About those California numbers...

[republicansareevil]

The media is portraying this as something as a landslide for A.S. The numbers don't back this up. But the way the media shows the data makes it hard to see. On the yes/no question, the news stories I've seen tend to express the results as percentages. But with the candidates, they show the raw numbers. Furthermore, they are not even showing the total number of votes for a candidate. But I couldn't even find that information on the CA Secretary of State site.

These are the numbers as of 6:53 am (California time) with 97.9% of precincts reporting:

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/recall/00.htm
yes to recall 4,158,225 54.6%
no on recall 3,465,666 45.4%
total 7,623,891

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/00.htm
Schwarzenegger 3,528,093 48.0%
total* 7,350,194

*I got the total by dividing 3,528,093 by .48 and rounding, so it's an estimate but a good one, I think.

If you look at the "no" vote on the recall as a vote for Davis, the difference (about 62,000) is almost negligible (the number of votes for Arnold is less than 2% greater than the number of "no" votes on the recall). However, this isn't quite fair. A vote of "no" on the recall is a clear expression that a voter's first preference is to keep Gray Davis in office. But votes for A.S. comprise two categories -- (1) voters who voted yes on the recall and yes on the candidate and (2) voters who voted NO on the recall and yes on the candidate. In other words, some undefined number of Arnold's votes would have gone to Davis if the election had simply been a matchup between Davis, Schwarzenegger, and the other candidates. Is that number greater than Schwarzenegger's 62,000 "margin" in our earlier scenario? Democracy has not been served well. The argument many were making before the election -- that Schwarzenegger could win the election even if a greater number of voters prefer keeping Davis in office than having Arnold replace him -- seems to have been proven valid.

Of course, all of this is assuming that, first of all, the numbers don't change dramatically between 97.9% reporting and 100% reporting (I already had to update my numbers one from an hour ago when Arnold's "lead" over Davis was only about 1% instead of 2% -- it jumped from 38,000 to 62,000). It also assumes no voting irregularities or downright fraud, which I'm not at all confident about.

Incidentally, does it seem plausible that roughly 274,000 people voted yes or no on the recall but did not choose a candidate? I guess I can see that if people misunderstood the instructions (voted no on the recall and then did not select a candidate) or voted either way on the recall but then got confused by all the names and decided to skip it. Or even neglected to choose a candidate as a protest against the recall. But what about all the stories about people voting for a candidate but forgetting to vote on the recall question? I'm not alleging anything, I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks of this.

Comments?

[joefree1]

1. Yeah, let's get em

[nannygoat]

2. Somebody posted a thread yesterday

from Freeperland that bemoaned the fact that people were only voting on the second question (for the candidate) and not "yes" or "no" on the recall. I tried to find the thread but couldn't.

[RobertSeattle]

3. One good spin point - Arnold did not win a majority

only a plurality.

I just hope that when all the ballots are counted the "No" on Recall actually has more votes than Arnold. Meaningless, but a talking point nonetheless.

[DerBeppo]

5. well, it doesn't look like that's going to happen

No - 3,476,841
Arnold Schwarzenegger - 3,552,787

[republicansareevil]

6. But even if Arnold votes outnumber "no" votes...

...you can't assume that more voters preferred A.S. to Gray Davis. That is one of the points I was trying to make above. There is an overlap. Some voters voted "no" on the recall but then voted for Schwarzenegger on the second part. What does that say? It says that those voters' TOP preference was to have Gray Davis remain in office. To have Schwarzenegger become governor was only their SECOND choice. So to compare the "no" votes against the Schwarzenegger votes, as I did, only goes so far. Because there is no way of knowing from the election results how many Schwarzenegger voters first voted "no" on the recall. To get a fair comparison, you would first have to deduct those votes from Arnold's tally. This data might be found in some exit poll data somewhere, but I've had no luck finding it. If anyone else can find it, I'd be grateful.

on edit:
In other words, if the "no" votes out number the "Schwarzenegger" votes, that is a clear and unambiguous indication that more voters support keeping Davis in office than replacing him with Schwarzenegger. However, if the Schwarzenegger votes outnumber the "no" votes, it is NOT a clear and unambiguous indication that more voters support replacing Davis with Schwarzenegger rather than keeping Davis in office. You would not be able to make that conclusion unless you could first factor out the voters who voted "no" on recall and also voted for Schwarzenegger. And for those who would argue that most voters wouldn't follow that pattern, I'd argue that voters are a lot less logical than you think, and many don't follow expected voting patterns.

