Washington Recount completed: Rossi wins by 42

[ATFFL]

Just announced on FOX.  King County was allowed to do its voter intent so in a manual hand recount vote they are unlikely to have a lot of change.

[Alcon]

42 votes. Out of about 2,808,413.

Wow. Just wow.

Good show.

[ATFFL]

The democrats will be paying for a manual hand recount, so we are not done yet.

Both sides said they would pay for a recount if they lost.  This would be a nice chance for teh Reps to sieze the moral high ground and offer to split the cost.

[agcatter]

Cantwell just popped the cork on the bubbly.  She now has a clear path in 2006 without having to face Dinno.  She probably contributed to his campaign.

[rbt48]

The democrats will be paying for a manual hand recount, so we are not done yet.

Both sides said they would pay for a recount if they lost. This would be a nice chance for the Reps to sieze the moral high ground and offer to split the cost.

From the Seattle Times, "If Gregoire is trailing after today, he said, the party likely will request a hand recount, either statewide or in certain counties where the party thinks the vote tally is suspect.

Berendt, meanwhile, said he is trying to raise money to pay for a second recount. If either side wants another recount, it has to pay the costs. At 25 cents a ballot, the cost of a statewide recount would be about $700,000."

I would not be so generous as to throw in $350K.  It is part of the advantage of being ahead that the challenger has to be the one to force action.  Anyway, if the loser eventually triumphs, the state reimburses them.

[The Vorlon]

QUESTION...?

I think 150 is the Washington "trigger" for a hand recount.  Since 42 < 150 do we now AUTOMATICALLY get a hand recount, or do the Dems have to ask/pay for it...?

From the Seattle Times, "If Gregoire is trailing after today, he said, the party likely will request a hand recount, either statewide or in certain counties[/i] where the party thinks the vote tally is suspect.

I think if you do a recount you have to recount EVERY ballot in every county.

Wasn't this cherry picking of Counties at the heart of the Bush/Gore/Florida 2000 thing..?

With 42 votes difference out of 2.8 million a recount is certainly a reasonable thing to do...  But you can't JUST recount say King Country.. basic fairness says you recount every single last ballot from the ENTIRE state..

Didn't the Dems learn ANYTHING from the Gore/Florida mess?

Heck, If Gore had said "Recount the entire damn state" I would have contributed to his legal fund.  When he said "Recount Broward and Palm and Dade and ignore the GOP counties" I though he was trying to steal the thing.

I asume/hope/plead/beg that Washington State has thought about this in advance and requires the ENTIRE state to be recounted...

I will likely be disappointed in this expectation...

UPDATE:

A party can request a partial recount, but if the PARTIAL recount changes the result, the state then pays for a FULL STATEWIDE recount.

For example, if they recounted just King county and the Dem pulled ahead, then the entire state would get recounted at STATE expense, but if the GOPO guy was still ahead, the Dems could call a halt to it and not recount any additional counties...

Either party or candidate also can request recounts only in targeted counties.

But if partial recounts reverse the result of the election, the state would refund the party's costs and order a hand recount across the rest of the state at taxpayer expense.

[agcatter]

memo to Rossi:  Concede now and get started on the Senate Campaign.

[rbt48]

I think Vorlon's update that  a party can request county specific hand recounts is a state rule that pre-dates Bush vs Gore.  I think that decision would demand a state-wide hand recount with the same standards in every county.

So, when does the iterative recounting end.  I mean, if the hand count gives Rossi a 5 vote win, does Gregoire pay for a "more careful" hand recount?  I understand that a machine recount is not as thorough as a hand recount, but (1) King County, at least, hand counted all the machine rejects and (2), if the ballots that the machines do accept and count are meaningful, then only the rejected ballots should be counted by hand.  To do otherwise implies that the machine counts are inaccurate; hence, they should never be used.

[Alcon]

I think Vorlon's update that  a party can request county specific hand recounts is a state rule that pre-dates Bush vs Gore.  I think that decision would demand a state-wide hand recount with the same standards in every county.

