The RealClear Politics Blog has the lowdown on the approval ratings of U.S. Governors (SurveyUSA did the polling).
If the figures quoted don't shift much in the next few months, we could be looking at a bloodbath for the Republicans in the gubernatorial elections.
California, New York, Ohio and Texas are the biggest serious opportunities for Democrats. With the highly popular Florida Governor Jeb Bush (Republican) standing down due to term-limit constraints, the Democrats will not get a better chance to sweep the biggest states for years.
All is not gloom for the GOP. Six Democrats due for re-election as Governors next year are currently polling less than 50%. One other (in Iowa) has chosen not to seek re-election. Most are in states that were narrow contests in the 2004 presidential election.
11/30/2005
California opportunity for Democrats
Next Tuesday (December 6th) sees the second round of a special election (by-election) in the 48th congressional district of California, following the appointment on June 2nd by President George W. Bush of Christopher Cox to the position of Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board (S.E.C.).
The Republican candidate, John Campbell seems best placed to win, as he scored 45.5% of the first round vote. An American Independent candidate came a distant second with 14.8% and the Democrat Steve Young, managed a pitiful 8.7%. A Libertarian and a Green Party candidate will complete the line-up for the run-off. Unusually for a two-round election, in California the leading candidates of all the parties in the first round go through to the second round, instead of the more commonly used method of taking the top two candidates only.
So far, so good for Republicans. The problem lies in the announcement this week that Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham has resigned his seat in Congress following his guilty plea on charges of bribery, tax evasion, mail fraud and wire fraud. He was first elected to Congress in 1990 and was serving his eighth term as a member of the House of Representatives. The Congressional seat in question is the 50th district of California, which covers the County of San Diego.
As these elections returns show from 2004, there is a sizeable Democratic vote in San Diego. If one in five Republican voters stays at home in disgust with "Duke's" ethical performance, the Democrats have a chance of picking up a seat they would otherwise not really compete for. In 2004, the presidential election would tend to have encouraged Republicans to come out and vote, whilst the comparative safety of California as a Democrat stronghold (in presidential elections at least) might have made some of their voters complacent.
Normally, I'd say that a campaign push by the Governor or even the President would be useful. However, apart from helping with fundraisers, neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor President George W. Bush would necessarily be a positive influence on this election. The recent presidential effort in Virginia for instance did raise a lot of money but failed to change the outcome. In fact, even hosting lavish fundraisers might cause a problem, given the circumstances in which this election has been provoked.
At this time, I still think it would be wildly optimistic for the Democrats to win control of either chamber in Congress. But if they keep holding their Governorships, and pick away at the Republican lead in the House of Representatives, they may hang on until 2008, when the Republicans will be defending large numbers of Senate seats, and they have as yet no clear cut presidential candidate.
[hat tip to The Green Papers]
The Republican candidate, John Campbell seems best placed to win, as he scored 45.5% of the first round vote. An American Independent candidate came a distant second with 14.8% and the Democrat Steve Young, managed a pitiful 8.7%. A Libertarian and a Green Party candidate will complete the line-up for the run-off. Unusually for a two-round election, in California the leading candidates of all the parties in the first round go through to the second round, instead of the more commonly used method of taking the top two candidates only.
So far, so good for Republicans. The problem lies in the announcement this week that Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham has resigned his seat in Congress following his guilty plea on charges of bribery, tax evasion, mail fraud and wire fraud. He was first elected to Congress in 1990 and was serving his eighth term as a member of the House of Representatives. The Congressional seat in question is the 50th district of California, which covers the County of San Diego.
As these elections returns show from 2004, there is a sizeable Democratic vote in San Diego. If one in five Republican voters stays at home in disgust with "Duke's" ethical performance, the Democrats have a chance of picking up a seat they would otherwise not really compete for. In 2004, the presidential election would tend to have encouraged Republicans to come out and vote, whilst the comparative safety of California as a Democrat stronghold (in presidential elections at least) might have made some of their voters complacent.
Normally, I'd say that a campaign push by the Governor or even the President would be useful. However, apart from helping with fundraisers, neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor President George W. Bush would necessarily be a positive influence on this election. The recent presidential effort in Virginia for instance did raise a lot of money but failed to change the outcome. In fact, even hosting lavish fundraisers might cause a problem, given the circumstances in which this election has been provoked.
At this time, I still think it would be wildly optimistic for the Democrats to win control of either chamber in Congress. But if they keep holding their Governorships, and pick away at the Republican lead in the House of Representatives, they may hang on until 2008, when the Republicans will be defending large numbers of Senate seats, and they have as yet no clear cut presidential candidate.
[hat tip to The Green Papers]
11/25/2005
The Guardian says...
2005:Blogged, gets a review in the Guardian's online newspaper edition. Tim Worstall's book reprinted my posting on this site of "Operation Clark County".
It's nice to know that my criticism of a bungled attempt to win the 2004 Presidential election for Democratic Senator John Kerry, does not prejudice Guardian reviewer Jane Perrone.
However, I bet someone at The Grauniad is smiling: 2005:Blogged's index contains a misspelling of my name.
It's nice to know that my criticism of a bungled attempt to win the 2004 Presidential election for Democratic Senator John Kerry, does not prejudice Guardian reviewer Jane Perrone.
However, I bet someone at The Grauniad is smiling: 2005:Blogged's index contains a misspelling of my name.
11/22/2005
Elections around the world in 2006
For democracy nerds everywhere, here's a list of countries where elections are expected to be held at national or State level in 2006. I've included two proposed referenda on the E.U. constitution, although neither are likely at present: the British government has declared the constitution in its present form as not worth putting to the vote and the Czech government won't hold a referendum until everyone else has. There are local elections planned in other countries amnd I'm sure I've missed a few anyway, but then Wikipedia missed out Angola and Israel when I looked.
Angola (possible)
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic (Referendum EU constitution)
Fiji
Finland
Israel
Italy
Peru
Ukraine (Parliament)
U.K. (Referendum on EU constitution)
U.S.A. (House of Representatives, Senate and gubernatorial elections)
Updates as I get them.
Update
Wikipedia (see above) now shows the Israeli election, but not the Angolan. Also we both missed the Palestinian Authority legislative elections in January 2006.
The fact that the Palestinian Authority's own website doesn't have any details on the election timetable does not help. From the Australian parliament's website comes the following: "President Abbas has announced that it will be held on January 25 2006".
Angola (possible)
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic (Referendum EU constitution)
Fiji
Finland
Israel
Italy
Peru
Ukraine (Parliament)
U.K. (Referendum on EU constitution)
U.S.A. (House of Representatives, Senate and gubernatorial elections)
Updates as I get them.
Update
Wikipedia (see above) now shows the Israeli election, but not the Angolan. Also we both missed the Palestinian Authority legislative elections in January 2006.
The fact that the Palestinian Authority's own website doesn't have any details on the election timetable does not help. From the Australian parliament's website comes the following: "President Abbas has announced that it will be held on January 25 2006".
11/21/2005
Israeli election date no later than March 28
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has asked President Moshe Katsav to dissolve the Knesset (Israel's unicameral or single-chamber parliament). Mr Sharon has also announced that he is leaving Israel's right-wing Likud party to form a new political movement aimed at the political centre of Israeli politics. Meanwhile, President Katsav has proposed a date of "no later" than March 28 2006 for elections.
The Knesset can vote to set a different date for the election, and my instant gut feeling is that it might not suit either Likud or Labour to go along with a snap election as both parties will have recently changed leaders and both may be wary of giving Mr Sharon the benefit of a short election campaign. (I wouldn't in their shoes, but then I'm not hired by any of the parties to do their campaign strategy, so what do they know!)
The fractious nature of Israel's proportional representation system makes such Mr Sharon's move difficult to predict. Small and often extreme political parties tend to hold disproportionate bargaining power in the formation of a coalition government. Mr Sharon appears to be calculating that he is better off outside Likud and offering to support either of the main two parties (Labour being the left-wing party), in exchange for a moderate position towards the Palestinian Authority.
In America or in the U.K., such a move would be a simple case of political suicide. However, with a proportional representation system, it's in the hands of the party horsetraders... after the next election.
The Knesset can vote to set a different date for the election, and my instant gut feeling is that it might not suit either Likud or Labour to go along with a snap election as both parties will have recently changed leaders and both may be wary of giving Mr Sharon the benefit of a short election campaign. (I wouldn't in their shoes, but then I'm not hired by any of the parties to do their campaign strategy, so what do they know!)
The fractious nature of Israel's proportional representation system makes such Mr Sharon's move difficult to predict. Small and often extreme political parties tend to hold disproportionate bargaining power in the formation of a coalition government. Mr Sharon appears to be calculating that he is better off outside Likud and offering to support either of the main two parties (Labour being the left-wing party), in exchange for a moderate position towards the Palestinian Authority.
In America or in the U.K., such a move would be a simple case of political suicide. However, with a proportional representation system, it's in the hands of the party horsetraders... after the next election.
Angola may hold general election in 2006
The Angolan government has publicly stated in the past 24 hours that it aspires to organising a general election during 2006.
However, the tone of Edeltrudes Costa (the Deputy Minister of Territory Administration) speaking to a press gathering yesterday was more hopeful than confident.
However, the tone of Edeltrudes Costa (the Deputy Minister of Territory Administration) speaking to a press gathering yesterday was more hopeful than confident.
Finland's presidential election January 2006
The first round of voting for the presidential election in Finland is scheduled for 15 January 2006. The date is chosen as being the third Sunday in January.
The system is identical to that used in France and the State of Louisiana in the U.S.A. - if a candidate fails to win a majority of the votes cast, there is a run-off between the top two candidates. The run-off - if required - will take place on 29 January 2006.
The system is identical to that used in France and the State of Louisiana in the U.S.A. - if a candidate fails to win a majority of the votes cast, there is a run-off between the top two candidates. The run-off - if required - will take place on 29 January 2006.
11/11/2005
Election Watch ambition
In case readers are wondering why the occasional foray into elections outside the U.S., (Canada, Ukraine [and here], Palestinian Authority, U.K.) I'm putting together a database of all election contests at national level around the world.
I'm concentrating first on countries whose election systems I am most familiar with, or that spring up in the news: Europe, U.S., Central Asia, Middle East. So unless I get requests, don't expect any particular method in the forays into new countries. For now, at least.
I'm concentrating first on countries whose election systems I am most familiar with, or that spring up in the news: Europe, U.S., Central Asia, Middle East. So unless I get requests, don't expect any particular method in the forays into new countries. For now, at least.
11/10/2005
Are the Democrats celebrating the right things?
The Democrats are excited. Not without just cause. But perhaps about the wrong things.
The present unpopularity of President George W. Bush is causing Democratic commentators to dream of capturing both Houses of Congress in 2006, as the prelude to a Democrat victory for the presidency in 2008. I'd say such forecasts are way premature, if not outright utopian.
Where the Democrats can take considerable satisfaction is in the three gubernatorial elections of 2005. I'm including the recounted and court-challenged Washington state election, as well as Tuesday night's more orderly elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
The was every reason to fear that the Republicans could win all three, one by judicial review (Washington), one because of scandals affecting local Democrats (New Jersey), and one by simply not having as good a candidate as the previous one (Virginia). This would have left the Democrats with 19 Governors to the Republicans' 31.
So 2005 is an excellent year for the Democrats in terms of containing the Republicans, given that there have been no opportunities for making electoral gains so far.
Next year's Congressional elections are unlikely to see any change of control for purely technical reasons. The House of Representatives is showing a falling number of truly competitive seats (28 according to Charlie Cook [see "Political Dashboard"]). The Republicans only need to win three (they currently hold 17 of them) to retain control of the House.
In the Senate, another bad tactical situation exists for the Democrats. Last year they were defending 19 Senate seats to 15 Republican, the Democrats promptly made a net loss of four seats. In 2006, the Democrats will be defending 17 Senate seats (plus the Independent seat of Jim Jeffords in Vermont). The Republicans will only be defending 15 seats and would need to lose at least a third of them to lose control of the Senate. At this stage, I don't see this as likely.
Where the Democrats really have chances are in the gubernatorial elections. No fewer than 36 States are due to elect a Governor in November 2006. Only 14 are Democrats, and a staggering 22 are Republicans. Here's were the opportunity to do some real damage lies.
California, Florida, New York and Texas are the big four states with 147 electoral college votes for the presidential elections in 2006 and 2010. All four presently have Republican governors who are up for re-election. Two of them, Jeb Bush in Florida and George Pataki in New York will not be seeking re-election. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in California during a special election in 2003, he would do extremely well at this stage to win a primary and general election. That leaves Texas.
Among the other states up for election there are plenty of chances for both sides. For the party in opposition nationally, this is the kind of scenario campaigners need.
A reasonable set of goals for 2006 would seem to be to make whatever gains in the House of Representatives are possible. In the Senate to come away with any increase would be a satisfactory outcome (the real chance for change will be in 2008, when 19 Republican senators face the voters). But in the gubernatorial contests the target has to be to win back at least California and New York, and pick off several other states. A majority of the Governors should be the goal of the Democrats for next year.
Meanwhile, of course we have the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. At this stage I can't see him failing to be nominated to the Supreme Court bench, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Judge Alito won't have to be a hardline conservative to tilt the balance of the court away from liberalism. In the long run, that may be the biggest election of the year.
The present unpopularity of President George W. Bush is causing Democratic commentators to dream of capturing both Houses of Congress in 2006, as the prelude to a Democrat victory for the presidency in 2008. I'd say such forecasts are way premature, if not outright utopian.
Where the Democrats can take considerable satisfaction is in the three gubernatorial elections of 2005. I'm including the recounted and court-challenged Washington state election, as well as Tuesday night's more orderly elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
The was every reason to fear that the Republicans could win all three, one by judicial review (Washington), one because of scandals affecting local Democrats (New Jersey), and one by simply not having as good a candidate as the previous one (Virginia). This would have left the Democrats with 19 Governors to the Republicans' 31.
So 2005 is an excellent year for the Democrats in terms of containing the Republicans, given that there have been no opportunities for making electoral gains so far.
