistating my posts.  I NEVER based my analysis on population.  YOU based YOUR analysis on population, which is faulty for the reasons I have repeatedly pointed out (giving specific examples).

You said:

Finally, even if all of your assumptions are correct, you haven't given any reason at all why the "easily explained margin of error" should be the square root of population rather than the square root of population times some constant related to the standard deviation.

I reply:

Talk to a professor of social sciences familiar with statistical analysis.  He/She may be able to explain it to you.  It is Generally Accepted as a form of analysis.  Your 'linear' method is rejected!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It occurs to me that this whole argument about turnout vs. population doesn't matter.  The initial regressions I ran were for total votes vs. change in votes, and those are the coefficients I am quoting (.83 vs. .73)....although the coefficients are the same if you substitute population for total votes.   Although I misunderstood you initial assertion, I mentioned what I was running the regression on when I initially posted the numbers, so I'm not sure how we got into this argument.

I never said all recounts will result in an increased vote total.  Indeed, if the two recount methods were identical, the absolute value of the error between them would have would correlate to the square root of turnout (again, times some constant).

But in this case you have two complete different methodologies.  The second by its nature will tend to find many more votes that it subtracts.  This is supported by the actual results.  Because the mean is positive and not 0, this will tend toward a linear correlation.  And once again, this assertion is supported by an analysis of the actual results.  I have yet to see any statistical evidence that your theory has any basis in reality.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARLHAYDEN, it is obvious that it is much easier for an organization to handle 2,000 votes like in a small county than the number in King County. Or do you dispute something as obvious as this?

Also, why do you feel the need to personally attack anything that moves? I would suggest that you act more maturely if you want to get any measure of respect in your opinions.

Well, at least you're consistent (consistently wrong).

First, it is NOT obvious what you claim.  The large counties such as King county have people employed whose primary job is to deal with elections whereas the small counties have people who deal with a number of different matters, including elections.  I'm sorry you are ignorant of this and make unfounded assumptions.

Second, you seem to be unable to deal with specific matters and when your unfounded assumptions and mistatements of fact (not to mention illogical assertions) are rejected, you take it personally. 

Grow up!

I am very glad that you are sorry for my ignorance. I never knew that the technology of robots has evolved this far already.

You are the one, my friend, who is wrong. In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I know this because I have seen the process in Pend Oreille County, Clallam County, Asotin County, and Pierce County. They are very different.

I do not so much take it personally as when you provide lovely quotes such as these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, these are not personal attacks, but rather your keen personal observations about the irrelevant personality flaws in others. Thank God, Mr. Hayden, there is someone out there to graciously tell us we are stupid so we can start on the track to rehabilitation! Now I wonder why none of your fellow GOPers are coming into defend you?

And now you tell me to grow up? Why don't YOU grow up, poopyhead? (This is sarcasm - it's what us carbon-based lifeforms use as a weak form of humor.)

Oh, and a brief quote from the Washington Secretary of State website:

In the State of Washington, elections are administered at the local level by County Auditors (except King County, which has a Department of Records and Elections). These offices are available to help you with registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and other elections-related services

[Alcon]

CARLHAYDEN, it is obvious that it is much easier for an organization to handle 2,000 votes like in a small county than the number in King County. Or do you dispute something as obvious as this?

Also, why do you feel the need to personally attack anything that moves? I would suggest that you act more maturely if you want to get any measure of respect in your opinions.

Well, at least you're consistent (consistently wrong).

First, it is NOT obvious what you claim.  The large counties such as King county have people employed whose primary job is to deal with elections whereas the small counties have people who deal with a number of different matters, including elections.  I'm sorry you are ignorant of this and make unfounded assumptions.

Second, you seem to be unable to deal with specific matters and when your unfounded assumptions and mistatements of fact (not to mention illogical assertions) are rejected, you take it personally. 

Grow up!

I am very glad that you are sorry for my ignorance. I never knew that the technology of robots has evolved this far already.

You are the one, my friend, who is wrong. In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I know this because I have seen the process in Pend Oreille County, Clallam County, Asotin County, and Pierce County. They are very different.

I do not so much take it personally as when you provide lovely quotes such as these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, these are not personal attacks, but rather your keen personal observations about the irrelevant personality flaws in others. Thank God, Mr. Hayden, there is someone out there to graciously tell us we are stupid so we can start on the track to rehabilitation! Now I wonder why none of your fellow GOPers are coming into defend you?

And now you tell me to grow up? Why don't YOU grow up, poopyhead? (This is sarcasm - it's what us carbon-based lifeforms use as a weak form of humor.)

