Washington State Recount, Part Deux

[King]

*yawn*

[Alcon]

First, I will allow the dumb animals to 'graze' on the fodder you post.

Second, lets see if YOU understand just how many times, how many votes, and how late AFTER the election Dean Logan has 'found' votes.

Please post the date and number of votes 'found.'  Hint, since the election he has 'found' votes at four times (as of this posting).  He may YET find more votes, if he thinks Gregoire needs them.

Third, if Logan is so good at finding things we should hire him to 'find' other things (such as Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, etc.).  If YOU REALLY believe Logan is so adept at 'finding' things, lets hire him to find other things (such as my list).

Fourth, after the fraudulent election in the Ukraine earlier this year, they at least are holding a new election (they recognize the ballots in the original elections have been compromised).  In Washington state, the Secretary of State has urged a new election as the current results are seriously tainted by Logan 'finding' votes for Gregoire over a month AFTER the election.  Does the Ukraine have a better sense of fairness than Washington state?  Hmm.

Uh, you really are pulling a lot of things after thin air, aren't you? If you actually took the time to read the news reports, you'd know that Sam Reed isn't the current SoS and urged this because of the close margin, not potential fraud.

You're really just repeating the same thing over and over again - Washington State is Ukraine II, Dean Logan is a cheater who should be thrown in jail, etcetra. Do you actually have anything to say? Because, if you do not, there is really no need to continue to reply. It just ends up making you sound like a broken record player of incorrectness.

[bgwah]

I'm just saying, maybe they won't count those votes, but either way they will end up with 500-600 more votes than they had last time if they maintain the same 'pattern' as the rest of the state. This is opposed to say, over 1200 ballots which would include the recently discovered ballots.

I'm not ignorant Carl, but I can't help wonder about you. I think you're mostly paranoid and partisan, though.

About Montana, that's too bad, do you think I support not counting votes just because they may not be for the candidate I prefer? Of course not. America is a democracy, which the Washington State Republican Party hates.

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

BREAKING NEWS[/b]






StatesRights has found 2,000 ballots for the Washington Governors race in his dresser drawer!

Developing.......

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, I will allow the dumb animals to 'graze' on the fodder you post.

Second, lets see if YOU understand just how many times, how many votes, and how late AFTER the election Dean Logan has 'found' votes.

Please post the date and number of votes 'found.'  Hint, since the election he has 'found' votes at four times (as of this posting).  He may YET find more votes, if he thinks Gregoire needs them.

Third, if Logan is so good at finding things we should hire him to 'find' other things (such as Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, etc.).  If YOU REALLY believe Logan is so adept at 'finding' things, lets hire him to find other things (such as my list).

Fourth, after the fraudulent election in the Ukraine earlier this year, they at least are holding a new election (they recognize the ballots in the original elections have been compromised).  In Washington state, the Secretary of State has urged a new election as the current results are seriously tainted by Logan 'finding' votes for Gregoire over a month AFTER the election.  Does the Ukraine have a better sense of fairness than Washington state?  Hmm.

Uh, you really are pulling a lot of things after thin air, aren't you? If you actually took the time to read the news reports, you'd know that Sam Reed isn't the current SoS and urged this because of the close margin, not potential fraud.

You're really just repeating the same thing over and over again - Washington State is Ukraine II, Dean Logan is a cheater who should be thrown in jail, etcetra. Do you actually have anything to say? Because, if you do not, there is really no need to continue to reply. It just ends up making you sound like a broken record player of incorrectness.

First, I predicted that Logan would 'find' more votes BEFORE he announced he had 'found' those additional 'votes' (seems I knew what I was talking about there).  I seem to recall some scoffing from some quarters when I made the prediction at that time.

Second, a number of people have made erroneous comparisons between the found votes in King county and those found in the other counties in the state, omitting the 1,000 originaly found in King county after the original count. 

Third, a judge has issued an order prohibiting inclusion of the recently 'found' votes King county votes.  This is another fact that you seem to want to ignore.  Here's a link:

http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Elections&storyId=964192

Fourth, you keep just defending Logan, adding nothing of information to the thread, save you linguistic faux pax and illogical arguments.