Next year's Congressional elections are unlikely to see any change of control for purely technical reasons. The House of Representatives is showing a falling number of truly competitive seats (28 according to Charlie Cook [see "Political Dashboard"]). The Republicans only need to win three (they currently hold 17 of them) to retain control of the House.
In the Senate, another bad tactical situation exists for the Democrats. Last year they were defending 19 Senate seats to 15 Republican, the Democrats promptly made a net loss of four seats. In 2006, the Democrats will be defending 17 Senate seats (plus the Independent seat of Jim Jeffords in Vermont). The Republicans will only be defending 15 seats and would need to lose at least a third of them to lose control of the Senate. At this stage, I don't see this as likely.
Where the Democrats really have chances are in the gubernatorial elections. No fewer than 36 States are due to elect a Governor in November 2006. Only 14 are Democrats, and a staggering 22 are Republicans. Here's were the opportunity to do some real damage lies.
California, Florida, New York and Texas are the big four states with 147 electoral college votes for the presidential elections in 2006 and 2010. All four presently have Republican governors who are up for re-election. Two of them, Jeb Bush in Florida and George Pataki in New York will not be seeking re-election. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in California during a special election in 2003, he would do extremely well at this stage to win a primary and general election. That leaves Texas.
Among the other states up for election there are plenty of chances for both sides. For the party in opposition nationally, this is the kind of scenario campaigners need.
A reasonable set of goals for 2006 would seem to be to make whatever gains in the House of Representatives are possible. In the Senate to come away with any increase would be a satisfactory outcome (the real chance for change will be in 2008, when 19 Republican senators face the voters). But in the gubernatorial contests the target has to be to win back at least California and New York, and pick off several other states. A majority of the Governors should be the goal of the Democrats for next year.
Meanwhile, of course we have the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. At this stage I can't see him failing to be nominated to the Supreme Court bench, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Judge Alito won't have to be a hardline conservative to tilt the balance of the court away from liberalism. In the long run, that may be the biggest election of the year.
Canada limps towards general election
Canada's minority Liberal government is limping towards a general election either around Christmas or early next year according to this report in the Toronto Globe and Mail.
The fact that the Liberals are expected to win most seats is no doubt limiting the ambition of opposition parties to force the issue.
The fact that the Liberals are expected to win most seats is no doubt limiting the ambition of opposition parties to force the issue.
11/09/2005
Democratic Party holds Virginia
Tim Kaine has convincingly won the election for Governor in the Commonwealth of Virginia last night, defeating his Republican opponent by nearly six percentage points. The result will undoubtedly give some cheer to Democrats, who retain both [link to New Jersey results] Governorships up for election in 2005. With nine precincts yet to report in Virginia, the results show [hat-tip to The Green Papers]:
Provisional figures suggest that a swing of about 0.5% to Democrats has occured, although late returns could affect this analysis.
I must admit that this is an impressive result, which should avoid the acrimony of the Washington State poll last year that I have written about ad nauseam here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Mark Warner, the outgoing Democratic holder of the Governorship in Virginia, was thought to be the perfect candidate for the Democrats in that state, with his relatively conservative outlook and running an administration considered to be among the best, if not the best in the United States. His successor has increased the Democrat lead, albeit with a slightly reduced share of the vote.
On the one hand, Mark Warner's position as challenger to Hillary Clinton is enhanced. Virginia along with the recapture of the two states (Iowa and New Mexico)lost by Senator John Kerry in last year's presidential election would be sufficient to win the presidential election for the Democrats. Governor Warner did campaign for his successor Tim Kaine, just as President George W. Bush campaigned (and very successfully fundraised) for Jerry Kilgore.
On the other hand, the more Tim Kaine is perceived to have won the election on his own merits, the less necessary Mark Warner becomes.
Watch out for Hillary Clinton fans talking up the merits of Tim Kaine!
My own view (given that I got this result wrong) is that Mark Warner's status as the conservative Democrat candidate is enhanced, at the expense of Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennessee) among others.
All of a sudden though, we're looking at a clutch of effective Democratic Party Governors, and for the time being, I don't see the Republican candidate with the same background, unless Jeb Bush (Florida) makes a run, and one has to wonder if being the brother and the son of two presidents isn't too much of a good thing!
TM Kaine 1,019,206 votes (51.71%)
JW Kilgore 907,039 votes (46.02%)
Others (including write-ins) 44,705 (2.27%)
Voter turnout 1,970,950 (44.27)
Precincts reporting 2417 out of 2426 (99.63% of votes confirmed)
Provisional figures suggest that a swing of about 0.5% to Democrats has occured, although late returns could affect this analysis.
I must admit that this is an impressive result, which should avoid the acrimony of the Washington State poll last year that I have written about ad nauseam here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Mark Warner, the outgoing Democratic holder of the Governorship in Virginia, was thought to be the perfect candidate for the Democrats in that state, with his relatively conservative outlook and running an administration considered to be among the best, if not the best in the United States. His successor has increased the Democrat lead, albeit with a slightly reduced share of the vote.
On the one hand, Mark Warner's position as challenger to Hillary Clinton is enhanced. Virginia along with the recapture of the two states (Iowa and New Mexico)lost by Senator John Kerry in last year's presidential election would be sufficient to win the presidential election for the Democrats. Governor Warner did campaign for his successor Tim Kaine, just as President George W. Bush campaigned (and very successfully fundraised) for Jerry Kilgore.
On the other hand, the more Tim Kaine is perceived to have won the election on his own merits, the less necessary Mark Warner becomes.
Watch out for Hillary Clinton fans talking up the merits of Tim Kaine!
My own view (given that I got this result wrong) is that Mark Warner's status as the conservative Democrat candidate is enhanced, at the expense of Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennessee) among others.
All of a sudden though, we're looking at a clutch of effective Democratic Party Governors, and for the time being, I don't see the Republican candidate with the same background, unless Jeb Bush (Florida) makes a run, and one has to wonder if being the brother and the son of two presidents isn't too much of a good thing!
11/07/2005
Voting machine, Party machine?
Amy Alkon discusses a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office into the opportunity for fraud using voting machines.
Her conclusion is that the winner must have stolen the election, which I think isn't proven beyond resonable doubt (see the first comment by Radwaste who takes a similar line). What is clear however is that my views of the Washington gubernatorial election in 2004 (which resulted in a narrow Democratic Party victory there) are echoed by critics of the presidential election in Ohio in 2004 (although the margin of victory for the Republican candidate there was several orders of magnitude greater).
As far as voting machines are concerned, I see them as a solution to yesterday's problem: "Hanging chads" anyone? It's a classic "Willetts".
What's wrong with a piece of paper with a box next to each name, and the voter marks "X"?
Her conclusion is that the winner must have stolen the election, which I think isn't proven beyond resonable doubt (see the first comment by Radwaste who takes a similar line). What is clear however is that my views of the Washington gubernatorial election in 2004 (which resulted in a narrow Democratic Party victory there) are echoed by critics of the presidential election in Ohio in 2004 (although the margin of victory for the Republican candidate there was several orders of magnitude greater).
As far as voting machines are concerned, I see them as a solution to yesterday's problem: "Hanging chads" anyone? It's a classic "Willetts".
What's wrong with a piece of paper with a box next to each name, and the voter marks "X"?
11/06/2005
Even the best polls underestimate Republican vote
Rasmussen Reports, the U.S. pollster has a self-congratulatory article about its polling for the 2004 presidential election.
It is true that Rasmussen forecast the overall result in terms of the popular vote, getting within half a percent of President George Bush's score and even closer with Senator John Kerry's.
However, is it really clever to publish a list of 25 states that shows that Rasmussen underestimated George W. Bush's vote in 23 of them? With only New Mexico spot on and New Jersey the only state overestimated for the Republican candidate?
I would have a lot more time for opinion polls if in a tight race the over- and underestimates showed more consistency. As it is I expect polls to underestimate Republican voting figures, which is why commentators may believe that I'm biased against Democrats.
According to Matthew Dowd, Bush's campaign strategist: "Scott's [Rasmussen] polling data was dead on this election. Both nationally and at the state level, his numbers were hard to beat."
It is true that Rasmussen forecast the overall result in terms of the popular vote, getting within half a percent of President George Bush's score and even closer with Senator John Kerry's.
However, is it really clever to publish a list of 25 states that shows that Rasmussen underestimated George W. Bush's vote in 23 of them? With only New Mexico spot on and New Jersey the only state overestimated for the Republican candidate?
I would have a lot more time for opinion polls if in a tight race the over- and underestimates showed more consistency. As it is I expect polls to underestimate Republican voting figures, which is why commentators may believe that I'm biased against Democrats.
According to Matthew Dowd, Bush's campaign strategist: "Scott's [Rasmussen] polling data was dead on this election. Both nationally and at the state level, his numbers were hard to beat."
11/05/2005
Antoine Clarke's Election Watch in print
Tim Worstall has asked for permission to republish my posting about Operation Clark County in a book about blogging.
This book is called "2005: Blogged", and is apparently available through Amazon.co.uk (not the U.S. site). Launch date is November 18.
Coincidentally, I should be travelling to the U.S. on that date. One of my stops (I hope) will be to Clark County. I would like to find out if the Guardian ever did get round to paying for their copy of the Clark County electoral register!
This book is called "2005: Blogged", and is apparently available through Amazon.co.uk (not the U.S. site). Launch date is November 18.
Coincidentally, I should be travelling to the U.S. on that date. One of my stops (I hope) will be to Clark County. I would like to find out if the Guardian ever did get round to paying for their copy of the Clark County electoral register!
11/04/2005
New Jersey and Virginia Governor contests tighten in final week
The news from Virginia is that the opinion polls are showing a close race for the governorship with Democratic Party candidate Tim Kaine the leader. This represents a turnaround since my last posting, when I forecast a Republican victory in the "Old Dominion".
In off-year elections (especially perhaps for elections occurring the year after a Presidential election) turnout is everything. I note that the online bookies still rate Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore as the favourite, whereas the pollsters seem to have made up their minds for Mr Kaine.
I'm going to stick with my forecast of a Republican gain in Virginia, partly because this was a state that Democrats and pollsters said would be close this time last year, before producing an eight percentage point lead for President George W. Bush.
In New Jersey we see a state that in gubernatorial contests has often been competitive (indeed the last Governor of New Jersey to be elected, as opposed to nominated by the State Senate was Republican Christine Whitman). Last year the polls for the presidential election showed a far closer result than was in fact the case, with Democratic candidate U.S. Senator John Kerry winning by nearly seven percentage points.
The online bookies are clear in backing Jon Corzine, the Democratic candidate with odds in the region of 90 percent. The pollsters however aren't so sure. Republican candidate Doug Forrester has not come within four percentage points of his opponent in 32 of 33 opinion polls.
I'm also sticking with a Democratic Party hold for New Jersey, but Forrester's odds are so bad on Tradesports that it might be worth a bet. You could win nearly seven times your stake, when I last looked.
In off-year elections (especially perhaps for elections occurring the year after a Presidential election) turnout is everything. I note that the online bookies still rate Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore as the favourite, whereas the pollsters seem to have made up their minds for Mr Kaine.
I'm going to stick with my forecast of a Republican gain in Virginia, partly because this was a state that Democrats and pollsters said would be close this time last year, before producing an eight percentage point lead for President George W. Bush.
In New Jersey we see a state that in gubernatorial contests has often been competitive (indeed the last Governor of New Jersey to be elected, as opposed to nominated by the State Senate was Republican Christine Whitman). Last year the polls for the presidential election showed a far closer result than was in fact the case, with Democratic candidate U.S. Senator John Kerry winning by nearly seven percentage points.
The online bookies are clear in backing Jon Corzine, the Democratic candidate with odds in the region of 90 percent. The pollsters however aren't so sure. Republican candidate Doug Forrester has not come within four percentage points of his opponent in 32 of 33 opinion polls.
I'm also sticking with a Democratic Party hold for New Jersey, but Forrester's odds are so bad on Tradesports that it might be worth a bet. You could win nearly seven times your stake, when I last looked.
10/27/2005
And the winner was...
I missed this. So Christine Gregoire was elected Governor of Washington state after all. I'm glad Iraqi elections aren't run the same way...
Apologies for the appalling lateness of this report. That said, what comes out of the various recount efforts in Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 for presidential elections and Washington 2004 for the gubernatorial election is just how shambolic decentralization is. I shall assume that the result is a fair one in Washington, and that Miss Gregoire was properly elected. But the problem is that if her election was rigged, we couldn't tell.
If you have an election where polling stations open and close at different times and where reports of the likely result can be broadcast before all the polling stations have closed, there has to be an opportunity for vote-rigging. For presidential elections the solution is simple but drastic. No votes at all should be counted until the last postal vote has been received and the last polling booth closed. And that also means no exit polls until then either.
It is also absurd that within the same election different methods can be used for voting ballots. In Washington State, some counties showed virtually no change in the two recounts, others showed over a thousand votes added or lost. With the feeble system in place, I would assume that any political party could rig the ballot, given the flimsiness of the set up. At one point several hundred votes were found in a car park.
As daft attempts to improve turnout go, it is hard to beat on-the-day electoral roll registration (I believe they had this in Ohio). This means that someone can drive around all day crossing election county lines, and register fraudulently in several areas. There is no time to check for fraud and the evidence suggests that election boards don't share information effectively. I would expect that any determined effort to fraudulently register several hundred people in a series of statewide elections would succeed in many U.S. states. (You might not get away with voting a dozen times for Governor, but you've got a good shout a getting several votes in congressional seats.)
Maybe the system is free of fraud. If so only the restraint of the political parties can account for this. In a bad-tempered election, it would take the virtue of angels to resist the temptation to cheat.
Apologies for the appalling lateness of this report. That said, what comes out of the various recount efforts in Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 for presidential elections and Washington 2004 for the gubernatorial election is just how shambolic decentralization is. I shall assume that the result is a fair one in Washington, and that Miss Gregoire was properly elected. But the problem is that if her election was rigged, we couldn't tell.
