A lot of the so-called scandals this year in voting have really been people looking hard for the first time at procedures that have been in place for decades. For example, some were accusing the New Hampshire voting authorities of malicious intent for storing votes in reused boxes from fish packing and the like. The reality is, that is how it had been done for a long time, and no one had questioned the penny-pinching practice before.
But then, there are a few cases that make you wonder how serious election officials really are about accuracy. Consider this case from Washington State.
For probably the first time in all the primaries and elections I've ever watched, the folks running the election decided to stop counting the votes with 13% of the votes uncounted. And this wasn't a 70-30 blow out, but a tight race where the two top vote getters were separated by less than 2% of the vote. Then this morning, state party chair Luke Esser decided to declare McCain the winner...Apparently, the Huckabee campaign is furious and trying to get access to see the rest of the votes counted. Have any of our Mod-Bloggers on-site in Washington heard anything more about this?
But state party chair Luke Esser said that he just thought it was the right thing to do. According to Esser, sometime overnight Esser did some sort of back of the envelope statistical analysis of the the margin of McCain's lead (1.8%) and the number votes left uncounted (13%) and decided that Huckabee didn't have a chance and he'd shut the thing down and declare McCain the winner.
14 comments:
I was at a republican caucus in Washington and this type of insanity actually doesn't surprise me. My caucus, that was composed of about 50 precincts, was the most disorganized thing I've seen in years. I certainly hope that Huckabee keeps on his guns about this, so that the mess can be fixed.
I've heard those who say it is much ado about nothing, and then those who say that the principle of the thing (counting ALL votes) makes it imperative that they go through with this.
It does seem that no matter what it won't change the outcome.
With a difference of 1.8% between winner and loser, and 13% of the votes uncast, I think it COULD change the outcome, Nick. Especially when you think what it would have meant if Huckabee had won all the contests this weekend. IT would have meant apparent momentum and repudiation of John McCain which could have driven the news cycle for a week.
when the difference is +/- 200 votes counting all the votes makes a difference.
I didn't say it wouldn't make a difference. You asked what I had heard. I have been HEARING that no matter what it won't make a difference. Maybe I wasn't clear, but that was what I meant.
Frankly I think it will change the outcome, that is why McCain and Co. are fighting against it so hard...
Ah, I did misread your comments, Nick. Now they make much more sense.
It is funny how we pretend Elections are a science, when really they wind up more like a game. And the one who wins is often the one who best knows how to bend the rules of the game to their advantage. :-(
I agree... the big story is the coming lawsuits that Clinton is likely going to bring to get Michigan and Florida delegate reinstated... relying (ironically) on Bush v. Gore.
i wonder how much legal sway Bush v. Gore will have since these are party primaries and not a national election. hence the allowing or disallowing of votes is up to party preference not legal requirements - as CRCHAIR has said in the next post on the blog.
one more thing about washington. It's still possible for Huckabee to get a good deal of the delegates here in WA, because we're dumb. For republicans in WA we have the caucus that determines 51% of the delegates and a primary that determines the other 49%. So, whoever wins the caucus (which isn't actually over, there's still another 2 or 3 rounds of voting before it's over)gets the majority of the delegates and whoever gets the most votes in the primary takes that portion of the vote. It's odd I know, the dems are even stranger as they determine 100% of their delegates in the caucus and still have a primary that determines nothing.
Welcome to the wacky west.
No one knows... but you can bet they will try to make that a precedent for at least getting the case into the courts.
Okay, so the latest I heard was that they never intended to stop counting, just that they decided to call it for McCain and stop counting for the night... then they went on to count more votes on Sunday, and apparently more today (McCain's lead had shrunk, but not much last I heard) intending to continue until all are counted (and part of the reason has to be that this is only part of the process).
Local News is reporting that Huckabee is calling for a recount. Given the circumstances I don't blame him.
Nick, The articles I read *DO* indicate that the votes would always have been counted, but the registrar of voters had intended to wait a few weeks or a month to finish the count, thus denying Huckabee any momentum if he won.
Thus, it is still evil.
Yes, definitely evil.
I hadn't heard that they were planning on counting them all later on, only that they had announced a winner without a full count (very unethical methinks) and then later on read they were intending to count them all over the next couple of days. That could be because of the pressure.
I think a recount wouldn't be a bad idea, though a pain in the butt (their fault though...).
Post a Comment