So, when does the iterative recounting end.  I mean, if the hand count gives Rossi a 5 vote win, does Gregoire pay for a "more careful" hand recount?  I understand that a machine recount is not as thorough as a hand recount, but (1) King County, at least, hand counted all the machine rejects and (2), if the ballots that the machines do accept and count are meaningful, then only the rejected ballots should be counted by hand.  To do otherwise implies that the machine counts are inaccurate; hence, they should never be used.

I'd suppose it is like machines that read standardized tests - they can't see things such as blue ink. There's no better machine. It's a small number of ballots, but here it matters.

[zorkpolitics]

I think Vorlon's update that  a party can request county specific hand recounts is a state rule that pre-dates Bush vs Gore.  I think that decision would demand a state-wide hand recount with the same standards in every county.

So, when does the iterative recounting end.  I mean, if the hand count gives Rossi a 5 vote win, does Gregoire pay for a "more careful" hand recount?  I understand that a machine recount is not as thorough as a hand recount, but (1) King County, at least, hand counted all the machine rejects and (2), if the ballots that the machines do accept and count are meaningful, then only the rejected ballots should be counted by hand.  To do otherwise implies that the machine counts are inaccurate; hence, they should never be used.

I'd suppose it is like machines that read standardized tests - they can't see things such as blue ink. There's no better machine. It's a small number of ballots, but here it matters.

A manual recount of machine readable ballots can find ballots in which a voter voted for two candidates, but the reader only saw one vote.  For example, a voter might circle one candidate and fill in the bubble for another, in a manual recount this ballot should be discarded (but would it be in King County?).  So a hand recount should only result in a decrease in valid votes among machine readable ballots.

New votes can be recovered among undervotes, but only  by guessing the voters intent.  For example,  a ballot with an X through a candidate’s name is considered a vote for that candidate, but what if the voter wanted to express his dislike of the candidate?

[The Vorlon]

You hit the nail on the head, what is voter intent?

In 2000 Sandra Day O'Conner during Bush Vs Gore asked what I thought was a good question:

"Why can't the standard for counting the ballots be the directions posted at the polling station?"

If the clearly posted directions say "Mark one candidate with an X" it would seem to me a valid ballot should be defined as one that has, well, one candidate marked with an X...

A three color doodle of an airplane, and intepretive dance involving two bears, three lions and goat, 6 random markings in tri color water color paint, and 4 crossed out, circled, or otherwise altered candidates names may be an interesting psycological study...   It's just not an actual valid vote... IMHO

Or am I crazy...?

[LesterMaddox]

Given that King County has essentially already done a hand recount, I can understand why the donkeys might not want to pay upfront for a recount of that county, as it would cost a lot and likely wouldn't change the votes by much.

[Gabu]

Whatever the end result is, this is one heck of a close race.

[Engineer]

The next step by Gregoire will the most telling.  If she request a hand recount in only democratic counties, there will be a backlash, because it will show that only all the democratic votes need be counted.  If she orders a hand recount of the entire state, then maybe she actually cares that all the votes are counted.  If she concedes, it will be seen a magnanomous gesture.

The problem with Gore's recount in Florida is that it only targeted areas in which he felt he could gain votes.  This became really obvious when Miame-Dade was in the process of being recounted, and Bush was gaining votes in the Democratic preceincts and the Gore team ordered that county to stop recounting, thus reverting back to it's original totals. 

[The Vorlon]

I believe the law in Washinging actually <<dies of shock and amazement>> is set up to prevent the type of county cherry picking Gore tried in 2000.

Either side can pay for recounts in specific counties only, but if those recounts alter the result (ie change the "winner"), the STATE then pays for a full recount in ALL counties.

For example, if the Dems pay to hand recount King County and suddently Gregoire is 10 votes up then THE STATE will then AUTOMATICALLY hand recount ALL the other counties.

Looks like somebody in Washington actually read Bush v Gore from the 2000 Supreme court rulling..