If you have an election where polling stations open and close at different times and where reports of the likely result can be broadcast before all the polling stations have closed, there has to be an opportunity for vote-rigging. For presidential elections the solution is simple but drastic. No votes at all should be counted until the last postal vote has been received and the last polling booth closed. And that also means no exit polls until then either.
It is also absurd that within the same election different methods can be used for voting ballots. In Washington State, some counties showed virtually no change in the two recounts, others showed over a thousand votes added or lost. With the feeble system in place, I would assume that any political party could rig the ballot, given the flimsiness of the set up. At one point several hundred votes were found in a car park.
As daft attempts to improve turnout go, it is hard to beat on-the-day electoral roll registration (I believe they had this in Ohio). This means that someone can drive around all day crossing election county lines, and register fraudulently in several areas. There is no time to check for fraud and the evidence suggests that election boards don't share information effectively. I would expect that any determined effort to fraudulently register several hundred people in a series of statewide elections would succeed in many U.S. states. (You might not get away with voting a dozen times for Governor, but you've got a good shout a getting several votes in congressional seats.)
Maybe the system is free of fraud. If so only the restraint of the political parties can account for this. In a bad-tempered election, it would take the virtue of angels to resist the temptation to cheat.
Virginia problem (and opportunity) for Democrats
The gubernatorial election in Virginia this year throws up problems and an opportunity for the Democratic Party. The bad news for the Democrats is that it looks like we're going to see a Republican gain on Thursday 8th November. This is largely because Virginia is unusual as U.S. states go: Mark Warner, the hugely popular Democratic Governor is limited by law to one full term. There is little doubt that he would secure re-election if he were permitted to stand.
So we're down to twenty-one Democrat and twenty-nine Republican Governors by the end of the year, unless something dramatic happens in the New Jersey gubernatorial election where Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Corzine comfortably leads his Republican rival. Not for the first time, the electoral cycle is proving lucky for the Republicans. Considering the débacle of the Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court, it must be intensely frustrating for Democratic Party campaigners not to have any Republican targets to hit in a fortnight's time. I'd be climbing the walls if I was on the Democrat payroll right now. It's almost enough to make one suspect that the Machiavellian figures around the President have managed the timing of the current crises, in order to let the Democrats peak too early.
Beyond the gloom of a likely defeat in Virginia (Bill Clinton couldn't win here in '92 or '96, let alone Vice-President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry), Democrats should take a look at Mark Warner.
Winning a normally Republican state less than two months after 9/11 in a state which houses a significant military vote should be enough to make any political strategist sit up and take notice. Maintaining approval ratings of over 70 percent ain't bad either. As Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner has the sort of executive experience that seems to translate into a better presidential candidate than a long-time Senator (as John Kerry discovered to his cost last year). If the Democrats were to win Virginia in a presidential election, it is most likely that they would win nationally. According to my favourite internet bookies, Mark Warner is currently second-favourite to be the Democratic candidate for President (admittedly a long way behind front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton (New York).
Comparing Mark Warner to John Edwards, the last guy who was supposed to unlock the South for the Democrats, there is little doubt that Warner is the stronger candidate. The truth is that John Edwards would surely have been defeated if he had chosen to seek re-election in 2004 in North Carolina.
The question for Democrats is will anyone other than Hillary Clinton mobilize the grass-roots. And won't she simply guarantee a bigger "anyone but Hillary" Republican turnout.
The most easy mistake to make in warfare is to "fight the last war". In Colorado last year, the Democrats probably did their chances of winning that state no good by backing a rule change that was obviously partisan, and would have been irrelevant in 2004. They let their anger over the 2000 election decide their strategy for 2004.
The next Republican candidate for the presidency is the person the Democrats should be aiming to defeat, not George W. Bush. It's a good time for the Democrats to think about the kind of candidate who can win for them in 2008.
So we're down to twenty-one Democrat and twenty-nine Republican Governors by the end of the year, unless something dramatic happens in the New Jersey gubernatorial election where Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Corzine comfortably leads his Republican rival. Not for the first time, the electoral cycle is proving lucky for the Republicans. Considering the débacle of the Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court, it must be intensely frustrating for Democratic Party campaigners not to have any Republican targets to hit in a fortnight's time. I'd be climbing the walls if I was on the Democrat payroll right now. It's almost enough to make one suspect that the Machiavellian figures around the President have managed the timing of the current crises, in order to let the Democrats peak too early.
Beyond the gloom of a likely defeat in Virginia (Bill Clinton couldn't win here in '92 or '96, let alone Vice-President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry), Democrats should take a look at Mark Warner.
Winning a normally Republican state less than two months after 9/11 in a state which houses a significant military vote should be enough to make any political strategist sit up and take notice. Maintaining approval ratings of over 70 percent ain't bad either. As Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner has the sort of executive experience that seems to translate into a better presidential candidate than a long-time Senator (as John Kerry discovered to his cost last year). If the Democrats were to win Virginia in a presidential election, it is most likely that they would win nationally. According to my favourite internet bookies, Mark Warner is currently second-favourite to be the Democratic candidate for President (admittedly a long way behind front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton (New York).
Comparing Mark Warner to John Edwards, the last guy who was supposed to unlock the South for the Democrats, there is little doubt that Warner is the stronger candidate. The truth is that John Edwards would surely have been defeated if he had chosen to seek re-election in 2004 in North Carolina.
The question for Democrats is will anyone other than Hillary Clinton mobilize the grass-roots. And won't she simply guarantee a bigger "anyone but Hillary" Republican turnout.
The most easy mistake to make in warfare is to "fight the last war". In Colorado last year, the Democrats probably did their chances of winning that state no good by backing a rule change that was obviously partisan, and would have been irrelevant in 2004. They let their anger over the 2000 election decide their strategy for 2004.
The next Republican candidate for the presidency is the person the Democrats should be aiming to defeat, not George W. Bush. It's a good time for the Democrats to think about the kind of candidate who can win for them in 2008.
7/02/2005
Democrat or Democratic?
An anonymous correspondent writes:
Considering that the District of Columbia's electoral college votes have never been allocated to any other Party than the Democrats' and considering also the complaint about my alleged partisanship, my guess is that I have irritated a Democratic Party voter.
1) The Democratic Party uses the web domain name www.democrats.org, so perhaps the Party itself does not mind which term I use. I tend to use "Democrat" because it is harder to confuse with the generic term a "democratic" party. Any political party that contests elections, has a system of accountability to its members, and does not resort to violence when the result goes the wrong way, could be considered democratic. The only reason that I don't use "GOP" instead of "Republican" is that most of my readers are European and so are unfamiliar with the expression. If "Republicanists" or "Republicists" were in common use, I would tend to use that expression to avoid confusion with an anti-monarchist Party.
However, Mr or Ms anonymous, I appreciate the tip. By the way, I am not eligible to vote in a U.S. election, I have never worked in an unpaid or paid capacity for any Republican candidate or campaigning organisation.
Because I have no wish to upset supporters of any democratic political party, I shall try to use "Democratic" more often, where there is no chance of confusion.
2) Washington D.C.
It is an anomaly that Washington D.C. has 3 electoral college votes in the U.S. presidential election. The allocation of E.C. votes is meant to be on the basis of the number of Senators and House Representatives that each State has. Like Puerto Rico and Samoa, the District of Columbia has no Senators and no full representative in the House of Representatives. Therefore, D.C.'s status is preferential compared with other Territories and States alike. As I understand it, the purpose in having the District of Columbia was to prevent any State from having a preferential position, by virtue of housing the federal government.
The 23rd Amendement is a compromise, and in my view a bad one for two reasons. In a close presidential election, Washington D.C. could determine the winner, which contradicts the principles on which the U.S. Constitution rest. The other Territories have a reasonable grievance in that they are excluded from the presidential vote.
I'm sure I would hold this view if the D.C. votes had gone for Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush. It would be funny if they had gone for alternative Parties each time, Libertarian, Green, Socialist etc. But the point remains.
3) Cheney....
OUCH!
Thank you, Mr or Ms anonymous for pointing out my mistake. My embarrassment is only mitigated by the fact that future readers have been spared my ignorance.
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
I hope you didn't enjoy it too much!
You make D.C.'s three electoral votes sound somehow illegitimate. They were awarded by the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1961.
Also, elsewhere on your site: although you claim to be non-partisan, you use "Democrat" as an adjective--a maddening practice characteristic of Republicans who can't bring themselves to use the proper term "Democratic." And by the way, the Vice President and his wife are Dick and Lynne CHENEY.
Considering that the District of Columbia's electoral college votes have never been allocated to any other Party than the Democrats' and considering also the complaint about my alleged partisanship, my guess is that I have irritated a Democratic Party voter.
1) The Democratic Party uses the web domain name www.democrats.org, so perhaps the Party itself does not mind which term I use. I tend to use "Democrat" because it is harder to confuse with the generic term a "democratic" party. Any political party that contests elections, has a system of accountability to its members, and does not resort to violence when the result goes the wrong way, could be considered democratic. The only reason that I don't use "GOP" instead of "Republican" is that most of my readers are European and so are unfamiliar with the expression. If "Republicanists" or "Republicists" were in common use, I would tend to use that expression to avoid confusion with an anti-monarchist Party.
However, Mr or Ms anonymous, I appreciate the tip. By the way, I am not eligible to vote in a U.S. election, I have never worked in an unpaid or paid capacity for any Republican candidate or campaigning organisation.
Because I have no wish to upset supporters of any democratic political party, I shall try to use "Democratic" more often, where there is no chance of confusion.
2) Washington D.C.
It is an anomaly that Washington D.C. has 3 electoral college votes in the U.S. presidential election. The allocation of E.C. votes is meant to be on the basis of the number of Senators and House Representatives that each State has. Like Puerto Rico and Samoa, the District of Columbia has no Senators and no full representative in the House of Representatives. Therefore, D.C.'s status is preferential compared with other Territories and States alike. As I understand it, the purpose in having the District of Columbia was to prevent any State from having a preferential position, by virtue of housing the federal government.
The 23rd Amendement is a compromise, and in my view a bad one for two reasons. In a close presidential election, Washington D.C. could determine the winner, which contradicts the principles on which the U.S. Constitution rest. The other Territories have a reasonable grievance in that they are excluded from the presidential vote.
I'm sure I would hold this view if the D.C. votes had gone for Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush. It would be funny if they had gone for alternative Parties each time, Libertarian, Green, Socialist etc. But the point remains.
3) Cheney....
OUCH!
Thank you, Mr or Ms anonymous for pointing out my mistake. My embarrassment is only mitigated by the fact that future readers have been spared my ignorance.
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
I hope you didn't enjoy it too much!
5/21/2005
Washington Governor court case begins Monday
From the Washington State Secretary of State's website:
The case is being brought on behalf of Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate. The election of Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire last December (after two recounts)could be overturned if the complaint is successful. The trial will focus on alleged voting irregularites.
Media Advisory
Issued: April 05, 2005
Superior Court Judge John Bridges today announced the 2004 gubernatorial contested election case will go to trial May 23 and end within two weeks.
This allows nine business days for the trial given the Memorial Day weekend.
The case is being brought on behalf of Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate. The election of Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire last December (after two recounts)could be overturned if the complaint is successful. The trial will focus on alleged voting irregularites.
5/01/2005
3/26/2005
A trick question
A reader wanted to know who was the first U.S. President elected by the 50 states. This was John F. Kennedy in 1960.
However, if the question was "Who was the first President to be elected by the current size (538 votes) of the Electoral College?" then the answer would Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. The District of Columbia (D.C.) was awarded three electoral college votes in time for the 1964 presidential election, despite the fact that the U.S. federal capital does not have any U.S. Senators or Representatives (there is a non-voting "Territorial Delegate" to the House of Representatives).
The number of Electoral College votes per state is determined by 1) the number of U.S. Senators (two in each state), and 2) the number of House of Representatives members (minimum of one, but otherwise in proportion to the voting population).
If the question were: "Who was the first President elected by the current distribution of electoral college votes?" then the correct answer would be George W. Bush... in 2004 (not 2000). Because the number of Representatives is re-calculated every ten years after the census, and the last census was in 2000, the 2004 was the first time that the current electoral college distribution was used, and 2008 will be the only other time.
Finally, some thoughts to conspiracy theorists looking for "proof" that the census of 2000 fixed matters the Republicans' way.
1) The most recent census was carried out during Bill Clinton's Democrat presidency.
2) The last congressional seat to be allocated was given to North Carolina, a decison that was taken to the Supreme Court by the state of Utah. Both states went Republican in both 2000 and 2004.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina should get the final seat, not Utah. For the record, the Democrats did not bother campaigning in Utah in 2004, although North Carolina was at one point considered a long-shot for them.
So the evidence does not support a fix by Republicans in the allocation of Electoral College votes.
However, if the question was "Who was the first President to be elected by the current size (538 votes) of the Electoral College?" then the answer would Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. The District of Columbia (D.C.) was awarded three electoral college votes in time for the 1964 presidential election, despite the fact that the U.S. federal capital does not have any U.S. Senators or Representatives (there is a non-voting "Territorial Delegate" to the House of Representatives).
The number of Electoral College votes per state is determined by 1) the number of U.S. Senators (two in each state), and 2) the number of House of Representatives members (minimum of one, but otherwise in proportion to the voting population).
If the question were: "Who was the first President elected by the current distribution of electoral college votes?" then the correct answer would be George W. Bush... in 2004 (not 2000). Because the number of Representatives is re-calculated every ten years after the census, and the last census was in 2000, the 2004 was the first time that the current electoral college distribution was used, and 2008 will be the only other time.
Finally, some thoughts to conspiracy theorists looking for "proof" that the census of 2000 fixed matters the Republicans' way.
1) The most recent census was carried out during Bill Clinton's Democrat presidency.
2) The last congressional seat to be allocated was given to North Carolina, a decison that was taken to the Supreme Court by the state of Utah. Both states went Republican in both 2000 and 2004.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina should get the final seat, not Utah. For the record, the Democrats did not bother campaigning in Utah in 2004, although North Carolina was at one point considered a long-shot for them.