Oh, and a brief quote from the Washington Secretary of State website:

In the State of Washington, elections are administered at the local level by County Auditors (except King County, which has a Department of Records and Elections). These offices are available to help you with registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and other elections-related services

Yes, it does have an individual department. But no matter how many people are handling something, the bigger it is, the harder it is. This is why the U.S. government is so screwed up - it's so big.

[??????????]

They now say Gregoire has stolen..err won the Washington state election by 8 votes. Congratulations Washington! You've defeated democracy!

[CARLHAYDEN]

As I said before, Logan would 'find' enough votes to install Gregoire.

[Nym90]

As I said before, Logan would 'find' enough votes to install Gregoire.

Is there proof that these votes aren't valid?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As I said before, Logan would 'find' enough votes to install Gregoire.

Is there proof that these votes aren't valid?

Yes. They're Democratic votes. This makes them invalid and fraudulent. When the Republicans find new votes, well... that's completely different.

[ATFFL]

As I said before, Logan would 'find' enough votes to install Gregoire.

Is there proof that these votes aren't valid?

Logically you cannot prove a negative.  It is the responsibilityof King County to prove they are valid.

The most amazing thing is that, despite several officials looking, the same person finds each and every new, never before seen ballot.

Answer me this:  If Bush lost Ohio by 42 votes and Karl Rove personally kept finding new ballots would you think that was normal or would you be on here screaming bloody murder?

Something is not right here.  Whether it is willful fraud or gross incompetence something is not right.

Simply put, there is a roll of who shows up to vote.  This gives us a total number of ballots that were filled out.  After the first machine count the discrepency between the number of ballots cast and the number of ballots fed to the machine should have been noticed.  There should be a record of this somewhere.  At that moment King County should have begun looking for the missing ballots, if there are any ballots that were legitimately not put into the counting machine..

[minionofmidas]

As I said before, Logan would 'find' enough votes to install Gregoire.

Is there proof that these votes aren't valid?

Logically you cannot prove a negative.  It is the responsibilityof King County to prove they are valid.

True.

The most amazing thing is that, despite several officials looking, the same person finds each and every new, never before seen ballot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd have to check the details, but if that's literally true, it would be more than a bit fishy. Those found ballots, at least the 573, are not yet included in the figures showing Gregoire ahead by 8 though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gross incompetence, with a slight smattering of willful fraud, for generations, all across the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should be. Is there? (I don't know.)[/quote]

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARLHAYDEN, it is obvious that it is much easier for an organization to handle 2,000 votes like in a small county than the number in King County. Or do you dispute something as obvious as this?

Also, why do you feel the need to personally attack anything that moves? I would suggest that you act more maturely if you want to get any measure of respect in your opinions.

Well, at least you're consistent (consistently wrong).

First, it is NOT obvious what you claim.  The large counties such as King county have people employed whose primary job is to deal with elections whereas the small counties have people who deal with a number of different matters, including elections.  I'm sorry you are ignorant of this and make unfounded assumptions.

Second, you seem to be unable to deal with specific matters and when your unfounded assumptions and mistatements of fact (not to mention illogical assertions) are rejected, you take it personally. 

Grow up!

I am very glad that you are sorry for my ignorance. I never knew that the technology of robots has evolved this far already.

You are the one, my friend, who is wrong. In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I know this because I have seen the process in Pend Oreille County, Clallam County, Asotin County, and Pierce County. They are very different.

I do not so much take it personally as when you provide lovely quotes such as these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, these are not personal attacks, but rather your keen personal observations about the irrelevant personality flaws in others. Thank God, Mr. Hayden, there is someone out there to graciously tell us we are stupid so we can start on the track to rehabilitation! Now I wonder why none of your fellow GOPers are coming into defend you?

And now you tell me to grow up? Why don't YOU grow up, poopyhead? (This is sarcasm - it's what us carbon-based lifeforms use as a weak form of humor.)

Oh, and a brief quote from the Washington Secretary of State website:

In the State of Washington, elections are administered at the local level by County Auditors (except King County, which has a Department of Records and Elections). These offices are available to help you with registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and other elections-related services

Yes, it does have an individual department. But no matter how many people are handling something, the bigger it is, the harder it is. This is why the U.S. government is so screwed up - it's so big.

Once Logan posts the results of the 'votes' he 'found' for Gregoire, I hope to be posting a detailed analysis.

In the meantime, I suggest you look at the results from two counties with respect to your belief there is a correlation between the size of the county and or number of votes cast in a county and the efficenty of the vote counting operation in such county:

Hint, compare Thurston county (population 110,942) and Adams county (population 16,602) and which had a better match between initial count for govenor and manual recount?

[Sarnstrom]

On C-SPAN right now they have the case envolving the 700 ballots in King County. Live from in the courtroom.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thank you.

Should be interesting if the Supreme Court of Washington upholds the earlier Superior Court ruling preventing Logan from 'counting' the ballots not previously included.