I would hope that at 42 votes difference that everybody, dems, GOPers, greens alike, can agree that a recount is not a bad idea, but that ALL the votes should be recounted and that a Gore like county by county "cherry pick" is just wrong

[Nym90]

I believe the law in Washinging actually <<dies of shock and amazement>> is set up to prevent the type of county cherry picking Gore tried in 2000.

Either side can pay for recounts in specific counties only, but if those recounts alter the result (ie change the "winner"), the STATE then pays for a full recount in ALL counties.

For example, if the Dems pay to hand recount King County and suddently Gregoire is 10 votes up then THE STATE will then AUTOMATICALLY hand recount ALL the other counties.

Looks like somebody in Washington actually read Bush v Gore from the 2000 Supreme court rulling..

I would hope that at 42 votes difference that everybody, dems, GOPers, greens alike, can agree that a recount is not a bad idea, but that ALL the votes should be recounted and that a Gore like county by county "cherry pick" is just wrong

I agree, there should be a hand recount of the entire state. There should have been one in Florida in 2000 as well, I did not agree at all with Gore's strategy. It's worth  noting that Bush opposed a statewide hand recount in 2000 as well, however.

[The Vorlon]

I agree, there should be a hand recount of the entire state. There should have been one in Florida in 2000 as well, I did not agree at all with Gore's strategy. It's worth  noting that Bush opposed a statewide hand recount in 2000 as well, however.

The Bush strategy, not that I agree with it, but one that made sense from a tactical point of view, is that they had a high level of confidence that the US Supremes would toss out a PARTIAL recount where they cherry picked states.

It should be noted the ORIGINAL Florida supreme's ruling that allowed the Gore Cherry Pick strategy was vacated by the US Supremes 9-0 after about 20 minutes of debate - the Florida Supremes were just plain wrong.

(I must say I lost every shred of respect for the Florida Supremes after their original ruling - it was just so blatently partisan. - Let's look for more votes, but only in Counties Gore won Big...?)

After the Bush team got a ruling that a partial recount would be vacated, they basically tried to run out the clock.  They were ahead in the count and the Safe Harbour provisions clock in USC Title 3 was ticking...

If Gore has said from day one said:

"It's 537 votes out of 6 million, let's recount the entire state using the rules that pre-existed on election day" - hell I would have sent him some money to help cover the legal expense..

When he went to his cherry pick county strategy I though he was a partisan hack trying to steal the election and lacked the moral values and intellectual honesty needed to  deserve to be President...

[badnarikin04]

I'm proud of the Libertarian candidate there, Ruth Bennett, who played spoiler with 63,000 votes.

However, I am very dissapointed with the fact that, according to Politics1, Bennett said she ran solely to draw votes away from Gregoire.

Thanks a lot, Ruth, Thanks a lot.

[Nym90]

I agree, there should be a hand recount of the entire state. There should have been one in Florida in 2000 as well, I did not agree at all with Gore's strategy. It's worth  noting that Bush opposed a statewide hand recount in 2000 as well, however.

The Bush strategy, not that I agree with it, but one that made sense from a tactical point of view, is that they had a high level of confidence that the US Supremes would toss out a PARTIAL recount where they cherry picked states.

It should be noted the ORIGINAL Florida supreme's ruling that allowed the Gore Cherry Pick strategy was vacated by the US Supremes 9-0 after about 20 minutes of debate - the Florida Supremes were just plain wrong.

(I must say I lost every shred of respect for the Florida Supremes after their original ruling - it was just so blatently partisan. - Let's look for more votes, but only in Counties Gore won Big...?)

After the Bush team got a ruling that a partial recount would be vacated, they basically tried to run out the clock.  They were ahead in the count and the Safe Harbour provisions clock in USC Title 3 was ticking...

If Gore has said from day one said:

"It's 537 votes out of 6 million, let's recount the entire state using the rules that pre-existed on election day" - hell I would have sent him some money to help cover the legal expense..

When he went to his cherry pick county strategy I though he was a partisan hack trying to steal the election and lacked the moral values and intellectual honesty needed to  deserve to be President...