So the evidence does not support a fix by Republicans in the allocation of Electoral College votes.
3/13/2005
Why Senators make bad presidential candidates
Real Clear Politics put the boot into Senator Robert Byrd recently, on the issue of filibusters in the Senate. The specifics of the issue need not concern us here.
The problem for Senator Byrd, or Senator John Kerry, or Senator John McCain or any other Senator with the sort of experience to be considered a viable presidential candidate is simple. In two terms of office a Senator clocks up twelve years of speeches, letters and votes on the Senate floor or in committee. He or she may block legislation or propose a panacea that turns out to be a curse.
All of the issues that a Senator concerns himself with are either national policy, or can be presented as self-serving. Either way it is open to criticism.
Let us assume for one moment that Senator Byrd were to run for the Democratic Party nomination for President in 2008. Every single vote in committee or on the floor of the Senate, every letter to a constituent, becomes a potential soundbite against him.
Contrast this with a Governor. He or she has no international or national political responsibilities. The track record is typically over a four to eight year period of office. There are fewer hostages to fortune. The Governor can display a leadership style, and employ a Cabinet, all of which is better preparation for the image of a President. Better still, a Governor has to guide legislation through the State legislature, a process not dissimilar to that of the President. Any executive skills will show up. So a successful Governor (especially one who beat an incumbent from the other side) from a significant State will always have the edge of a Senator in a dirty fight.
So the solution for Senators would seem to be to run for one term or to stand for president during the second term, as former Senator John Edwards did and Senator Hillary Clinton might be considering. The problem in the case of the then Senator Edwards of North Carolina is that he didn't get the nomination for President, as Vice-President he didn't deliver North Carolina to the John Kerry campaign, he is out office, and his Democratic nomination successor for the Senate in North Carolina lost. What this means is that by 2008 he will have been a one-term Senator from a state his Party has given up on, and one without a particularly memorable record to boot. Or as a cynic might put it: a has-been mediocrity, in short.
Whether by chance or design, Senator Clinton's timing looks good. She can run for re-election in 2006, hopefully win the race, giving plenty of media exposure. Or she can stand down and generate a frenzy of speculation about when she times her declaration of intent.
If either Party, Republican or Democrat picks a Governor to fight a Senator, it looks like a foregone conclusion. But right now, both sides seem set to pick Senators.
The problem for Senator Byrd, or Senator John Kerry, or Senator John McCain or any other Senator with the sort of experience to be considered a viable presidential candidate is simple. In two terms of office a Senator clocks up twelve years of speeches, letters and votes on the Senate floor or in committee. He or she may block legislation or propose a panacea that turns out to be a curse.
All of the issues that a Senator concerns himself with are either national policy, or can be presented as self-serving. Either way it is open to criticism.
Let us assume for one moment that Senator Byrd were to run for the Democratic Party nomination for President in 2008. Every single vote in committee or on the floor of the Senate, every letter to a constituent, becomes a potential soundbite against him.
Contrast this with a Governor. He or she has no international or national political responsibilities. The track record is typically over a four to eight year period of office. There are fewer hostages to fortune. The Governor can display a leadership style, and employ a Cabinet, all of which is better preparation for the image of a President. Better still, a Governor has to guide legislation through the State legislature, a process not dissimilar to that of the President. Any executive skills will show up. So a successful Governor (especially one who beat an incumbent from the other side) from a significant State will always have the edge of a Senator in a dirty fight.
So the solution for Senators would seem to be to run for one term or to stand for president during the second term, as former Senator John Edwards did and Senator Hillary Clinton might be considering. The problem in the case of the then Senator Edwards of North Carolina is that he didn't get the nomination for President, as Vice-President he didn't deliver North Carolina to the John Kerry campaign, he is out office, and his Democratic nomination successor for the Senate in North Carolina lost. What this means is that by 2008 he will have been a one-term Senator from a state his Party has given up on, and one without a particularly memorable record to boot. Or as a cynic might put it: a has-been mediocrity, in short.
Whether by chance or design, Senator Clinton's timing looks good. She can run for re-election in 2006, hopefully win the race, giving plenty of media exposure. Or she can stand down and generate a frenzy of speculation about when she times her declaration of intent.
If either Party, Republican or Democrat picks a Governor to fight a Senator, it looks like a foregone conclusion. But right now, both sides seem set to pick Senators.
3/12/2005
Just when you thought it was over...
The Washington State Governor saga continues. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed (the official responsible for the conduct of elections) has now stated that he supports the challenge in the courts by Republican candidate Dino Rossi. The November 2004 election is still not over.
The story so far. After more than 500 votes were "found" in the most heavily Democratic area of the State of Washington, the Republican lead of 261 in the initial count was overturned, first by a machine recount that gave Mr Rossi a lead of 42, then the hand recount that produced a lead of 129 for Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire.
The wild discrepancies between electoral districts when it came to the two recounts (some making virtually no changes at all, others boosting one or several candidates votes upwards, yet others reducing the number of accepted ballots) give rise to the suspicion that serious incompetence is at stake or that the result was fixed.
I can't help drawing parallels with the Ukraine, where similar discrepancies in December led to street protests and the eventual re-run of the election. Clearly, the gubernatorial election in Washington state is not considered by locals as epoch-making, which is no bad thing.
The silence of the heavily pro-Democrat media in New York and Washington D.C. is deafening, considering the coverage given to attempts by pressure groups to get the Presidential election result overturned by querying the score in Ohio.
The value of the Washington State election for governor in 2004 is that it has become a microcosm of all the problems facing election organisers in the U.S.A.. Add the problem of time differences and results being declared (sometimes falsely) whilst other people are still voting and one gets a U.S. Presidential election.
The story so far. After more than 500 votes were "found" in the most heavily Democratic area of the State of Washington, the Republican lead of 261 in the initial count was overturned, first by a machine recount that gave Mr Rossi a lead of 42, then the hand recount that produced a lead of 129 for Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire.
The wild discrepancies between electoral districts when it came to the two recounts (some making virtually no changes at all, others boosting one or several candidates votes upwards, yet others reducing the number of accepted ballots) give rise to the suspicion that serious incompetence is at stake or that the result was fixed.
I can't help drawing parallels with the Ukraine, where similar discrepancies in December led to street protests and the eventual re-run of the election. Clearly, the gubernatorial election in Washington state is not considered by locals as epoch-making, which is no bad thing.
The silence of the heavily pro-Democrat media in New York and Washington D.C. is deafening, considering the coverage given to attempts by pressure groups to get the Presidential election result overturned by querying the score in Ohio.
The value of the Washington State election for governor in 2004 is that it has become a microcosm of all the problems facing election organisers in the U.S.A.. Add the problem of time differences and results being declared (sometimes falsely) whilst other people are still voting and one gets a U.S. Presidential election.
2/08/2005
Problems with polls
One of the problems with opinion polls in elections is that the margins of error are often greater than the majority for either side.
This can be seen most graphically in the Electoral Vote Predictor for last November's U.S. presidential election.
On election day this map shows what the editors of Electoral Vote Predictor believed the result would be.
Apart from getting the overall result wrong by predicting a john Kerry victory, no fewer than five states were won by the opposite party, and the errors were not all to the Democrats. New Jersey was also called an "exactly tied" state. I note Virginia listed as "Barely Bush" when it was won by about 9 percentage points.
The fault is not with the website editors, although they could have disregarded the less credible Zogby polling.
This can be seen most graphically in the Electoral Vote Predictor for last November's U.S. presidential election.
On election day this map shows what the editors of Electoral Vote Predictor believed the result would be.
Apart from getting the overall result wrong by predicting a john Kerry victory, no fewer than five states were won by the opposite party, and the errors were not all to the Democrats. New Jersey was also called an "exactly tied" state. I note Virginia listed as "Barely Bush" when it was won by about 9 percentage points.
The fault is not with the website editors, although they could have disregarded the less credible Zogby polling.
2/07/2005
In praise of RealClearPolitics.com
Mrs Lynne Cheney, the wife of U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, is quoted from a recent television interview as being a regular reader of blogs, including RealClearPolitics.com.
Mrs Cheney said of blogs in general: "It is a real democratization of information so that people don't have to rely on one or two sources, they've got multiple sources. And I can tell in about two minutes on a blog whether this is someone whose opinion I value or not."
RealClearPolitics in particular Mrs Cheney said that she "certainly looked at a lot during the campaign."
For the basic mechanics of U.S. elections, I have found that the Green Papers is the most encyclopaedic source. If you want to know what the term limits for the Governor of Virginia are (1 four year term) or what the election cycle of U.S. Senators in Utah is (classes 1 and 3), or which are the six states that have been won by every succesful presidential campaign since 1972 (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee), then the Green Papers is for you.
However, if you want to know what's in the media right now, what the shape of the present political climate is and who's going to win next time, RealClearPolitics is an essential guide.
Not only is the sheer volume of material awesome: the home page alone is almost enough to make me quit blogging. The combination of totally professional opinion poll selection and analysis on the one hand and fearless commentary (on a different page) is a model for the rest of us, including the so-called mainstream.
I don't know what Charlie Cook's politics are, and I suspect that the editors of the Green Papers may have a liberal outlook. Both however have no hesitation in recommending RealClearPolics.com. I suspect that I am not alone in using RealClearPolitics as a portal for non-Republican sites.
The only complaint from me is that the typeface used is not as legible as using Arial would be.
Mrs Cheney said of blogs in general: "It is a real democratization of information so that people don't have to rely on one or two sources, they've got multiple sources. And I can tell in about two minutes on a blog whether this is someone whose opinion I value or not."
RealClearPolitics in particular Mrs Cheney said that she "certainly looked at a lot during the campaign."
For the basic mechanics of U.S. elections, I have found that the Green Papers is the most encyclopaedic source. If you want to know what the term limits for the Governor of Virginia are (1 four year term) or what the election cycle of U.S. Senators in Utah is (classes 1 and 3), or which are the six states that have been won by every succesful presidential campaign since 1972 (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee), then the Green Papers is for you.
However, if you want to know what's in the media right now, what the shape of the present political climate is and who's going to win next time, RealClearPolitics is an essential guide.
Not only is the sheer volume of material awesome: the home page alone is almost enough to make me quit blogging. The combination of totally professional opinion poll selection and analysis on the one hand and fearless commentary (on a different page) is a model for the rest of us, including the so-called mainstream.
I don't know what Charlie Cook's politics are, and I suspect that the editors of the Green Papers may have a liberal outlook. Both however have no hesitation in recommending RealClearPolics.com. I suspect that I am not alone in using RealClearPolitics as a portal for non-Republican sites.
The only complaint from me is that the typeface used is not as legible as using Arial would be.
2/01/2005
On the Defensive
The New York Times is concerned about the "chequebook politics" employed by U.S. Senator Jon Corzine in the race for the Democratic nomination for the New Jersey governor's election in November this year.
In 2005, there are no elections scheduled for either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, leaving only two gubernatorial elections: New Jersey and Virginia.
With acting governor of New Jersey Richard Codey announcing that he will not stand for a full-term and his predecessor (James E. "Jim" McGreevey)having stood down in controversial circumstances, New Jersey is a relatively good target for a Republican gain.
Meanwhile in Virginia, the state has a one-term of office limit, meaning that Governor Mark Warner (Democrat) cannot stand again. Considering that the previous elected Governor was a Republican and the state's strong Republican showing in statewide elections, and this looks like an even better Republican win prospect.
With 28 Republican governors out of 50, and the tainted election in Washington State still bubbling away quietly, the ambitions for Democrats in 2005 are restricted to holding onto what they have.
In 2005, there are no elections scheduled for either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, leaving only two gubernatorial elections: New Jersey and Virginia.
With acting governor of New Jersey Richard Codey announcing that he will not stand for a full-term and his predecessor (James E. "Jim" McGreevey)having stood down in controversial circumstances, New Jersey is a relatively good target for a Republican gain.
Meanwhile in Virginia, the state has a one-term of office limit, meaning that Governor Mark Warner (Democrat) cannot stand again. Considering that the previous elected Governor was a Republican and the state's strong Republican showing in statewide elections, and this looks like an even better Republican win prospect.
With 28 Republican governors out of 50, and the tainted election in Washington State still bubbling away quietly, the ambitions for Democrats in 2005 are restricted to holding onto what they have.
12/24/2004
12/23/2004
Lead switches in Washington State
The counting is over.
Christine Gregoire, the Democrat candidate for Governor of Washington State has overturned a 261 vote deficit on polling day (November 2) to win by 130. The score is subject to final confirmation by the Washington Secretary of State's office and of course, the lawyers...
As a former candidate myself in three much smaller scale local elections, I can honestly say that Dino Rossi the Republican candidate must be absolutely gutted.
Having apparently won by 261 votes, Rossi saw his lead whittled to 42 by the combination of a machine recount and what to a British audience can only be described as bizarre election procedures. His lead then grew to 50, before King County's late return changed the outcome.
First, voters who somehow were not included on electoral lists were allowed to vote "provisionally". Bluntly, this is nothing less than an open-door to massive voting fraud or error. As a means of encouraging turn-out it is simply crazy. It encourages people to not bother registering to vote properly and gives election officials an easy excuse for lazyness ("Don't bother with that, Mr Smith, just show up at the polling station on the day and my colleagues will let you vote").
Second, those who filled in ballot papers incorrectly but made a "clear intent" were added. This procedure in isolation is perfectly legitimate, provided of course that the same standards are used in all polling stations. Given the bizarre fluctuations in recount scores from different counties, let's just say I think the process was run by incompetent amateurs or crooks.
Third, postal votes franked on the day of the election were allowed. If the US Post Office is as slack as its British counterpart, then the practice of posting letters with the wrong frank mark (i.e. posted the day after the date marked on the envelope) cannot be ruled out. Even if no fraud occurred, it is imbecilic to have an election held up by the post. There is no excuse for not having a cut-off of votes received before or on polling day.
Fourth, it appears that different standards were applied for accepting votes during the course of the recounts. It can't be fraud! It's too obvious, it must be incompetence.