Finally, I notice that you haven't bothered to list the dates and number of votes that Logan has 'found' as I requested you to list.  If you had bothered with this little matter, it might begin to dawn on even you that things aren't quite right in Loganland.

[CARLHAYDEN]

For those of you familiar with statistical mathematics, I have a question for you.

If you take the original total for all votes counted for Govenor in the state of Washington this year by county, and then take the square root of that number, which one county has already exceeded adding on more than the square root of initial votes?

Hint, its the one county which has not yet posted its recount total.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

For those of you familiar with statistical mathematics, I have a question for you.

If you take the original total for all votes counted for Govenor in the state of Washington this year by county, and then take the square root of that number, which one county has already exceeded adding on more than the square root of initial votes?

Hint, its the one county which has not yet posted its recount total.

Is this a joke?
Why is the square root of the number of votes relevant?  Of course the answer is whatever county is largest, but it has nothing to do with anything.  You are assuming that large counties should find drastically fewer mistakes in proportion to their population, and I don't see why that would be true. 

[J. J.]

For those of you familiar with statistical mathematics, I have a question for you.

If you take the original total for all votes counted for Govenor in the state of Washington this year by county, and then take the square root of that number, which one county has already exceeded adding on more than the square root of initial votes?

Hint, its the one county which has not yet posted its recount total.

Is this a joke?
Why is the square root of the number of votes relevant?  Of course the answer is whatever county is largest, but it has nothing to do with anything.  You are assuming that large counties should find drastically fewer mistakes in proportion to their population, and I don't see why that would be true. 

I would suspect that Carl is looking for statistical anomolies.  While I don't think he'll find any, it would be interesting to check.

[Alcon]

The fact that King County contains 30% of my state's population makes it somewhat unsurprising that more errors occur.

[CARLHAYDEN]

For those of you familiar with statistical mathematics, I have a question for you.

If you take the original total for all votes counted for Govenor in the state of Washington this year by county, and then take the square root of that number, which one county has already exceeded adding on more than the square root of initial votes?

Hint, its the one county which has not yet posted its recount total.

Is this a joke?
Why is the square root of the number of votes relevant?  Of course the answer is whatever county is largest, but it has nothing to do with anything.  You are assuming that large counties should find drastically fewer mistakes in proportion to their population, and I don't see why that would be true. 

I would suspect that Carl is looking for statistical anomolies.  While I don't think he'll find any, it would be interesting to check.

NickG really doesn't understand statistics.

The square root principle is a well established parameter for error.

In the first vote count, King county counted 874,928 votes cast for Govenor. 

The square root of this is 935 (rounded to the nearest whole number).

One the first (machine) recount, King counted added 971 votes, which was slightly in excess of the easily explained margin of error (935).

No other county, in neither the first (machine) recount nor the second (hand) recount has had a change from the original vote which equalled, much less exceeded, the square root of the original vote count.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Some additional information from the Washington Secretary of State:


Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2004 7:15 a.m. EST
Wash State Sec'y: Vote Find Is Suspicious

The discovery late Monday of 561 votes in the ongoing Washington state governor's race had both state and GOP officials crying foul yesterday, with Secretary of State Sam Reed saying that vote fraud is a possibility.

Asked if he thought the 11th-hour vote find could be fraudulent, Reed told KTTH Seattle radio host Mike Siegel, "You want to look at that, just because it's so late in the process and the impact it could have on the outcome of this race."

Washington state is currently undergoing its second ballot recount in a race in which Republican Dino Rossi won the initial election by 261 votes over Democrat Christine Gregoire. A machine recount narrowed Rossi's victory margin to 42 votes.

Since the mystery votes were discovered in heavily Democratic King County, state election officials of both parties expect their inclusion would tip the race for Gregoire.

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled yesterday that individual canvassing boards were not required to review votes that were initially discarded because of flaws. But the finding did not affect the 561-vote find.

Secretary of State Reed was critical of King County election officials, telling Siegel that the 11th-hour discovery "strains credibility. Either it is just horrible incompetence ... or something else is going on."