I don't agree with Gore's strategy at all, but according to Jeff Greenfield's book, the Gore team's logic was to ask for recounts in only a few counties rather than the entire state, in the hopes that since those recounts would take less time and involve a smaller area, they would have a higher chance of being approved than an entire statewide count. In addition, there were a far greater number of undervotes and irregularities in those counties. Of course, those also just happened to be the most Democratic counties in the state, so you can make of that whatever you'd like.

I was merely pointing out that Bush did NOT support a fall statewide manual recount. Gore did say that he supported one, but since Bush didn't, he was hoping that a partial recount of only part of the state would be an acceptable compromise. As I said, I don't agree with the strategy either, Gore should have demanded a full statewide manual count.

[zorkpolitics]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't agree with Gore's strategy at all, but according to Jeff Greenfield's book, the Gore team's logic was to ask for recounts in only a few counties rather than the entire state, in the hopes that since those recounts would take less time and involve a smaller area, they would have a higher chance of being approved than an entire statewide count. In addition, there were a far greater number of undervotes and irregularities in those counties. Of course, those also just happened to be the most Democratic counties in the state, so you can make of that whatever you'd like.

I was merely pointing out that Bush did NOT support a fall statewide manual recount. Gore did say that he supported one, but since Bush didn't, he was hoping that a partial recount of only part of the state would be an acceptable compromise. As I said, I don't agree with the strategy either, Gore should have demanded a full statewide manual count.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gore's strategy assumed once he asked for the 4 Democratic counties Bush would counter with a request to recount  the remaining Republican Counties.  But Bush didn't, instead he jumped on Gore's request to only count Democratic votes as unfair, and the rest is history.

[Gustaf]

I think it's reasonable that if we can understand what a voter was trying to do when he voted the vote should be counted. This goes especially if the voting is not all that easy.

[zorkpolitics]

I think it's reasonable that if we can understand what a voter was trying to do when he voted the vote should be counted. This goes especially if the voting is not all that easy.

I agree that its it's reasonable that if one can understand what a voter was trying to do when he voted the vote should be counted.   
But how does one do that?  For most ballots that are filled out incorrectly, two reasonable people may interpret the voters actions in different ways.
For example: If the voter puts an X through a candidate's name, did he mean to vote for him or to indicate his disgust with that candidate?
If there is a partially punched chad, did the voter mean to push the stylus through or did he accidentally poke the chad?
When a voter circles the party rather than fill-in the bubble by a candidate's name, is it because he wanted a different candidate to have run from that party or did he support the candidate of that party?
If the bubble for a candidate is smudged, is it an accident or did the voter want to erase his mark?

If the standard is to accept only ballots with a CLEAR voter intent, then relatively few ballots should be counted.  Remember since  >98% of the voters have no problem properly filling in a ballot, it is very risky to assume the 2%, who failed to follow directions are acting logically or rationally.

I downloaded the Newspaper consortium database of over and under votes from FL in 2000.  It is amazing how many ways people wasted their vote.  One of the most common overvotes were ballots marked for both Gore and Bush.   Why, what were they thinking?  If thousands of people did that, how can one interpret a partially punched ballot as having clear voter intent?

[stry_cat]

I'm proud of the Libertarian candidate there, Ruth Bennett, who played spoiler with 63,000 votes.

However, I am very dissapointed with the fact that, according to Politics1, Bennett said she ran solely to draw votes away from Gregoire.

Thanks a lot, Ruth, Thanks a lot.

I assume you are being sarcastic but why is that so different than Michael Badnarik's stated strategy of trying to swing New Mexico and Nevada to Kerry by stealing votes from Bush? It is all just to try to gain media attention for the party.

There is no difference IMHO.  It also highlights the basic flaw in the spoiler strategy.  If successful them the greater of two evils wins and it further reinforces the wasted vote syndrome.

Our candidates need to run to win.

As far as the recount goes, every precinct which could vote for the office (in this case the entire state) should be recounted.

[bgwah]

Damn you all, I thought  Libertarians were supposed to take more from the Republicans!