Fifth, allowing King County to report after the rest of the State is ridiculous. It means that any corrupt practice in that district will automatically succeed in its object. If the King County favoured candidate needs 100 extra votes to win, no problem, they can be found... The truth is that no result where the lead changes once the last county declares a result several days after the others can be accepted without serious concerns for the propriety of the counting process.
Whoever lost this election has more than sufficient grounds for feeling cheated. How did over 500 ballot papers disappear for a month? If Rossi had won, Gregoire would surely want to know.
What really bothers me is the thought that the US government is supervising elections in civil war-torn Iraq in January 2005. How the hell will the Iraqi parties deal with this sort of incompetence?
Christine Gregoire, the Democrat candidate for Governor of Washington State has overturned a 261 vote deficit on polling day (November 2) to win by 130. The score is subject to final confirmation by the Washington Secretary of State's office and of course, the lawyers...
As a former candidate myself in three much smaller scale local elections, I can honestly say that Dino Rossi the Republican candidate must be absolutely gutted.
Having apparently won by 261 votes, Rossi saw his lead whittled to 42 by the combination of a machine recount and what to a British audience can only be described as bizarre election procedures. His lead then grew to 50, before King County's late return changed the outcome.
First, voters who somehow were not included on electoral lists were allowed to vote "provisionally". Bluntly, this is nothing less than an open-door to massive voting fraud or error. As a means of encouraging turn-out it is simply crazy. It encourages people to not bother registering to vote properly and gives election officials an easy excuse for lazyness ("Don't bother with that, Mr Smith, just show up at the polling station on the day and my colleagues will let you vote").
Second, those who filled in ballot papers incorrectly but made a "clear intent" were added. This procedure in isolation is perfectly legitimate, provided of course that the same standards are used in all polling stations. Given the bizarre fluctuations in recount scores from different counties, let's just say I think the process was run by incompetent amateurs or crooks.
Third, postal votes franked on the day of the election were allowed. If the US Post Office is as slack as its British counterpart, then the practice of posting letters with the wrong frank mark (i.e. posted the day after the date marked on the envelope) cannot be ruled out. Even if no fraud occurred, it is imbecilic to have an election held up by the post. There is no excuse for not having a cut-off of votes received before or on polling day.
Fourth, it appears that different standards were applied for accepting votes during the course of the recounts. It can't be fraud! It's too obvious, it must be incompetence.
Fifth, allowing King County to report after the rest of the State is ridiculous. It means that any corrupt practice in that district will automatically succeed in its object. If the King County favoured candidate needs 100 extra votes to win, no problem, they can be found... The truth is that no result where the lead changes once the last county declares a result several days after the others can be accepted without serious concerns for the propriety of the counting process.
Whoever lost this election has more than sufficient grounds for feeling cheated. How did over 500 ballot papers disappear for a month? If Rossi had won, Gregoire would surely want to know.
What really bothers me is the thought that the US government is supervising elections in civil war-torn Iraq in January 2005. How the hell will the Iraqi parties deal with this sort of incompetence?
Kos says shoot Kerry and his team
I am reminded of the poster in the Kingston-upon-Thames offices of a local branch of a British political party in 1987.
Apologies for the relative dearth of postings this week. I'm waiting for news from Olympia, Washington about the gubernatorial race.
The Six Phases of an Election
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. The Search for the Guilty
5. The Punishment of the Innocent
6. Rewards and Honours for Non-participants
Apologies for the relative dearth of postings this week. I'm waiting for news from Olympia, Washington about the gubernatorial race.
12/18/2004
King County should fix it for Gregoire
With only one county left to report, from 39, the Democrat position in the Washington State Governor election seems unassailable. King County, which polls 3 to 2 for the Democrats against the Republicans is expected to find an extra 500 votes or more. In the previous re-count, 593 extra votes for the Democrat candidate Christine Gregoire were counted, compared with 348 for Dino Rossi, her Republican opponent. Because the result currently stands at at Rossi lead of 42, plus eight net votes added from the other 38 counties of Washington State, it would now be extraordinary if the King County manual recount does not produce a Democrat win, despite Gregoire being behind in both statewide tallies so far.
The conspiracy theorists don't have far to look for evidence that something odd happened between November 2 and December 23 2004. Consider the discrepencies between the standards of different counties. Not one county managed to achieve the same score in the original count, the machine recount and the hand recount. Cowlitz county managed to reduce the scores of both major parties in both recounts, whilst finding one extra Libertarian vote. Given that provisional ballots were being checked for possible inclusion this pattern is completely at odds with the rest of Washington state. Wahkiakum county produced the only figure that makes sense. There the machine recount added one vote to Rossi and the hand recount found one less, suggesting that the original count was good. It is obvious that the standards are either inconsistent from one county to another, or fraud is taking place under the noses of election officials. Reports of several hundred votes "forgotten" in King County suggest either a degree of open fraud that beggars belief, or a degree of incompetence that is simply awesome. Get FedEx in to run the polling stations and handle the delivery of ballot boxes!
For Rossi, defeat in these circumstances seems likely to propel him into a Senatorial campaign in two years time, a campaign he might well win.
The conspiracy theorists don't have far to look for evidence that something odd happened between November 2 and December 23 2004. Consider the discrepencies between the standards of different counties. Not one county managed to achieve the same score in the original count, the machine recount and the hand recount. Cowlitz county managed to reduce the scores of both major parties in both recounts, whilst finding one extra Libertarian vote. Given that provisional ballots were being checked for possible inclusion this pattern is completely at odds with the rest of Washington state. Wahkiakum county produced the only figure that makes sense. There the machine recount added one vote to Rossi and the hand recount found one less, suggesting that the original count was good. It is obvious that the standards are either inconsistent from one county to another, or fraud is taking place under the noses of election officials. Reports of several hundred votes "forgotten" in King County suggest either a degree of open fraud that beggars belief, or a degree of incompetence that is simply awesome. Get FedEx in to run the polling stations and handle the delivery of ballot boxes!
For Rossi, defeat in these circumstances seems likely to propel him into a Senatorial campaign in two years time, a campaign he might well win.
12/16/2004
Back in the Ukraine
According to Michael Fumento on TechCentral Station, Viktor Yushenko's poison was not as deadly as anti-chemicals activists have claimed. Bizarrely, Mr Yushenko may owe his life to the fact that his would-be murderers believed environmentalist propaganda!
The Ukrainian presidential election second round re-run will take place on December 26.
"We don't know of a single person who has ever died of acute dioxin poisoning," says Robert Golden, president of the Maryland-based consulting firm ToxLogic.
It's also terribly rude to say dioxin is not a human carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer insists it is, and the EPA desperately wants to call it one but its own review panels keep getting in the way.
Yet in addition to the Ranch Hands, we have cancer data from throughout the world concerning workers or townsfolk exposed to dioxin through accidental releases. No type of cancer shows up consistently. As a paper in last December's Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology concluded, "The long-term accumulation of negative, weak, and inconsistent findings suggests that [dioxin] eventually will be recognized as not carcinogenic for humans."
The Ukrainian presidential election second round re-run will take place on December 26.
12/15/2004
Spinning coin...
The Washington State gubernatorial election saga enters its eighth week and there is still no clear outcome. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed believes he will be able to declare a result by December 23.
On the one hand, Democrats are cheered by news that 561 ballots that were "mistakenly rejected" not once but twice, should be included in the King County total. As King County (including Seattle) accounts for over 35% of the Democrat score and the Democrats there outnumber Republicans by almost 3 to 2, such a change would appear to spell doom for Dino Rossi's chances of holding his lead.
In the original count Rossi beat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. After a machine recount which also saw many provisional ballots added to the toal, the Republican candidate's lead was cut to a mere 42 out of more than 2.8 million votes cast.
On the other hand my analysis of the corrections occuring in counties that have reported for the second and manual recount suggests that the picture is less rosy for Gregoire.
Across the whole State the average increase in the Democratic vote from the original to the first (machine) recount was 33.1 votes per county. For the 33 counties that have reported at the time of writing, the figure was 6.1 votes per county. So far in the second (hand) recount the number has incread to 6.1 per county, suggesting that the overall score could be 51.8 per county, or 1820 votes across Washington State.
However, the equivalent calculations for the Republican candidate suggest that his vote could increase by 2508 votes across the state, giving Rossi a majority in the region of 700 votes. The Libertarian candidate Ruth Bennett could add about 95 votes to an already impressive total of more than 63,000. Bennett scored more than five times the number of votes gained by Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian presidential candidate) in the State of Washington.
All this of course depends on the notion that the errors and challenges to disputed votes break evenly in the six remaining counties.
The coin is still spinning...
UPDATE: With results published for a 34th county (Skagit), a total of 24 ballots fewer have been counted. This marginally affects the calculations and does not alter the prognosis I have made above. It's still increadibly tight, but Rossi has picked up a thin advantage, with King county to come.
On the one hand, Democrats are cheered by news that 561 ballots that were "mistakenly rejected" not once but twice, should be included in the King County total. As King County (including Seattle) accounts for over 35% of the Democrat score and the Democrats there outnumber Republicans by almost 3 to 2, such a change would appear to spell doom for Dino Rossi's chances of holding his lead.
In the original count Rossi beat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. After a machine recount which also saw many provisional ballots added to the toal, the Republican candidate's lead was cut to a mere 42 out of more than 2.8 million votes cast.
On the other hand my analysis of the corrections occuring in counties that have reported for the second and manual recount suggests that the picture is less rosy for Gregoire.
Across the whole State the average increase in the Democratic vote from the original to the first (machine) recount was 33.1 votes per county. For the 33 counties that have reported at the time of writing, the figure was 6.1 votes per county. So far in the second (hand) recount the number has incread to 6.1 per county, suggesting that the overall score could be 51.8 per county, or 1820 votes across Washington State.
However, the equivalent calculations for the Republican candidate suggest that his vote could increase by 2508 votes across the state, giving Rossi a majority in the region of 700 votes. The Libertarian candidate Ruth Bennett could add about 95 votes to an already impressive total of more than 63,000. Bennett scored more than five times the number of votes gained by Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian presidential candidate) in the State of Washington.
All this of course depends on the notion that the errors and challenges to disputed votes break evenly in the six remaining counties.
The coin is still spinning...
UPDATE: With results published for a 34th county (Skagit), a total of 24 ballots fewer have been counted. This marginally affects the calculations and does not alter the prognosis I have made above. It's still increadibly tight, but Rossi has picked up a thin advantage, with King county to come.
12/10/2004
Bad for Rossi, Good for Gregoire
The hand recount in Washington State for the gubernatorial election of November 2, is underway, and is showing anomalies between the machine recount and the present check. As expected, the Libertarian candidate has been losing votes. Although the Republican Dino Rossi has (on paper) increased his lead to 43 over Democrat candidate Christine Gregoire, the signs are the King County will find sufficent extra votes to overturn the result. Some Republican activists have actually called on Rossi to concede in protest.
With 10 counties reporting, the discrepancies stand at: Democrat +28 votes, Republican +29 votes, Libertarian -2 votes. King County, which includes the city of Seattle, accounted for over 875,000 votes or over 30% of all votes cast. On current trends a discrepancy of over 800 would be consistent with 500 going to the Democrat candidate, sufficent to win the race for Governor. In the machine recount, King County found 971 extra votes of which 593 went to Gregoire.
Recounts in the US have a habit of boosting the Democrat score, whether in Washington, Ohio or Florida. Depending on one's political allegiance this is either cheating by Republicans who prevent good votes from counting, which is rectified in the recount, or cheating by Democrats who stuff the ballot boxes after the polls have closed. Either way, a bad taste is left by these lapses.
With 10 counties reporting, the discrepancies stand at: Democrat +28 votes, Republican +29 votes, Libertarian -2 votes. King County, which includes the city of Seattle, accounted for over 875,000 votes or over 30% of all votes cast. On current trends a discrepancy of over 800 would be consistent with 500 going to the Democrat candidate, sufficent to win the race for Governor. In the machine recount, King County found 971 extra votes of which 593 went to Gregoire.
Recounts in the US have a habit of boosting the Democrat score, whether in Washington, Ohio or Florida. Depending on one's political allegiance this is either cheating by Republicans who prevent good votes from counting, which is rectified in the recount, or cheating by Democrats who stuff the ballot boxes after the polls have closed. Either way, a bad taste is left by these lapses.
12/08/2004
Was it the Guardian wot won it for Bush?
I just had a discussion about Operation Clark County, that fatuous attempt by the London-based Socialist-leaning Guardian newspaper, to persuade Ohio voters to back John Kerry in the November 2 election. The question being considered was: did the Guardian (nicknamed the Grauniad for its frequent typographical errors and its leftist obsessions) win the presidential election (accidentally) for George Bush? In 1992, the Sun newspaper proclaimed on its front page after the fourth consecutive defeat for the British Labour Party that "It Was the Sun Wot Won It". Did the Guardian's patronizing meddling produce a similar, if unintended effect?
The set-up was as follows. The Guardian calculated (correctly) that Ohio would be a key state in the presidential election. Ian Katz and Oliver Burkeman, the 'geniuses' behind the campaign selected Clark County on the basis that Al Gore had supposedly won that county by a mere 324 votes or 1%. The Guardian also claimed that George W Bush had won Ohio by 4%, but that polls were showing a tight race with a virtual dead heat expected.
The truth was slightly different. Clark County did go for Gore, but only by 0.56%, and Bush won Ohio by 3.51% in 2000. So the background information was slightly wrong to begin with.
Robin Grant of perfect.co.uk, went one better, not only claiming to have set up the campaign but actually collecting local press coverage, including expressions of outrage from Clark County residents. Grant's smug chuckles at the right-wing bloggers look funny now, but not the way that he had intended.
The result of thousands of Guardian readers sending letters to independent voters in Clark County was nothing less than dramatic. The campaign, despite being a "roaring success" was cancelled as soon as letters began to arrive in Ohio.
A typical report of the time reads:
The local paper ran a story with the headline "Butt out Brits, voters say". USA Today describing the Guardian as a "left-leaning newspaper", poured scorn on the campaign, portraying it as at best a publicity stunt.