"[People] get very suspicious when, as Rossi pulls ahead, all of a sudden these ballots show up that could easily switch the lead," he added. "I think for the sake of voter trust and competence we're going to have to have a thorough investigation."

King County Director of Elections Dean Logan disagreed.

"I don't think there's any evidence or speculation that fraud has taken place," Logan told Siegel. "There's a clear record of what these ballots are and where they came from."

Logan insisted that the mystery votes were the product of an honest mistake, saying they had been erroneously grouped with ballots that were unsigned or had signatures that didn't match.

Washington State Republican chairman Chris Vance wasn't persuaded by Logan's arguments.

Following Logan on Siegel's broadcast, Vance said, "From where we sit, it's impossible to tell whether this is incompetence or fraud. They look the same from the outside. If you were going to steal the election, the way you do it is to, at the very end, find a bunch of votes."

Vance noted: "This is about the fifth time that votes have been found in King County and Logan always has an explanation for it. But there's just no way for us to know."

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

For those of you familiar with statistical mathematics, I have a question for you.

If you take the original total for all votes counted for Govenor in the state of Washington this year by county, and then take the square root of that number, which one county has already exceeded adding on more than the square root of initial votes?

Hint, its the one county which has not yet posted its recount total.

Is this a joke?
Why is the square root of the number of votes relevant?  Of course the answer is whatever county is largest, but it has nothing to do with anything.  You are assuming that large counties should find drastically fewer mistakes in proportion to their population, and I don't see why that would be true. 

I would suspect that Carl is looking for statistical anomolies.  While I don't think he'll find any, it would be interesting to check.

NickG really doesn't understand statistics.

The square root principle is a well established parameter for error.

In the first vote count, King county counted 874,928 votes cast for Govenor. 

The square root of this is 935 (rounded to the nearest whole number).

One the first (machine) recount, King counted added 971 votes, which was slightly in excess of the easily explained margin of error (935).

No other county, in neither the first (machine) recount nor the second (hand) recount has had a change from the original vote which equalled, much less exceeded, the square root of the original vote count.

I understand statistics just fine....

Your "square root" principle only works if their is an equal chance that a given county will overcount its vote and undercount its vote.  This assumes that "mean" result after the count will be the same as the mean result before the count.  But this is clearly not true...most of the changes are from counties adding votes that weren't counted previously, not from subtracting votes that were mistakenly counted. 

- The number of overvotes should be linearly related to the population of the county.
- The number of undervotes should also be linearly related.
- If there is an equal tendency for undervotes and overvotes, the NET ERROR will be related by some function of the square root of population.  But if there are only overvoters, the net will still be linearly related. 
- In the real life situation, where there are a few undervotes and far more overvotes, the net result will be somewhere in between, but much closer to a linear function than an exponential one.

Moreover, even if there is an equal chance of overcounting and undercounting, their is no reason why the square root of population will be the "easily explained margin of error".  This would more accurately be the square root of population times some constant, but setting this constant at 1 is completely arbitrary on your part.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

As evidence of my assertion that, because the recount is more likely to add votes than it is to subtract them, the net change in vote will be more closely linearly correlated to population than the square root of population, I ran the correlation for all the Washington counties excluding King county:

(Note that I am using the total number of votes counted in a county instead of population)

Linear correlation b/w (change in votes during manual recount) and (voting population) = .8261
Linear correlation b/w (change in votes) and (square root of voting population) = .7347

[King]

Do we have a winner yet?

[bgwah]

Do we have a winner yet?

no, the winner of this recount should be determined on december 23rd, although I am not suer that is when this ordeal will end.

The Secretary of State is a Republican anyway, so I assume he is a bit biased to side with Rossi.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You said:
I understand statistics just fine....

Your "square root" principle only works if their is an equal chance that a given county will overcount its vote and undercount its vote.  This assumes that "mean" result after the count will be the same as the mean result before the count. 

I reply:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.

Next you said: 

- The number of overvotes should be linearly related to the population of the county.

I reply:

This is totally absurd,  There is NO one to one relationship between population and changes in voting results!  Do you understand that turnout rates vary by jurisdiction?