[Alcon]

CARLHAYDEN, it is obvious that it is much easier for an organization to handle 2,000 votes like in a small county than the number in King County. Or do you dispute something as obvious as this?

Also, why do you feel the need to personally attack anything that moves? I would suggest that you act more maturely if you want to get any measure of respect in your opinions.

Well, at least you're consistent (consistently wrong).

First, it is NOT obvious what you claim.  The large counties such as King county have people employed whose primary job is to deal with elections whereas the small counties have people who deal with a number of different matters, including elections.  I'm sorry you are ignorant of this and make unfounded assumptions.

Second, you seem to be unable to deal with specific matters and when your unfounded assumptions and mistatements of fact (not to mention illogical assertions) are rejected, you take it personally. 

Grow up!

I am very glad that you are sorry for my ignorance. I never knew that the technology of robots has evolved this far already.

You are the one, my friend, who is wrong. In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I know this because I have seen the process in Pend Oreille County, Clallam County, Asotin County, and Pierce County. They are very different.

I do not so much take it personally as when you provide lovely quotes such as these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, these are not personal attacks, but rather your keen personal observations about the irrelevant personality flaws in others. Thank God, Mr. Hayden, there is someone out there to graciously tell us we are stupid so we can start on the track to rehabilitation! Now I wonder why none of your fellow GOPers are coming into defend you?

And now you tell me to grow up? Why don't YOU grow up, poopyhead? (This is sarcasm - it's what us carbon-based lifeforms use as a weak form of humor.)

Oh, and a brief quote from the Washington Secretary of State website:

In the State of Washington, elections are administered at the local level by County Auditors (except King County, which has a Department of Records and Elections). These offices are available to help you with registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and other elections-related services

Yes, it does have an individual department. But no matter how many people are handling something, the bigger it is, the harder it is. This is why the U.S. government is so screwed up - it's so big.

Once Logan posts the results of the 'votes' he 'found' for Gregoire, I hope to be posting a detailed analysis.

In the meantime, I suggest you look at the results from two counties with respect to your belief there is a correlation between the size of the county and or number of votes cast in a county and the efficenty of the vote counting operation in such county:

Hint, compare Thurston county (population 110,942) and Adams county (population 16,602) and which had a better match between initial count for govenor and manual recount?

Good point.

I could, but I know Adams added more. Then again, Adams reported more. However, that doesn't really surprise me. Some counties simply have crap organization. King County is one of them, and so is Adams.

People need to be fired. End of story.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fact: Dean Logan claims to have 'found' votes on at least four seperate occasions, some of them weeks after the election.

Conclusion

1. Logan is an incompetent, and should be fired.

2. Logan is corrupt, and should be fired!

3. Logan is corrupt, but he 'finds' vote for the candidate you prefer and should keep up his work of 'finding' votes for preferred candidates in the future.

[Alcon]

Fact: Dean Logan claims to have 'found' votes on at least four seperate occasions, some of them weeks after the election.

Conclusion

1. Logan is an incompetent, and should be fired.

2. Logan is corrupt, and should be fired!

3. Logan is corrupt, but he 'finds' vote for the candidate you prefer and should keep up his work of 'finding' votes for preferred candidates in the future.

1. Yes. Yes.
2. Maybe. Yes.
3. Maybe.

[phk]

Logan isn't as bad as Katherine Harris.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks for an honest answer.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Again I note that there has you have yet to have an intelligent post.

[phk]

Again I note that there has you have yet to have an intelligent post.

It'd be good to have intelligent grammar.

No 'Redneck' Left Behind, must not be working.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's another report of the vote counting methodology in King county:

One write-in ballot had Christine Rossi written in. [Ed. - the candidates are Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire.] Instead of throwing it out because there is no one with that name running for office, the canvasing board gave it to Christine Gregoire. Alot of people are calling for a new election. I would agree with that. This whole process is so corrupt there is no way correct it without starting over.

If this is true (and I would like a real investigation of the voe 'finding' and 'counting' in King County), did Gregoire receive other questionable votes?

[bgwah]

Here's another report of the vote counting methodology in King county:

One write-in ballot had Christine Rossi written in. [Ed. - the candidates are Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire.] Instead of throwing it out because there is no one with that name running for office, the canvasing board gave it to Christine Gregoire. Alot of people are calling for a new election. I would agree with that. This whole process is so corrupt there is no way correct it without starting over.

If this is true (and I would like a real investigation of the voe 'finding' and 'counting' in King County), did Gregoire receive other questionable votes?

Christine Rossi huh? Could you post a source, please?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hereis one:

http://king-of-fools.com/blog/weblog/posts/ballots_making_like_rabbits/