Both local Republican and Democrat campaigns described the move as self-defeating. The scorecard shows the cost of Operation Clark County to John Kerry's hopes of winning Ohio.
So the Guardian swing was 2.0% from the Democrats to Bush. Clark County was the only Ohio county to switch from a Democrat majority in 2000 to a Republican one in 2004. In fact such a swing only occurred in 5% of the whole country's 3,113 counties according to USA Today. If we imagine what effect Operation Clark County might have had if the Guardian had run it across the whole of the USA we get some startling results.
Kerry would have failed to win the only State to switch his way from 2000, New Hampshire with 4 electoral college votes. Worse still, Michigan (17 votes), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10) would all have fallen to the Republican onslaught if the Guardian effect had been felt in those states. The final outcome would have been a 355 to 183 electoral college massacre for Senator Kerry.
It gets worse.
The Guardian ended up giving out contact details for 14,000 voters out of the 56,000 originally planned for. If these had been sent and they had achieved the same scale of effect then the swing would have been eight per cent more to Bush. So a nationwide Guardian campaign could have given a further eight states totalling 130 electoral college votes for Bush. At 485 to 53, the Democratic Party can only pray that next time round no progressive billionaire pays for such an operation.
The short answer to the original question is 'No', Operation Clark County cannot be credited with finding the 118,775 votes for George Bush that got him re-elected. In the event, the entire voting population of Clark County going for John Kerry would not have been enough. But the margin of victory, which encouraged Senator Kerry to concede gracefully on November 3, might not have been there without the efforts of Guardian readers. I understand that the local Republican campaign office wrote a letter of thanks to the Guardian.
One final question. Did the Guardian pay for the copy of the electoral roll, or do the taxpayers of Clark County have to find an extra $25? I hope Mr Katz pays up. It's the least he can do for the 'impoverished' masses of Ohio.
The set-up was as follows. The Guardian calculated (correctly) that Ohio would be a key state in the presidential election. Ian Katz and Oliver Burkeman, the 'geniuses' behind the campaign selected Clark County on the basis that Al Gore had supposedly won that county by a mere 324 votes or 1%. The Guardian also claimed that George W Bush had won Ohio by 4%, but that polls were showing a tight race with a virtual dead heat expected.
The truth was slightly different. Clark County did go for Gore, but only by 0.56%, and Bush won Ohio by 3.51% in 2000. So the background information was slightly wrong to begin with.
Robin Grant of perfect.co.uk, went one better, not only claiming to have set up the campaign but actually collecting local press coverage, including expressions of outrage from Clark County residents. Grant's smug chuckles at the right-wing bloggers look funny now, but not the way that he had intended.
The result of thousands of Guardian readers sending letters to independent voters in Clark County was nothing less than dramatic. The campaign, despite being a "roaring success" was cancelled as soon as letters began to arrive in Ohio.
A typical report of the time reads:
The Springfield News-Sun also received about a dozen e-mails, starting early in the day, about the Guardian campaign, from places as diverse as New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Alaska and Switzerland, almost all of which expressed some degree of outrage.
The local paper ran a story with the headline "Butt out Brits, voters say". USA Today describing the Guardian as a "left-leaning newspaper", poured scorn on the campaign, portraying it as at best a publicity stunt.
Both local Republican and Democrat campaigns described the move as self-defeating. The scorecard shows the cost of Operation Clark County to John Kerry's hopes of winning Ohio.
| Clark County | 2004 | 2000 | ||
| votes | % | votes | % | |
| Republican | 34,938 | 50.78 | 27,660 | 48.06 |
| Democrat | 34,534 | 48.74 | 27,984 | 48.62 | Others | 331 | n/a | 1,915 | n/a |
| Ohio | 2004 | 2000 | ||
| votes | % | votes | % | |
| Republican | 2,858,727 | 50.82 | 2,351,209 | 49.98 |
| Democrat | 2,739,952 | 48.70 | 2,186,190 | 46.47 |
| Others | 26,952 | n/a | 167,058 | n/a |
| Republican majority or deficit (%) | |||
| 2004 | 2000 | swing | |
| Ohio | +2.12 | +3.51 | 0.7% to Democrat |
| Clark County | +0.56 | -2.04 | 1.3% to Republican |
So the Guardian swing was 2.0% from the Democrats to Bush. Clark County was the only Ohio county to switch from a Democrat majority in 2000 to a Republican one in 2004. In fact such a swing only occurred in 5% of the whole country's 3,113 counties according to USA Today. If we imagine what effect Operation Clark County might have had if the Guardian had run it across the whole of the USA we get some startling results.
Kerry would have failed to win the only State to switch his way from 2000, New Hampshire with 4 electoral college votes. Worse still, Michigan (17 votes), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10) would all have fallen to the Republican onslaught if the Guardian effect had been felt in those states. The final outcome would have been a 355 to 183 electoral college massacre for Senator Kerry.
It gets worse.
The Guardian ended up giving out contact details for 14,000 voters out of the 56,000 originally planned for. If these had been sent and they had achieved the same scale of effect then the swing would have been eight per cent more to Bush. So a nationwide Guardian campaign could have given a further eight states totalling 130 electoral college votes for Bush. At 485 to 53, the Democratic Party can only pray that next time round no progressive billionaire pays for such an operation.
The short answer to the original question is 'No', Operation Clark County cannot be credited with finding the 118,775 votes for George Bush that got him re-elected. In the event, the entire voting population of Clark County going for John Kerry would not have been enough. But the margin of victory, which encouraged Senator Kerry to concede gracefully on November 3, might not have been there without the efforts of Guardian readers. I understand that the local Republican campaign office wrote a letter of thanks to the Guardian.
One final question. Did the Guardian pay for the copy of the electoral roll, or do the taxpayers of Clark County have to find an extra $25? I hope Mr Katz pays up. It's the least he can do for the 'impoverished' masses of Ohio.
12/07/2004
Losers
A federal judge has ruled that a full recount in the state of Ohio should go ahead, following lobbying by David Cobb, the Green Party candidate and Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party for US President.
To be honest the request makes no sense whatsoever for either candidate.
David Cobb wasn't even on the ballot and received 186 write-in votes, 11,721 less than the next placed candidate (Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate). He only got 72 votes more than Joe Schriner, a local independent. So for the Green candidate the only outcome that could change is that instead of finishing 5th, he could finish 6th.
For Michael Badnarik there is even less sense. As the Libertarian Party candidate, he might be expected to turn down a chance to waste taxpayers' money. Instead he demands a recount. As the LP candidate scored 14,695 votes in Ohio, or 2,725,357 fewer than John Kerry (Democrat), it does not seem plausible that Badnarik thinks he could finish second. On the contrary, the LP only finished 2,717 votes ahead of his nearest rival (Peroutka). So again there is only one plausible change, Badnarik could finish 4th instead of 3rd.
If there was any chance the result might give the minor parties automatic registration on the ballot next time, I could approve of the attempt.
Of course the real reason for the sudden enthusiasm of Libertarians and Greens for a full recount has more to do with the perception that if a recount lead to a Kerry win in Ohio, which overturned the presidential election, then both the Green and Libertarian parties could proclaim that they had achieved a massive impact.
However, unlike Florida in 2000, the gap between the Republican and Democrat candidates is greater than the total number of minor party votes combined (119,775). At 2.12%, the lead President Bush enjoyed over Senator Kerry was more than 230 times greater than that of Florida in 2000.
UPDATE: I found this news release from the Libertarian Party. It claims that the purpose of the recount is to "expose irregularities" in the election process.
More revealing of Michael Badnarik's agenda is the following quote:
So there we have it. Badnarik wants the John Kerry to win the presidency. And he is willing to waste $1.5 million of Ohio's taxpayers' money to try to achieve this aim. No amount of spin can dress this up as a vehicle for advancing Libertarian ideas.
To be honest the request makes no sense whatsoever for either candidate.
David Cobb wasn't even on the ballot and received 186 write-in votes, 11,721 less than the next placed candidate (Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate). He only got 72 votes more than Joe Schriner, a local independent. So for the Green candidate the only outcome that could change is that instead of finishing 5th, he could finish 6th.
For Michael Badnarik there is even less sense. As the Libertarian Party candidate, he might be expected to turn down a chance to waste taxpayers' money. Instead he demands a recount. As the LP candidate scored 14,695 votes in Ohio, or 2,725,357 fewer than John Kerry (Democrat), it does not seem plausible that Badnarik thinks he could finish second. On the contrary, the LP only finished 2,717 votes ahead of his nearest rival (Peroutka). So again there is only one plausible change, Badnarik could finish 4th instead of 3rd.
If there was any chance the result might give the minor parties automatic registration on the ballot next time, I could approve of the attempt.
Of course the real reason for the sudden enthusiasm of Libertarians and Greens for a full recount has more to do with the perception that if a recount lead to a Kerry win in Ohio, which overturned the presidential election, then both the Green and Libertarian parties could proclaim that they had achieved a massive impact.
However, unlike Florida in 2000, the gap between the Republican and Democrat candidates is greater than the total number of minor party votes combined (119,775). At 2.12%, the lead President Bush enjoyed over Senator Kerry was more than 230 times greater than that of Florida in 2000.
UPDATE: I found this news release from the Libertarian Party. It claims that the purpose of the recount is to "expose irregularities" in the election process.
More revealing of Michael Badnarik's agenda is the following quote:
In addition to other perceived fraud -- or at least irregularities -- in Ohio's presidential election, Badnarik pointed to the "disturbing" fact that exit polls in many states showed Kerry winning the race.
"The phenomenon that is most damaging, in my point of view, is that for 20 years now, the media have been doing exit polls and using that information to project who was going to win that election," he said. "And because people leaving the polling places are typically very candid, the exit polls have historically been within 1 percent of the actual vote totals.
"Now, all of a sudden in this election, the exit polls and the vote totals differ by a significant amount -- and the talking heads on television are looking at it and wondering why the exit polls were wrong in this election. From what I can see, there's no reason to believe the exit polls were wrong, and fairly good reasons to believe that it was the election process that was faulty."
So there we have it. Badnarik wants the John Kerry to win the presidency. And he is willing to waste $1.5 million of Ohio's taxpayers' money to try to achieve this aim. No amount of spin can dress this up as a vehicle for advancing Libertarian ideas.
A little overtime before Christmas
Latest from the Washington State governor election saga.
The hand recount order has been signed and sealed. The political parties are now trying to find volunteers to hang around for up to two weeks staring at piles of paper to a) deter the other side from voiding any of our votes and b) trying to spot void votes allocated to the other side. Details here.
Having done this sort of thing myself I can honestly say that I defy anyone to keep their mind on it for more than two hours, never mind ten days, knowing that the gap of 42 votes is 0.0015% of the total cast. Normally a scrutineer can comfort him or herself with the thought that a single error probably won't make a difference. In my experience we would watch the votes being counted for a couple of minutes, concentrating on small batches to watch for any discrepencies (votes for our candidate in the wrong pile, a stack that should have 50 votes with 51 instead). Added to the fun we can't touch the ballot papers in the UK, but have to attract the attention of the returning officer or a deputy to come over and check our query.
Having worked in banks with note counting machines, and hand counted £35,000 in small bills once, I would be amazed if a hand count failed to reveal more than 42 errors out of 2.8 million. Counting machines are built for speed. Ideally I would use them to double check a hand count. At a guess, the recount and the machines will have done a great job if fewer than 250 votes change hands across the state. Of course many of these errors would cancel each other out: there's no reason to suppose that Rossi votes stick together more than Gregoire's do.
Because the Libertarians may not have a full complement of volunteers for this hand recount, expect some of their votes to be challenged...
The hand recount order has been signed and sealed. The political parties are now trying to find volunteers to hang around for up to two weeks staring at piles of paper to a) deter the other side from voiding any of our votes and b) trying to spot void votes allocated to the other side. Details here.
Having done this sort of thing myself I can honestly say that I defy anyone to keep their mind on it for more than two hours, never mind ten days, knowing that the gap of 42 votes is 0.0015% of the total cast. Normally a scrutineer can comfort him or herself with the thought that a single error probably won't make a difference. In my experience we would watch the votes being counted for a couple of minutes, concentrating on small batches to watch for any discrepencies (votes for our candidate in the wrong pile, a stack that should have 50 votes with 51 instead). Added to the fun we can't touch the ballot papers in the UK, but have to attract the attention of the returning officer or a deputy to come over and check our query.
Having worked in banks with note counting machines, and hand counted £35,000 in small bills once, I would be amazed if a hand count failed to reveal more than 42 errors out of 2.8 million. Counting machines are built for speed. Ideally I would use them to double check a hand count. At a guess, the recount and the machines will have done a great job if fewer than 250 votes change hands across the state. Of course many of these errors would cancel each other out: there's no reason to suppose that Rossi votes stick together more than Gregoire's do.
Because the Libertarians may not have a full complement of volunteers for this hand recount, expect some of their votes to be challenged...
12/06/2004
Cajun musical chairs
Results in Louisiana for the run-offs for the US House of Representatives, have left the Republicans winning a Democrat seat and the Democrats winning a Republican one. [Thanks to RealClearPolitics for the link.]
The elections are unique in the USA because Louisiana has the French electoral system of having no primaries, so all potential candidates stand in a first round of voting on general election day. If no candidate passes 50% of the vote, the top two candidates go to a run-off election the following month. This is the same election system used in successfully France and recently seen in the Ukraine (in less favourable circumstances).
With the final results for the US House of Representatives now in the score is:
N.B. There were two vacant seats going into the 2004 election.
So the Republican Party has made its five gains after all, confirming that 2004 was a disaster for the Democratic Party across the board nationally. If the Washington State governor election re-count confirms a Republican gain there, then the Democrats will end 2004 with fewer presidential electoral college votes than 2000, fewer Senators and House Representatives than 2002 (already a bad year), and fewer Governors than in 2003 (which included the California recall fiasco for the Democrats).
And they probably outspent the Republicans this time, if we include outside supporters. Ouch!
