Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Democrats Government Politics

WA Governor Recount Ends With 42-Vote Difference 159

Posted by pudge from the it's-a-sign dept.
Republican Dino Rossi came out on top of the gubernatorial recount in Washington state, beating Democrat Christine Gregoire by 42 votes. He had won the initial count by 261 votes. King County (where Seattle is) gave Gregoire a 245-vote swing. It's expected that the Democrats will call for a partial hand recount, which they would have to pay for (25 cents per vote), unless they end up winning the recount.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WA Governor Recount Ends With 42-Vote Difference More

WA Governor Recount Ends With 42-Vote Difference

Comments Filter:

  • The should learn from Ukraine (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ukraine [cnn.com]

  • No need for recount (Score:3, Funny)

    by blanne ( 325573 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @05:48PM (#10913607)
    Well, with a vote count like that, there's no reason for a recount - it's gotta be the right answer :)

  • Here is what I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Keebler71 ( 520908 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @05:50PM (#10913616) Journal
    so what happens now? Just keep recounting until the Democrat wins? And what then? Why not recount one more time? Where do you draw the line?

    • Re:Here is what I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CokeBear ( 16811 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @05:58PM (#10913708) Journal
      When its this close, you make sure you get it right. If that means a statewide recount, then so be it. Whats the downside of recounts as long as its done by January 12th?
      • They're not calling for a statewide recount. They're calling for PARTIAL recounts. Translation: We want to recount in precincts where we have the best chance of picking up votes, and let the counts stand where we have the best chance of losing votes.

        It's the same crap that was pulled in Florida that got the US Supreme court involved in the mess.
        • No, the Dems have not called for any specific recount yet. And even if it is only in particular locations, if it ends up overturning the result, then a mandatory statewide recount will follow. So there's really no serious problem here with a partial recount, because a partial recount will not change the result.

        • Re:Here is what I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          You seriously think the republicans wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if they were down by 40-odd votes?
          • Mark parent up insightful. When there are only tens of votes difference any politician in any country in world would ask for a recount, this should to ensure the result is beyond reproach.

          • Re:Here is what I don't get... (Score:4, Informative)

            by b-baggins ( 610215 ) on Thursday November 25, 2004 @09:14AM (#10917737) Journal
            I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.

            In the Kennedy/Nixon election, Richard Nixon lost the vote under extremely suspect circumstances. He made the deliberate decision not to pursue because of the harm it would do to the nation. In fact, he made a personal phone call to the journalist who was beginning to uncover massive election fraud (in the hopes of winning a Pulitzer), and specifically requested the journalist stop investigating the matter.

            In a senate race in Missouri a few years ago, the challenger, lost by a slim sympathy vote when the incumbent died during the race and his wife took his place. The wife replacing the husband in the middle of the race was probably illegal under Missouir law, but the Republican decided not to pursue the matter, citing that it would not be good for the state of Missouri to have the election process dragged through the mud.

            The facts would seem to argue against your position that "they all do it."

            • I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.

              Great. But that was then. Try looking at what is happening NOW.

              The Washingtong State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance says: "If Dino Rossi is ahead at the end of the day, he is the governor-elect, this is over, and she (Gregoire) needs to do the righ

            • Um, according to the numbers I've seen Tom Daschle won his senate seat in 1998 with 62% of the vote count. I doubt that's 500 votes, you might be thinking of the 2002 Senate race in which the Republican Candidate claimed that fraud had taken place, but wouldn't be proven by a recount, and thus declined to ask for one.

              In the Kenney/Nixon election, there actually were lawsuits over alleged illegal practices, those lawsuits were lost, though some Republicans claim it was because of politically motivated judi
            • In the Kennedy/Nixon election, Richard Nixon lost the vote under extremely suspect circumstances. He made the deliberate decision not to pursue because of the harm it would do to the nation.

              Republicans persued (fruitless) recounts in about a dozen different states and dragged (fruitless) investigations in Illinois out for a year.

              Nixon presented a public front of not challenging for the "good of the nation"(which you've obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker) but did everything in his power to challeng
          • > You seriously think the republicans wouldn't be doing the exact same
            > thing if they were down by 40-odd votes?