Next you asserted:

- The number of undervotes should also be linearly related.

I reply:

There is absoltely NO basis for you assertion.

Next you said:
- If there is an equal tendency for undervotes and overvotes, the NET ERROR will be related by some function of the square root of population.  But if there are only overvoters, the net will still be linearly related. 

I reply:

Again you are wrong.  You seem to have some idiotic idea that my methodology presumes that the recount will result in exactly the same number of votes as counted in the original tally.  This is NOT the case.  My technique is soley to establish paramenters for change.  Note, only one county did NOT fall within the parameters.  Hmm.

Next you said:

- In the real life situation, where there are a few undervotes and far more overvotes, the net result will be somewhere in between, but much closer to a linear function than an exponential one.

I reply:

You must be either extremely ignorant or just lying.  Take any state that had a Gubenatorial election this year and you will see that more people voted for President than for Govenor.  The 'undervote' varies depending upon a number of factors.

Next you said:

Moreover, even if there is an equal chance of overcounting and undercounting, their is no reason why the square root of population will be the "easily explained margin of error".  This would more accurately be the square root of population times some constant, but setting this constant at 1 is completely arbitrary on your part.

I reply:

Once again, turnout rates vary by jurisdiction and are NOT related to population.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You said:
I understand statistics just fine....

Your "square root" principle only works if their is an equal chance that a given county will overcount its vote and undercount its vote.  This assumes that "mean" result after the count will be the same as the mean result before the count. 

I reply:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.

Next you said: 

- The number of overvotes should be linearly related to the population of the county.

I reply:

This is totally absurd,  There is NO one to one relationship between population and changes in voting results!  Do you understand that turnout rates vary by jurisdiction?

Next you asserted:

- The number of undervotes should also be linearly related.

I reply:

There is absoltely NO basis for you assertion.

Next you said:
- If there is an equal tendency for undervotes and overvotes, the NET ERROR will be related by some function of the square root of population.  But if there are only overvoters, the net will still be linearly related. 

I reply:

Again you are wrong.  You seem to have some idiotic idea that my methodology presumes that the recount will result in exactly the same number of votes as counted in the original tally.  This is NOT the case.  My technique is soley to establish paramenters for change.  Note, only one county did NOT fall within the parameters.  Hmm.

Next you said:

- In the real life situation, where there are a few undervotes and far more overvotes, the net result will be somewhere in between, but much closer to a linear function than an exponential one.

I reply:

You must be either extremely ignorant or just lying.  Take any state that had a Gubenatorial election this year and you will see that more people voted for President than for Govenor.  The 'undervote' varies depending upon a number of factors.

Next you said:

Moreover, even if there is an equal chance of overcounting and undercounting, their is no reason why the square root of population will be the "easily explained margin of error".  This would more accurately be the square root of population times some constant, but setting this constant at 1 is completely arbitrary on your part.

I reply:

Once again, turnout rates vary by jurisdiction and are NOT related to population.

Example from 2004 General election:

Turnout (based on VAP)

San Juan          90.25%
Whitman           66.16

[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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'm not sure I understand how turnout rates figure into your "square root" idea.

Yes, turnout rates vary slightly from precinct to precint, but not by that much; there is an obvious and overwhelming linear relationship between population and votes.  I ran the correlation between 2004 turnout and 2000 census population data for Washington counties, and the correlation was .995 (where 1.00 would mean absolutely no variation in turnout).   So any formula or correlation that applies to population will also apply to turnout.  And even if turnout were more varied, what does this have to do with your "square root" idea?

You said:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.


I assume by this you mean "undercounting or overcounting".  This is not a good assumption.  Your  "square root" formulation would be correct (with the caveat that I mentioned before that the constant isn't necessarily 1) if you were talking about two recounts with the same methodologies, in which there was no particular reason why the second count would over- or under-count more votes than the first. 

But in this case, the second recount (the hand recount) is designed to be more inclusive than the first.  Almost all of the changes will be adding new ballots rather than subtracting.   In this situation, the relationship between population and change in votes will be highly linear rather than exponential, which I think is supported by the statistical evidence I posted above.

[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!