The elections are unique in the USA because Louisiana has the French electoral system of having no primaries, so all potential candidates stand in a first round of voting on general election day. If no candidate passes 50% of the vote, the top two candidates go to a run-off election the following month. This is the same election system used in successfully France and recently seen in the Ukraine (in less favourable circumstances).
With the final results for the US House of Representatives now in the score is:
| Year | Party | ||
| 2004 | Republican 232 | Democrat 202 | Independent 1 |
| 2002 | Republican 227 | Democrat 205 | Independent 1 |
| Change | Republican +5 | Democrat -3 | Independent n/c |
N.B. There were two vacant seats going into the 2004 election.
So the Republican Party has made its five gains after all, confirming that 2004 was a disaster for the Democratic Party across the board nationally. If the Washington State governor election re-count confirms a Republican gain there, then the Democrats will end 2004 with fewer presidential electoral college votes than 2000, fewer Senators and House Representatives than 2002 (already a bad year), and fewer Governors than in 2003 (which included the California recall fiasco for the Democrats).
And they probably outspent the Republicans this time, if we include outside supporters. Ouch!
12/04/2004
Do all voters use public transportation and listen to their iPods after stopping by Starbucks?
The US Democratic Party is gearing up to change its national party chairman, a process that seems to have more significance to the party's members than worrying about who leads the party in the Senate (post-Daschle) or the House of Representatives.
Charlie Cook weighs in with advice for the Democrats, most of which I agree with.
Cook writes:
One bit I don't care for is:
I think the last thing the Democrats need is "dirty fingers". Stories are circulating about Marc Rich, whose wife made a donation to Hillary Clinton's Senate election campaign fund. Somehow Mr Rich got a presidential pardon as one of Bill Clinton's final gestures as President. It seems that Mr Rich may have been involved in the sorts of oil deals with Iran and Iraq that would normally fit a Bond movie super-villain's profile, not an upstanding member of the community famed for his philanthropy. Point taken about the need for an effective fundraiser.
I agree with two out of three of Charlie Cook's final requirements for a new DNC chairman:
If they can find a former Governor of a Southern State who has actually eaten at Wendy's when not on the campaign trail and has an outgoing personality, I'm sure the US electorate wouldn't mind too much if he or she happened to get a scholarship to go to an Ivy League college.
Charlie Cook weighs in with advice for the Democrats, most of which I agree with.
Cook writes:
My friend and colleague, Hotline editor Chuck Todd, points out that with the exception of black radio stations, the Kerry campaign and the Media Fund bought virtually no radio advertising in this campaign, despite the fact that outside of the cities themselves, people drive cars (and even trucks!) and an important way to reach voters is when they are listening to their car radios. It would seem that many Democratic media consultants believe that all voters use public transportation and listen to their iPods after stopping by Starbucks. Democrats would be well-advised to study how the Bush campaign found new ways to communicate with voters, while Team Kerry relied too much on television. Having spent a considerable amount of time in purple states this year, I can say with a good deal of authority that the law of diminishing returns on television advertising was long past exceeded in this campaign.
One bit I don't care for is:
Fourth, the next head of the DNC needs to be someone who knows how to raise money and isn't afraid of getting their fingers dirty doing it.
I think the last thing the Democrats need is "dirty fingers". Stories are circulating about Marc Rich, whose wife made a donation to Hillary Clinton's Senate election campaign fund. Somehow Mr Rich got a presidential pardon as one of Bill Clinton's final gestures as President. It seems that Mr Rich may have been involved in the sorts of oil deals with Iran and Iraq that would normally fit a Bond movie super-villain's profile, not an upstanding member of the community famed for his philanthropy. Point taken about the need for an effective fundraiser.
I agree with two out of three of Charlie Cook's final requirements for a new DNC chairman:
And finally, Democrats must find someone who will adopt the following party bylaws: (1) Don't nominate anyone from the Northeast; (2) Don't nominate anyone with an Ivy League undergraduate degree; and (3) Don't nominate a stiff.
If they can find a former Governor of a Southern State who has actually eaten at Wendy's when not on the campaign trail and has an outgoing personality, I'm sure the US electorate wouldn't mind too much if he or she happened to get a scholarship to go to an Ivy League college.
"Seconds out, round three..."
The Washington gubernatorial election saga reaches a new stage: the second recount. This will be the third count for the election to replace Governor Gary Locke in the State of Washington since November 2 this year, but this time it will be carried out by hand.
Democrat Christine Gregoire's campaign has posted a certified cheque for $755,000 to pay for the recount. Republican Dino Rossi currently holds a lead of 42 votes out of over 2.8 million votes cast.
Daily Kos seems oblivious to this development. But then they're too busy discussing President Bush's share of the Latino votes in Texas last month and whether Democrats are superior beings for using non-Microsoft web browsers.
Democrat Christine Gregoire's campaign has posted a certified cheque for $755,000 to pay for the recount. Republican Dino Rossi currently holds a lead of 42 votes out of over 2.8 million votes cast.
Daily Kos seems oblivious to this development. But then they're too busy discussing President Bush's share of the Latino votes in Texas last month and whether Democrats are superior beings for using non-Microsoft web browsers.
11/30/2004
Shambles in Olympia
The election for Governor of the State of Washington (capital: Olympia) has been certified - for now.
As the Secretary of State for Washington, Sam Reed puts it: another recount is a virtual certainty.
This is just as bad as Florida 2000, a shambles caused by idiotic election procedures made worse by a culture of extraordinary complacency.
Because the presidency is not riding on this election, there is not the same degree of venom or media scrutiny. Yet it is unbelievable that for the same election, different counties can use different criteria for issuing provisional ballots, can define a valid ballot using different standards. It is incredible that someone can post a ballot paper on November 2, the day of the election, and it will be counted whenever the US Post Office deigns to deliver it. It is surely a grotesque opportunity for election fraud to allow people to cast "provisional" votes, who are not on the electoral register and may not even be required to provide proof of address, let alone identity.
US election staff do not strike me as achieving the levels of professional competence of those of their British counterparts that I have dealt with. Even without turnout figures that mean that in Washington State more than two and three quarter million votes have been cast, I would fear for the reliability of the system. Having used note counters in banks as a teller and found them unreliable, I do not put much faith in vote counting machines, even without corruption.
Add all of these factors together, throw in a habit of not waiting for polls to close before announcing results, give losing candidates opportunities to appeal to the courts or to politically biased assemblies and it is easy to see why US democracy looks shabby.
To be fair, there are voices for reform in the electoral process that could improve matters. Sam Reed, the Washington Secretary of State himself has outlined proposals that would have helped in 2004.
Also to be fair, no election process involving millions of ballots could stand the precise scrutiny of modern media and the blogosphere.
God help the Iraqi people if the sort of election process used in the US is adopted in Iraq next January. There would be "absentee ballots" turning up in June, legal challenges lasting for years, and even the most mild-mannered democratic politician would find it hard to accept defeat gracefully.
I wouldn't.
As the Secretary of State for Washington, Sam Reed puts it: another recount is a virtual certainty.
This is just as bad as Florida 2000, a shambles caused by idiotic election procedures made worse by a culture of extraordinary complacency.
Because the presidency is not riding on this election, there is not the same degree of venom or media scrutiny. Yet it is unbelievable that for the same election, different counties can use different criteria for issuing provisional ballots, can define a valid ballot using different standards. It is incredible that someone can post a ballot paper on November 2, the day of the election, and it will be counted whenever the US Post Office deigns to deliver it. It is surely a grotesque opportunity for election fraud to allow people to cast "provisional" votes, who are not on the electoral register and may not even be required to provide proof of address, let alone identity.
US election staff do not strike me as achieving the levels of professional competence of those of their British counterparts that I have dealt with. Even without turnout figures that mean that in Washington State more than two and three quarter million votes have been cast, I would fear for the reliability of the system. Having used note counters in banks as a teller and found them unreliable, I do not put much faith in vote counting machines, even without corruption.
Add all of these factors together, throw in a habit of not waiting for polls to close before announcing results, give losing candidates opportunities to appeal to the courts or to politically biased assemblies and it is easy to see why US democracy looks shabby.
To be fair, there are voices for reform in the electoral process that could improve matters. Sam Reed, the Washington Secretary of State himself has outlined proposals that would have helped in 2004.
Also to be fair, no election process involving millions of ballots could stand the precise scrutiny of modern media and the blogosphere.
God help the Iraqi people if the sort of election process used in the US is adopted in Iraq next January. There would be "absentee ballots" turning up in June, legal challenges lasting for years, and even the most mild-mannered democratic politician would find it hard to accept defeat gracefully.
I wouldn't.
11/27/2004
"Mano a mano" in Washington State
Some information about hand recounts in Washington State for the Governor's race that never seems to end.
Because the Republican majority is 42, if I've understood the regulations correctly, there are basically three options.
1) There is a recount by hand of the entire state, on the basis that the majority is less than 150 votes or 0.25 per cent.
2) The Democrat candidate concedes.
3) The two leading candidates have the option of agreeing a different method (for example selected counties only). If a recount in some counties leads to the result being overturned (i.e. the Democrat candidate takes the lead), then the whole state has to be recounted by hand.
At present the Washington Secretary of State's office (responsible for certifying election returns) believes that a definite result can be announced on December 2.
Because the Republican majority is 42, if I've understood the regulations correctly, there are basically three options.
1) There is a recount by hand of the entire state, on the basis that the majority is less than 150 votes or 0.25 per cent.
2) The Democrat candidate concedes.
3) The two leading candidates have the option of agreeing a different method (for example selected counties only). If a recount in some counties leads to the result being overturned (i.e. the Democrat candidate takes the lead), then the whole state has to be recounted by hand.
At present the Washington Secretary of State's office (responsible for certifying election returns) believes that a definite result can be announced on December 2.
Another brief aside: Ukraine
I don't have any special knowledge about Ukraine, except to speculate that the cleavage between Yushenko and Yanukovych strongholds looks very much like the Western parts that were once part of Poland are voting for the opposition and the Eastern parts that were under Tsarist rule for longer are more pro-Moscow.
However, from Instapundit I found this link to some election statistics, including turnout changes between the two rounds of voting. This is apparently one of the pieces of evidence supporting claims of ballot-rigging.
The turnout rose sometimes considerably on November 21, in regions where Viktor Yanukovych the pro-Moscow candidate gained massive support. In areas supporting the opposition candidate Viktor Yushenko, turnout practically stayed unchanged from the first round of voting on October 31.
However, from Instapundit I found this link to some election statistics, including turnout changes between the two rounds of voting. This is apparently one of the pieces of evidence supporting claims of ballot-rigging.
The turnout rose sometimes considerably on November 21, in regions where Viktor Yanukovych the pro-Moscow candidate gained massive support. In areas supporting the opposition candidate Viktor Yushenko, turnout practically stayed unchanged from the first round of voting on October 31.
11/26/2004
A brief aside: Palestinian Authority elections
The Palestinian Authority election for a new President to replace Yasser Arafat is due to take place on January 9 2005. Marwan Barghouti, described as a leader of the younger Fatah activists has announced his intention to challenge Mahmoud Abbas.
I am unfamiliar with the technical side of these elections so I have been doing some background reading.
For information from official Palestinian sources about the election process follow this link:
Various reports from:
Msnbc, Washington Times, Al Jazeera, and the Jerusalem Post.
For critical views about the likelyhood of elections taking place on schedule and fairly, as well as difficulties registering voters:
Newsday
Little Green Footballs
Global Security
The Australian
I am unfamiliar with the technical side of these elections so I have been doing some background reading.
For information from official Palestinian sources about the election process follow this link:
Various reports from:
Msnbc, Washington Times, Al Jazeera, and the Jerusalem Post.
For critical views about the likelyhood of elections taking place on schedule and fairly, as well as difficulties registering voters:
Newsday
Little Green Footballs
Global Security
The Australian
11/25/2004
It might all be over by Christmas
More on the Washington recount, including what could happen next here.
"...forty two..."
The results are in for the first recount in Washington state. Dino Rossi has seen his lead cut to just 42 votes after King County supplied 593 extra votes to his Democratic opponent.
The Democrats may request a hand count, which would probably take a couple of weeks. Because the result is supposed to be certified by today, this may require lawyers and a lot of money. Over at the Daily KOS, there seems to be something of a consensus that the problem was their candidate, Christine Gregoire.
The changes in the three counties not reporting back by yesterday were:
King: Dem +593, Rep +348, Lib +30
Kitsap: Dem +15, Rep -19, Lib -7
Whitman: Dem -9, Rep -4, Lib -1
Total for the three counties: Democrat gain 599, Republican gain 325, Libertarian gain 22 (Republican majority in the 35 other counties was 316 votes).
The Democrats may request a hand count, which would probably take a couple of weeks. Because the result is supposed to be certified by today, this may require lawyers and a lot of money. Over at the Daily KOS, there seems to be something of a consensus that the problem was their candidate, Christine Gregoire.
The changes in the three counties not reporting back by yesterday were:
King: Dem +593, Rep +348, Lib +30
Kitsap: Dem +15, Rep -19, Lib -7
Whitman: Dem -9, Rep -4, Lib -1
Total for the three counties: Democrat gain 599, Republican gain 325, Libertarian gain 22 (Republican majority in the 35 other counties was 316 votes).
11/24/2004
Waiting for King
With three counties yet to declare recount totals, Dino Rossi the Republican candidate for Governor in the state of Washington has seen his lead increase from 261 to 316. However King County accounted for over half a million Democrat votes in the first count, so it's too early for the GOP to start celebrating. It would take an abnormally high number of extra votes in King County to be attributed to Christine Gregoire, the Democrat candidate, for the result to be overturned at this stage. Assuming no abnormal behaviour in King County, there should be no more than 700 extra votes allocated. The Democrats would need about 80% of these votes to win. This would be extraordinary: in no other county where more than 20 votes have been added, have the extra votes broken down more than 3 to 1 in either main candidate's favour.
The table below shows the latest available update on the recount.
Updates available on this page.