[leyton]

17. Yeah, but...

neither did Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

[RobertSeattle]

28. True

As regurgitated by Rush Limbaugh constantly 1993-2001. I always found it funny how he slammed Clinton for his plurality and then abruptly dropped that spin point when Bush LOST the total vote count to Gore.

[sistersofmercy]

4. But aren't there also about 3 million absentee ballots still to be

included? I saw on msnbc that there were still over 3 mil absentee ballots that could take up to a few weeks to give actual vote results. Does anyone have a link or more info on this?

[JHB]

7. absentee ballots

I don't have more specific info, but I do know that any absentee ballots already received are included in the tally. Whether there are 3 million yet to be counted absentee ballots, or 3 million absentee ballots (with some portion of them yet to be counted; two different things) I don't know.

[Spazito]

8. It looks like less than 30% of the population even voted....

if you take the above #s and then add the # of absentee ballots said to be out there, approx 3 million, that still makes it less than 30% voting. I thought there was a big turnout?

[realFedUp]

9. considering there are more than 15 mil registered voters....

Less than half voted.

[Spazito]

10. Yes, it is quite sad, imo

and it was touted that there were a whole raft of newly registered voters so where the heck were the rest of them?

I live in a place where the voter turnout on big and little issues is always around 80% so this low turnout is beyond me :-(

[ParanoidPat]

22. State election turnout according to the Secretary of State web site....

.....http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/status.htm

Amador County had a high of 76.9 % of registered voters
Imperial County had the low of 39.4 % of registered voters
The state average was 53.6 %

These results are subject to change as absentee and provisional ballots are added. (That is IF the provisional ballots are counted! Checking on that now.)

[ParanoidPat]

29. How the 'provisional' ballots are counted.....

This information is from the CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov :)

CHAPTER 4. OFFICIAL CANVASS
Article 4. Processing and Counting Provisional Ballots....
15350

ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 15350

15350. Provisional ballots cast pursuant to Section 14310 shall be
processed and counted in accordance with the provisions outlined in
Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15100) and pursuant to the
requirements of Sections 14310 and 14311.

Which leads you to....

DIVISION 14. ELECTION DAY PROCEDURES
Article 5. Provisional Voting....14310-14311

ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 14310-14311

14310. (a) At all elections, a voter claiming to be properly
registered but whose qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be
immediately established upon examination of the index of registration
for the precinct or upon examination of the records on file with the
county elections official, shall be entitled to vote a provisional
ballot.
(b) Once voted, the voter's ballot shall be sealed in a
provisional ballot envelope, and the ballot in its envelope shall be
deposited in the ballot box. All provisional ballots voted shall
remain sealed in their envelopes for return to the elections official
in accordance with the elections official's instructions. The
provisional ballot envelopes specified in this subdivision shall be a
color different than the color of, but printed substantially similar
to, the envelopes used for absentee ballots, and shall be completed
in the same manner as absentee envelopes.
(c) (1) During the official canvass, the elections official shall
examine the records with respect to all provisional ballots cast.
Using the procedures that apply to the comparison of signatures on
absentee ballots, the elections official shall compare the signature
on each provisional ballot envelope with the signature on the voter's
affidavit of registration. If the signatures do not compare, the
ballot shall be rejected. A variation of the signature caused by the
substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both,
shall not invalidate the ballot.
(2) Provisional ballots shall not be included in any semiofficial
or official canvass, except upon: (A) the elections official's
establishing prior to the completion of the official canvass, from
the records in his or her office, the claimant's right to vote; or
(B) the order of a superior court in the county of the voter's
residence. A voter may seek the court order specified in this
paragraph regarding his or her own ballot at any time prior to
completion of the official canvass. Any judicial action or appeal
shall have priority over all other civil matters.
(3) A precinct board member shall notify the voter of the contents
of this subdivision at the time of receiving the provisional ballot
of the voter.
(4) The provisional ballot of a voter who is otherwise entitled to
vote shall not be rejected because the voter did not cast his or her
ballot in the precinct to which he or she was assigned by the
elections official, provided the ballot cast by the voter contained
only the candidates and measures on which the voter would have been
entitled to vote in his or her assigned precinct.
(d) The Secretary of State may adopt appropriate regulations for
purposes of ensuring the uniform application of this section.
(e) This section shall apply to any absent voter described by
Section 3015 who is unable to surrender his or her unvoted absent
voter's ballot.
(f) Any existing supply of envelopes marked "special challenged
ballot" may be used until the supply is exhausted.