            If they ever do, they'll lose the respect of half their core demographic.
            Conservatives (well, many of us anyhow) fundamentally don't think that way.
            We think in terms of what's the right thing to do, *not* in terms of what
            thing can we do that will obtain the outcome we want. (Philosophers call
            these two ways of thinking about ethics "deontological" versus "teleological"
            theories of obligation
            • You have to understand how conservatives think on this issue: it's *wrong*
              for a candidate to deliberately undermine the election process just to get
              himself elected.

              Does this mean that conservatives are opposed to Jeb Bush's systematic disenfranchising of minority voters in Florida? And to the "challengers" the GOP paid to prevent Ohio residents from voting if they looked like they were likely to vote Democrat? And to Kenneth Blackwell making sure that heavily Democratic areas of Ohio don't have enough vo
              • Does this mean that conservatives are opposed to Jeb Bush's systematic disenfranchising of minority voters in Florida?

                Again with this bullshit charge of Florida minorities being "disenfranchised." What is it with you people? There have been numberous investigations and calls for these supposed legions of disenfranchised voters to come forward and you know what the results have been every single time? Not one damned person steps forward. There have been no systematic "disenfranchising" of minorities. It's
              • > Does this mean that conservatives are opposed to Jeb Bush's systematic
                > disenfranchising of minority voters in Florida?

                We would be, very much so, if it had happened, or if there was any reason to
                believe it had happened. However, it's been well-documented (and demonstrated
                clearly in the last gubernatorial election) that Florida in general and
                minority voters in Florida in particular have, since the 2000 election, leaned
                to the right. The minority voters turned out for Bush in Florida. (This is
                not q
      • What we have here in Washington state is in essence a tie. And unfortunately in our electoral system isn't that accurate. 42 votes is well within the noise limit of the system. Given the limitation of the system, and in particular the voters, I don't think the system can ever be that accurate. At some point there has to be a cut off for doing recounts. We will never really know if "we got it right". Absent fraud at some point we need to have a winner and the legal challenges should end. I do think

    • Re:Here is what I don't get... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by burns210 ( 572621 ) <maburns@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @06:46PM (#10914147) Homepage Journal
      Common sense would say:

      All elections, unless statistcally impossible, should have a hand recount after the fact, to be finished before the election day. Computer count(secure terminals, obviously, what a REQUIRED paper trail) and what not are fine, they give media the fast count. But those numbers arn't stuck until
      1. the thought-to-be losing candidate drops out, or
      2. the hand recount confirms the count

      if there is any reasonable doubt about the process, the losing candidate(s) can petition a judge that says "X happened, that could have changed how votes were counted, please recount them after fixing this" the judge rules on wether it is reasonable for a recount(not in terms of winning/losing, but in terms of fraud or miscalculation) and then is so ordered.

      HOWEVER, true common sense would say:hey, this system (two party, PDC, Diebold-esque voting flaws) we have is bullshit, we need to fix it. Personally IRV looks like the best fix, with electionic machines certified as safe with peer/government reviewed code and testing with a federally mandatory paper trail... and/or hand ballots.

      But I am open to ideas
      • Yep that's how things should be. There's a big difference between a machine counted result of 77.434% of the votes and a hand counted result of 60.2% of the votes.

        Even though a hand recount could have less precision (e.g. 100 times less precise), it may be more accurate esp if representatives from the affected parties and independent(?) observers are there to witness each count (this is how vote counts are done in my country btw). And anyway even if it is all a show, rational and reasonable voters should b
      • IRV is *not* the best fix, as it introduces possibilities for a candidate having a better chance at winning by receiving fewer votes. However, the Condorcet Method is very similar and is far more airtight than IRV.
        • I've looked at that site, and even they admit that Concordet is extremely complicated. I feel that the public wouldn't like a voting system that they are not capable of understanding. IRV is understandable. Personally, I favour approval voting, for the reasons outlined at the Concordet-supporting voting methods comparison site.
    • The first recount occured automatically because the difference was less than 2,000 votes (and less than a percentage, but in a WA statewide election 2,000 votes is less than that percent). The first machine count gave Rossi a lead of over 200 votes. Just running through the ballots through the machines again and the margin closed to 42 votes with many of the early counties reporting net increases for Rossi.