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'm not sure I understand how turnout rates figure into your "square root" idea.

Yes, turnout rates vary slightly from precinct to precint, but not by that much; there is an obvious and overwhelming linear relationship between population and votes.  I ran the correlation between 2004 turnout and 2000 census population data for Washington counties, and the correlation was .995 (where 1.00 would mean absolutely no variation in turnout).   So any formula or correlation that applies to population will also apply to turnout.  And even if turnout were more varied, what does this have to do with your "square root" idea?

You said:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.


I assume by this you mean "undercounting or overcounting".  This is not a good assumption.  Your  "square root" formulation would be correct (with the caveat that I mentioned before that the constant isn't necessarily 1) if you were talking about two recounts with the same methodologies, in which there was no particular reason why the second count would over- or under-count more votes than the first. 

But in this case, the second recount (the hand recount) is designed to be more inclusive than the first.  Almost all of the changes will be adding new ballots rather than subtracting.   In this situation, the relationship between population and change in votes will be highly linear rather than exponential, which I think is supported by the statistical evidence I posted above.

Let me deal with two fundamental misassumptions you make.

First, you seem to believe that the number of votes cast is little more than a reflection of the population.  I tried gently toi tell you this is not so, and gave you both the concept and specific examples which disprove your assertion previously.  Apparently I was not clear enough as you still do not understand, so I will specifically specll it out with a couple of examples:

County          Population          GE Vote for Govenor          Ratio
                      7/1/03

San Juan        14,762                  9,853                               1.4982

Whitman        40,702                 17,549                               2.3193

Second, you seem to have a rather fundamental misunderstanding of tha law regarding recounts.  Suggest you read the decision of the Washington Supreme Court and the Superior Court judge I previously cited with a link.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'm not sure I understand how turnout rates figure into your "square root" idea.

Yes, turnout rates vary slightly from precinct to precint, but not by that much; there is an obvious and overwhelming linear relationship between population and votes.  I ran the correlation between 2004 turnout and 2000 census population data for Washington counties, and the correlation was .995 (where 1.00 would mean absolutely no variation in turnout).   So any formula or correlation that applies to population will also apply to turnout.  And even if turnout were more varied, what does this have to do with your "square root" idea?

You said:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.


I assume by this you mean "undercounting or overcounting".  This is not a good assumption.  Your  "square root" formulation would be correct (with the caveat that I mentioned before that the constant isn't necessarily 1) if you were talking about two recounts with the same methodologies, in which there was no particular reason why the second count would over- or under-count more votes than the first. 

But in this case, the second recount (the hand recount) is designed to be more inclusive than the first.  Almost all of the changes will be adding new ballots rather than subtracting.   In this situation, the relationship between population and change in votes will be highly linear rather than exponential, which I think is supported by the statistical evidence I posted above.

Let me deal with two fundamental misassumptions you make.

First, you seem to believe that the number of votes cast is little more than a reflection of the population.  I tried gently toi tell you this is not so, and gave you both the concept and specific examples which disprove your assertion previously.  Apparently I was not clear enough as you still do not understand, so I will specifically specll it out with a couple of examples:

County          Population          GE Vote for Govenor          Ratio
                      7/1/03

San Juan        14,762                  9,853                               1.4982

Whitman        40,702                 17,549                               2.3193

Second, you seem to have a rather fundamental misunderstanding of tha law regarding recounts.  Suggest you read the decision of the Washington Supreme Court and the Superior Court judge I previously cited with a link.

I'm not misunderstand this at all...it is not an "assumption".
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.  Giving me one example of an exception doesn't disprove the correlation for the entire data set.

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. 

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. 

When this happens, the change in votes will be much more closely correlated to population than the square root of population.  Even if you don't believe the theory, run the numbers yourself!  As I posted above, this is empirically true....the coefficient is .83 for the first relationship, and .73 for the second.

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.

[King]

Who's leading right now?

[ATFFL]

I would likt ot point out that without Logan "finding" the new, never before counted ballots King could should not have seen any signifigant change.  They did a different recount than the other counties during the machine recount by manually checking ballots that the machines rejected as unmarked.

[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.)