The table below shows the latest available update on the recount.
| County | Change from first count | ||
| Adams | Dem +12 | Rep +27 | Lib +2 |
| Asotin | Dem +1 | Rep -1 | Lib n/c |
| Benton | Dem +1 | Rep +2 | Lib -1 |
| Chelan | Dem +3 | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Clallam | Dem +1 | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Clark | Dem +3 | Rep +7 | Lib n/c |
| Columbia | Dem -1 | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Cowlitz | Dem -29 | Rep -40 | Lib n/c |
| Douglas | Dem +2 | Rep +4 | Lib +1 |
| Ferry | Dem +3 | Rep +2 | Lib n/c |
| Franklin | Dem -1 | Rep +1 | Lib +1 |
| Garfield | Dem +1 | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Grant | Dem +26 | Rep +44 | Lib +1 |
| Grays Harbor | Dem +6 | Rep +5 | Lib n/c |
| Island | Dem n/c | Rep +5 | Lib n/c |
| Jefferson | Dem +1 | Rep -4 | Lib +1 |
| King | |||
| Kitsap | |||
| Kittitas | Dem +19 | Rep +25 | Lib +2 |
| Klickitat | Dem n/c | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Lewis | Dem +2 | Rep +4 | Lib n/c |
| Mason | Dem +1 | Rep +2 | Lib +1 |
| Okanogan | Dem +1 | Rep -1 | Lib n/c |
| Pacific | Dem +1 | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Pend Oreille | Dem +6 | Rep +2 | Lib n/c |
| Pierce | Dem +242 | Rep +261 | Lib +11 |
| San Juan | Dem n/c | Rep -1 | Lib +1 |
| Skagit | Dem +71 | Rep +89 | Lib +7 |
| Skamania | Dem n/c | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Snohomish | Dem +131 | Rep +130 | Lib +10 |
| Spokane | Dem +121 | Rep +134 | Lib +6 |
| Stevens | Dem n/c | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Thurston | Dem +2 | Rep +4 | Lib n/c |
| Wahkiakum | Dem n/c | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Walla Walla | Dem +59 | Rep +37 | Lib +5 |
| Whatcom | Dem +3 | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Whitman | |||
| Yakima | Dem n/c | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Total | Democrat +690 | Republican +745 | Libertarian +48 |
Updates available on this page.
E&OE (2)
Yesterday's posting had a poor piece of layout: about 30 lines of blank text. The problem is now fixed and I now know how to avoid this in future.
11/23/2004
Still Sleepless in Seattle...
With just over a quarter of the votes recounted, the Washington State recount for the gubernatorial election is showing the Republican lead as effectively increasing by 29 votes. If the other counties show the same broad levels of discrepencies from the original count but we assume they all go the Democrats' way, we cannot expect the Republican lead to be cut by more than between 150 and 200 votes in the remaining counties. Anything more would involve a major surprise.
With a 261 vote provisional lead to overturn, the intial result looks set to stand. A Republican win would give that Party 29 Governors to the Democrats' 21, a net gain of one for the GOP.
The table below shows the latest available update on the recount.
[figures calculated by me based on these sources: original score and recount]
With a 261 vote provisional lead to overturn, the intial result looks set to stand. A Republican win would give that Party 29 Governors to the Democrats' 21, a net gain of one for the GOP.
The table below shows the latest available update on the recount.
| County | Change from first count | ||
| Adams | Dem +12 | Rep +27 | Lib +2 |
| Asotin | |||
| Benton | Dem +1 | Rep +2 | Lib -1 |
| Chelan | Dem +3 | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Clallam | Dem +1 | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Clark | Dem +3 | Rep +7 | Lib n/c |
| Columbia | Dem -1 | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Cowlitz | |||
| Douglas | Dem +2 | Rep +4 | Lib +1 |
| Ferry | Dem +3 | Rep +2 | Lib n/c |
| Franklin | |||
| Garfield | Dem +1 | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Grant | |||
| Grays Harbour | |||
| Island | Dem n/c | Rep +5 | Lib n/c |
| Jefferson | Dem +1 | Rep -4 | Lib +1 |
| King | |||
| Kitsap | |||
| Kittitas | Dem +19 | Rep +25 | Lib +2 |
| Klickitat | Dem n/c | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Lewis | Dem +2 | Rep +4 | Lib n/c |
| Mason | Dem +1 | Rep +2 | Lib +1 |
| Okanogan | Dem +1 | Rep -1 | Lib n/c |
| Pacific | Dem +1 | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Pend Oreille | Dem +6 | Rep +2 | Lib n/c |
| Pierce | |||
| San Juan | Dem n/c | Rep -1 | Lib +1 |
| Skagit | |||
| Skamania | |||
| Snohomish | |||
| Spokane | |||
| Stevens | Dem n/c | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Thurston | Dem +2 | Rep +4 | Lib n/c |
| Wahkiakum | Dem n/c | Rep +1 | Lib n/c |
| Walla Walla | |||
| Whatcom | |||
| Whitman | |||
| Yakima | Dem n/c | Rep n/c | Lib n/c |
| Total | Democrat +60 | Republican +89 | Libertarian +7 |
[figures calculated by me based on these sources: original score and recount]
11/22/2004
Errors and omissions excepted (part 1)
From time to time I take a time-out to check this blog for errors and omissions.
1) I have tidied up the spelling and the odd typographical error.
2) I have corrected a misunderstanding: I was under the impression that in 1916, Woodrow Wilson had failed to win the State of Missouri in his re-election campaign. This would have made him the only Democrat to ever win a presidential election against the Republican Party without holding Missouri.
3) I have deleted one posting (dated July 23 2004) in which I corrected another commentator (wrongly) for their mistake in reporting Missouri.
If any reader spots errors, omissions etc please let me know.
1) I have tidied up the spelling and the odd typographical error.
2) I have corrected a misunderstanding: I was under the impression that in 1916, Woodrow Wilson had failed to win the State of Missouri in his re-election campaign. This would have made him the only Democrat to ever win a presidential election against the Republican Party without holding Missouri.
3) I have deleted one posting (dated July 23 2004) in which I corrected another commentator (wrongly) for their mistake in reporting Missouri.
If any reader spots errors, omissions etc please let me know.
Recount in Washington State
The painful process of recounting over 2.8 million votes for the Governorship of the State of Washington begins.
In Klickitat, the only county to report back so far, Republican Dino Rossi has increased his vote by one, the other two candidates' scores remain unchanged.
The orginal total was:
Dino Rossi (Republican): 1,371,414 (48.8759%)
Christine Gregoire (Democrat): 1,371,153 (48.8666%)
Ruth Bennett (Libertarian): 63,346 (2.2576%)
Total votes: 2,805,913
Republican majority: 261 (0.0093%)
For British readers a 0.0093% majority would be equivalent to a parliamentary majority of about 4 votes.
In Klickitat, the only county to report back so far, Republican Dino Rossi has increased his vote by one, the other two candidates' scores remain unchanged.
The orginal total was:
Dino Rossi (Republican): 1,371,414 (48.8759%)
Christine Gregoire (Democrat): 1,371,153 (48.8666%)
Ruth Bennett (Libertarian): 63,346 (2.2576%)
Total votes: 2,805,913
Republican majority: 261 (0.0093%)
For British readers a 0.0093% majority would be equivalent to a parliamentary majority of about 4 votes.
11/19/2004
Why Governors matter
Historically, being a Governor is a better springboard for presidential ambitions than either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Four of the last five US presidents, including George W Bush, previously held a gubernatorial office. From this perspective, the Democrats' outlook is gloomy: the four states with the largest number of electoral college votes all currently have Republican governors: California, Florida, New York and Texas.
In 2005, only two governorships are up for election, New Jersey and Virginia. Both are Democrat and neither can be considered very safe.
In New Jersey, the outgoing Governor Jim McGreevey resigned effective from midnight on November 16 2004. By doing so he avoided the need for a special election to find a successor. Given that Governor McGreevey resigned amidst allegations of a gay affair, and somewhat more lurid rumours, this was probably a wise precaution as far as the local Democratic Party was concerned. The acting Governor is New Jersey State Senate President Richard J Codey. In gubernatorial elections New Jersey is considered competitive between the two main parties, Mr McGreevey replaced Republican Donald DiFrancesco in 2001. New Jersey has 15 electoral college votes for the presidency.
In Virginia (13 electoral college votes), the Governor can only serve one four-year term of office. In recent years both Senators and the presidential race have produced Republican wins. The Governor's chair changed hands in the last election (2001). With the trend in the South away from the Democrats, Virginia must be considered a difficult hold, unless a strong candidate can be found.
The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates had previously held office as the governors of Southern states: Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996) in Arkansas and Jimmy Carter (1976) in Georgia.
If I were the Republican Party's election strategist, my worst fear would be another Clinton: a young, photogenic, amiable, Southern state governor.
In 2005, only two governorships are up for election, New Jersey and Virginia. Both are Democrat and neither can be considered very safe.
In New Jersey, the outgoing Governor Jim McGreevey resigned effective from midnight on November 16 2004. By doing so he avoided the need for a special election to find a successor. Given that Governor McGreevey resigned amidst allegations of a gay affair, and somewhat more lurid rumours, this was probably a wise precaution as far as the local Democratic Party was concerned. The acting Governor is New Jersey State Senate President Richard J Codey. In gubernatorial elections New Jersey is considered competitive between the two main parties, Mr McGreevey replaced Republican Donald DiFrancesco in 2001. New Jersey has 15 electoral college votes for the presidency.
In Virginia (13 electoral college votes), the Governor can only serve one four-year term of office. In recent years both Senators and the presidential race have produced Republican wins. The Governor's chair changed hands in the last election (2001). With the trend in the South away from the Democrats, Virginia must be considered a difficult hold, unless a strong candidate can be found.
The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates had previously held office as the governors of Southern states: Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996) in Arkansas and Jimmy Carter (1976) in Georgia.
If I were the Republican Party's election strategist, my worst fear would be another Clinton: a young, photogenic, amiable, Southern state governor.
Sleepless in Seattle
Seventeen days after polling has closed in the Northwestern state of Washington, we still don't know who the new Governor is going to be. A recount underway will determine whether Christine Gregoire, the outgoing State Attorney General (Democrat) or Dino Rossi, the Republican will take office in Olympia, replacing outgoing Democrat Gary Locke.
After counting more than 2.8 million votes, the provisional lead for Mr Rossi is 261 votes, or less than one tenthousandth of the turnout. The Libertarian Party candidate, Ruth Bennett has scored more than 63,000 votes, gaining 2.26 percent.
Details of the recount will be posted on this page.
Should the Republican win, it would be the first time a GOP candidate has held the governorship in Washington since 1980. It would also give a net gain to the Republicans in terms of governors nationwide. The present balance is 28 Republican and 21 Democrat, with Washington outstanding.
After counting more than 2.8 million votes, the provisional lead for Mr Rossi is 261 votes, or less than one tenthousandth of the turnout. The Libertarian Party candidate, Ruth Bennett has scored more than 63,000 votes, gaining 2.26 percent.
Details of the recount will be posted on this page.
Should the Republican win, it would be the first time a GOP candidate has held the governorship in Washington since 1980. It would also give a net gain to the Republicans in terms of governors nationwide. The present balance is 28 Republican and 21 Democrat, with Washington outstanding.
11/18/2004
Pretty good forecasting
Looking back at my forecasting in July I find that my score was pretty good:
My electoral college analysis held up too. The six states that had every Presidential winner since 1972 had won came good for President Bush: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. The fact that the Democrat campaign was unable to focus on most of these states indicates the weakness of the Democratic Party in a purely demographic sense. It is strong mostly in parts of the USA that are stagnating. Unless the Republican Party loses its current drive to gain the support of Hispanic voters, which appears to be paying off, or does so at the expense of other demographic groups, the Democratic Party faces an uphill struggle to break out of its North East and Illinois stronghold. The inroads by Republican candidates in the West (Governor of California, possibly of Washington too) and the slide of Hawaii towards becoming competitive will not be halted by a repeat of the last two campaigns. Like the 1983 election in the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party was trounced, the margin between a close race and catastrophe can be a fine one. In 1983, the Labour Party gained one percentage point of the vote more than the Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party Alliance. It took two elections to return to some sort of electoral respectability.
For the Democrats this time, a lot of narrow wins in some states has masked the scale of defeat. With six states carrying 86 electoral colleges votes on majorities of 5 per cent or less the balance between a defeat that can be put down to Ohio and a landslide is a fine one.
In the Senate, the best win has to be that of David Vitter in Louisiana. According to Charlie Cook:
At this tentative stage, I put the presidency as marginally Bush, the Senate a Republican hold with an increased majority, the House of Representatives open but marginally Republican, and the Democrats to make no net gains in the governor stakes.
My electoral college analysis held up too. The six states that had every Presidential winner since 1972 had won came good for President Bush: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. The fact that the Democrat campaign was unable to focus on most of these states indicates the weakness of the Democratic Party in a purely demographic sense. It is strong mostly in parts of the USA that are stagnating. Unless the Republican Party loses its current drive to gain the support of Hispanic voters, which appears to be paying off, or does so at the expense of other demographic groups, the Democratic Party faces an uphill struggle to break out of its North East and Illinois stronghold. The inroads by Republican candidates in the West (Governor of California, possibly of Washington too) and the slide of Hawaii towards becoming competitive will not be halted by a repeat of the last two campaigns. Like the 1983 election in the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party was trounced, the margin between a close race and catastrophe can be a fine one. In 1983, the Labour Party gained one percentage point of the vote more than the Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party Alliance. It took two elections to return to some sort of electoral respectability.
For the Democrats this time, a lot of narrow wins in some states has masked the scale of defeat. With six states carrying 86 electoral colleges votes on majorities of 5 per cent or less the balance between a defeat that can be put down to Ohio and a landslide is a fine one.
In the Senate, the best win has to be that of David Vitter in Louisiana. According to Charlie Cook:
The two heroes for the Republican Party on election night were former Rep. John Thune, who unseated Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and Rep. David Vitter, who became the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a Senate seat in Louisiana. Both turned in extremely impressive performances as candidates and ran fabulous campaigns. Not to take away the other Republican victories, but there were some candidates who were more lucky than good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