      If the machine error between the two counts is greater than three times the current official margin t
      • The problem I have is that this will likely be a hand recount, which is more prone to error, will take longer, and will cost more than a machine recount.

        Even the King County elections people today said a hand recount is more likely to produce error.

        On machine counts, still, the more often you do it, the more likely error is to be introduced, at some point (as ballots become damaged from handling). I don't think a third time should be a serious problem, but with the race this tight ...
        • But do you know the state of the machines?

          If a machine is rigged, proper hand recounts could show the problem even if it's not as accurate as a nonrigged machine. It's like the diff between machine recount: Candidate A has 87.4432% of the votes and hand recount: Candidate A has 56% of the votes. Sure the result is the same: Candidate A wins. BUT you learn that something fishy likely happened.

          That said I get the impression that the typical US voter of the winning party wouldn't care, especially given suffi
          • If a machine is rigged, proper hand recounts could show the problem

            Yes, it could, but if the machine is NOT rigged, the end result will probably be LESS accurate. Maybe they could do a hand recount just to check for significant difference, but use the machine results? :-)

            Over here in my country, when they count the votes, the various different party representatives can be (and usually are) there to observe each vote as it is counted (and dispute if necessary).

            They do that here too.
            • Yep. IF the machines are more accurate and not just more precise.

              EVEN if the machines are more accurate, if they aren't significantly more accurate, a multi-witnessed count result might be treated with more respect.

              Note that with some style of votes, the voters may screw up the ballot sheet so that it is may actually be hard to figure out what the voter was voting for, or whether the vote should be regarded as spoilt. So actual accuracy might be almost subjective...

              Also given such a scenario IF the party
              • EVEN if the machines are more accurate, if they aren't significantly more accurate, a multi-witnessed count result might be treated with more respect.

                I wouldn't bet on it. Most people on both sides of the aisle in WA seem to want Gregoire to concede now (I am not one of them).

                Anyway, if the less accurate hand recount swings the vote to Gregoire *incorrectly*, doesn't that do a disservice to the voters?

                • Sure but where's the proof that the machines are more accurate than hand counts in real world conditions esp in problematic scenarios? Machines are often very good when everything works fine but not so good when things are fubarred.

                  As I mentioned sometimes the ballots could be vague and subject to interpretation (to make voting less prone to such situations one has to be careful not to push the problem elsewhere or create a bigger problem (ala Diebold)).

                  If you have very slim margins deciding whether a vot
            • Hmm. I wonder if this is a reflection on the American educational system. In most countries, three people counting one hundred ballots can come up with an accurate count.

              I guess this is only a problem in countries that are S-M-R-T.

              If you're thinking "But there are more than 100 ballots!", add "Repeat as Necessary" to above instructions.
        • The problem I have is that this will likely be a hand recount, which is more prone to error...

          How do you know that a hand recount is more prone to error? It seems to me that a hand recount would be more prone to random error, i.e., humans simply making mistakes. But those mistakes could cancel each other out. On the other hand, if there is a systematic error in the machine recounting process (e.g., not processing damaged ballots correctly, software errors, whatever), then this could influence the outcome
          • Yes, machines are more prone to systematic error. I would be in favor of perhaps doing a (partial?) hand recount to make sure the machine recount numbers makes sense, and then using the machine recount numbers unless the hand recount is wildly different.

            So what is the price of getting the right result in terms of time and money?

            The "right result" is whatever the actual result is once the legal process has been completed, so I don't really understand the question. Perhaps you mean "most accurate" resul

    • Re:Here is what I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alaric42 ( 50725 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @07:30PM (#10914443)
      According to the Seattle PI this morning:
      "But with the recount still favoring Rossi yesterday, Vance (State Republican party chairman) said the Democrats would only be dragging the state into a political quagmire. 'That's wrong,' Vance said. 'If Dino Rossi is ahead at the end of the day tomorrow, he is the governor-elect, this is over, and she (Gregoire) needs to do the right thing, the gracious thing and the honorable thing and concede.'

      But if Gregoire is ahead, 'That's fundamentally different,' Vance said."

      So, apparently, the line is drawn such that if a Democrat calls for a recount, it's political quagmire, but if a Republican calls for a recount, it's just... different.

      • Re:Here is what I don't get... (Score:4, Informative)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) * <<slashdot> <at> <pudge.net>> on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @08:37PM (#10914885) Homepage Journal
        Well, there is a difference, on the *law* recognizes: it's the difference between a recount affirming the result, and overturning it. The law treats those two outcomes differently, as Vance said.
        • Well, there is a difference, on the *law* recognizes: it's the difference between a recount affirming the result, and overturning it. The law treats those two outcomes differently, as Vance said.

          What result? Until the machine recount was finished last week, there was no result. No winner was certified.
          • Yes ... that is what I was referring to. The outcome of the recount. If Gregoire had finished on top, the law would have treated that differently than if Rossi had finished on top (which is what happened).

            What part don't you get?
    • so what happens now? Just keep recounting until the Democrat wins? And what then? Why not recount one more time? Where do you draw the line?

      The line's drawn in the law. The machine recount was automatic because of the close margin. (A manual recount would've been done if the margin were 100 votes closer initially)

      Now that a winner has finally be certified. A manual recount can be requested. Once/If it's done, that's it.

      This it how it works:
      Gregoire can request a manual recount of certain or all countie

  • Predictable (Score:2, Funny)

    by aelbric ( 145391 )
    Dear Voter,

    See? We told you recounts would have no affect on the results. Move along.

    Sincerely,

    D. Ashcroft

    • No recount has never changed the result of an election in WA in recent years. What gets me is that usually there is a huge swing in the Democrats' favor, including in the two recounts in 2000. Makes you wonder if the Democrats in King County aren't cheating.

      And who is "D. Ashcroft"? Do you mean John? And what did John Ashcroft ever say about recounts?

      You appear to be uninteresting.

    • Funny? (Score:2)

      by Whyte ( 65556 )
      Moderators: Was this funny because the poster doesn't know John Ashcroft's first name, or because the poster fails to understand that Ashcroft has nothing to do with state recount issues?

  • Margin of Error (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @06:33PM (#10914056) Homepage
    I'm such a nerd. I really think that elections should have margins of error and something should happen if candidates don't win by at least that much. Something tells me that 0.0015% quantifies as sufficiently small to be below it.

    Oh well--I really do think that this reflects the will of WA voters (and I am one). We didn't have a strong preference. Approximately 50,000 (2% or 1000x the margin of victory for Dino Rossi) more people voted for president than voted for our governor. Our divided state house & senat also bears out how moderate we are.
    • I really think that elections should have margins of error and something should happen if candidates don't win by at least that much.

      Not a "margin of error," but yes, that is precisely what does and did happen. The difference was less than 2,000 votes and under .5%, so they had a mandatory recount. This is what happened!

      Oh well--I really do think that this reflects the will of WA voters (and I am one).

      Well, in fact, it does. There's no getting around it. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

      • Re:Margin of Error (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Noksagt ( 69097 )

        Not a "margin of error," but yes, that is precisely what does and did happen. The difference was less than 2,000 votes and under .5%, so they had a mandatory recount. This is what happened!

        I was actually thinking that such a number shouldn't be arbitrarily chosen & that it should have consequences for the Governor's term in office (other than the implicit hard time he'll have getting any partisan issues steam-rolled through). Furthermore, this is a particularly interesting case. The initial spread of

    • They have this in some european countries AFAIK. Some also have rules that state in order for an election to be considered valid at least 50% of the population needs to have turned out to vote. I am not sure what the effect of these laws has been as I admitedly know less than I would like to about how it works. Although, your comment has sparked my interest to see what I can find out. I think there may have been laws like this in some of the former Yugoslavian countries. But the sucess there should obviou
  • There's going to be a hand recount if I'm not mistaken. 42 votes is within a margin of error especially with the anomalies with provisional ballots or whatever.

    Does anyone think the plurality system is partly responsible for such a close race?
    • This was the machine recount. If the initial numbers had gone this way, there would be a mandatory hand recount. As it is, they've already conducted the mandatory recount & any additional recount will need to be petitioned for my the participants.

      I agree it is well below the margin of error. But that doesn't matter. Scientists have a number, an error, and a unit. Everyone else (including politicians who write the laws) doesn't use "error" and often neglects "units."
    • I think I'll be satisfied with whomever wins as long as the hand recount is done properly. One more time is all we should really need.
      • I think I'll be satisfied with whomever wins as long as the hand recount is done properly. One more time is all we should really need.

        Did not read the article, nor do I care who wins... but one recount is all we should really need. I'm so sick of both parties gaming the election with legal loopholes. Just because you can, does not mean you should...
        • You miss the point. It's about showing respect to the process. Otherwise why bother all the spiel about the USA being a democracy?

          The Ceremony is to indicate the importance the public considers the event.

          EVEN if it's all a show (and the relevant votes have already been Diebolded), you have to make it seem like a good show. Go through the _proper_ motions.

          Just try telling a kid a story, and skipping everything except for "And they all lived happily ever after".

          I suppose maybe nowadays they are content wi
          • You miss the point. It's about showing respect to the process.

            I think we are on the same page. Way I read it (did go back and read the article) is they have a process - if the vote was within a certain threshold they order a automatic machine based recount. If it was even closer, they do a hand based recount. They did the machine recount and it is real close, but one party had a majority. Respect the process...

            What scares me is either side will look to do what a bad D&D player who has every modul
        • There are two issues, in scientific study, the scientist must recognize that every instrument has minute biases based on the way it was made and that consistent bias may taint results. Vote counting machines are no different.

          So given that the change in the vote between the original count and the recount is 5924% of the new margin of victory, it may be worthwhile to use a different system to make sure any systemic unreliability or bias is removed.

          Of course the fact that the total change was more than 60 t
          • Me thinks that you do not know how to do percentages. The change in the margin of victory was 219. 219/42=5.21 This is 521% the margin of victory, NOT 5924%. I note there is a larger percentage difference between your 5924% and the correct 521%
            • You be wrong, demonstrating poor reading comprehension, and inability to think independently.

              I said the change in the *vote* not the change in the margin of victory. Running the ballots through the machine a second time increased the number of votes by 2428 which is almost 60 times the margin of victory.

              All this recount has done is tell us that, ignoring instrument bias, it is statistically probable the correct margin of victory lies between 2297 votes for the currently loosing candidate and 2558 votes f

  • Voting on a large scale subject to fraud (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgardn ( 539054 ) <jgardn@alumni.washington.edu> on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @07:33PM (#10914466) Homepage Journal
    Now that I think about it, the electoral college is good for a reason. Can you imagine a national recount? It would be absolutely terrible. Even a state-wide election is hard enough to run.

    Why don't we just have electors for the governor's seat? We can send one elector from each legislative district, and then have them choose the governor. This way, a recount would only be warranted in districts that are close. (Districts in WA are about 100,000 people). Since the voting is much more local, it is much less subject to fraud and thus the unwarranted accusation of fraud.
    • You've got it backwards: The electoral college is much more likely to turn on a few votes than the popular votes. So if you don't want recounts, you should support its abolition.

      No recount would have found half a million extra votes for Bush in 2000, or 3 million extra votes for Kerry in 2004. But when the whole election depends on just one state and that state is close, everyone will (rightly) demand that the votes be counted and recounted until they get an accurate number.

      • But when the whole election depends on just one state and that state is close, everyone will (rightly) demand that the votes be counted and recounted until they get an accurate number.

        Given that the 2004 election led bush by 34 votes, which single state decided the election? a hcnage of 17 votes would tie the outcome? So, which state? Florida, Ohio or Texas? How many other elections could have been changed by one state? Any election with a difference less than 55. That goes back a long time.

  • The Ultimate Question (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rufus88 ( 748752 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @07:52PM (#10914611)
    And thus spake Deep Thought:

    "By how many votes will Dino Rossi win the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election recount?"

Slashdot Top Deals

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Close