Look for this to be used as an excuse for the envelopes that required that the 'optical scan' ballots be folded in order to fit in the sealed envelope!

14311. (a) A voter who has moved from one address to another within
the same county and who has not reregistered to vote at that new
address may, at his or her option, and upon showing proof of current
residence, vote on the day of the election at the polling place at
which he or she is entitled to vote based on his or her current
residence address, or at the office of the county elections official
or other central location designated by that elections official. The
voter shall be reregistered at the place of voting for future
elections.
(b) Voters casting ballots under this section shall be required to
vote by provisional ballot, as provided in Section 14310.
(c) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, adopt procedures
for determining the documents or other materials that constitute
proof of residence for purposes of voting under this section.


And here....

DIVISION 15. SEMIFINAL OFFICIAL CANVASS, OFFICIAL CANVASS,
RECOUNT, AND TIE VOTE PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 2. ABSENTEE BALLOT PROCESSING....15100-15112

ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 15100-15112

15100. The provisions of this chapter apply to the processing of
absentee ballots during the 29-day period before any election, during
the semifinal official canvass, and during the official canvass.

15101. (a) Any jurisdiction in which absentee ballots are cast may begin to process absentee ballot return envelopes beginning 29 days before the election. Processing absentee ballot return envelopes may include verifying the voter's signature on the absentee ballot
return envelope and updating voter history records.
(b) Any jurisdiction having the necessary computer capability may
start to process absentee ballots on the seventh day prior to the
election. Processing absentee ballots includes opening absentee
ballot return envelopes, removing ballots, duplicating any damaged
ballots, and preparing the ballots to be machine read, or machine
reading them, but under no circumstances may a vote count be accessed
or released until 8 p.m. on the day of the election. All other
jurisdictions shall start to process absentee ballots at 5 p.m. on
the day before the election.
(c) Results of any absentee ballot tabulation or count shall not
be released prior to the close of the polls on the day of the
election.

The above might explain the numbers shown in counties with 0.0% reporting during the early count.

15102. The official shall appoint a special counting board or
boards in numbers that he or she deems adequate to count the absentee
ballots. The official shall provide for the forms of tally books
and the distribution of the duties of the members of the canvassing
board.
When the tally is done by hand, there shall be no less than four
persons for each office or proposition to be counted. One shall read
from the ballot, the second shall keep watch for any error or
improper vote, and the other two shall keep the tally.

15103. The elections official shall pay a reasonable compensation to each member of the canvassing board of absentee ballots. This compensation shall be paid out of the treasury of the agency conducting the election as other claims against it are paid.

15104. (a) The processing of absentee ballot return envelopes, and the processing and counting of absentee ballots shall be open to the public, both prior to and after the election.
(b) Any member of the county grand jury, and at least one member
each of the Republican county central committee, the Democratic
county central committee, and of any other party with a candidate on
the ballot, and any other interested organization, shall be permitted to observe and challenge the manner in which the absentee ballots are handled, from the processing of absentee ballot return envelopes through the counting and disposition of the ballots.
(c) The elections official shall notify absentee voter observers
and the public at least 48 hours in advance of the dates, times, and
places where absentee ballots will be processed and counted.
(d) Absentee voter observers shall be allowed sufficiently close
access to enable them to observe and challenge whether those
individuals handling absentee ballots are following established
procedures, including all of the following:
(1) Verifying signatures and addresses by comparing them to voter
registration information.
(2) Duplicating accurately any damaged or defective ballots.
(3) Securing absentee ballots to prevent any tampering with them
before they are counted on election day.
(e) No absentee voter observer shall interfere with the orderly
processing of absentee ballot return envelopes or processing and
counting of absentee ballots, including touching or handling of the
ballots.

15105. Prior to processing and opening the identification envelopes of absent voters, the elections official shall make available a list of absent voters for public inspection, from which challenges may be presented. Challenges may be made for the same reasons as those
made against a voter voting at a polling place. In addition, a challenge may be entered on the grounds that the ballot was not
received within the time provided by this code or that a person is
imprisoned for a conviction of a felony. All challenges shall be
made prior to the opening of the identification envelope of the
challenged absent voter.

15106. Except as otherwise provided, the processing of absentee
ballot return envelopes, the processing and counting of absentee
ballots, and the disposition of challenges of absentee ballots shall
be according to the laws now in force pertaining to the election for
which they are cast. Because the voter is not present, the
challenger shall have the burden of establishing extraordinary proof
of the validity of the challenge at the time the challenge is made.

15107. If a challenge is overruled, the board shall open the
identification envelope without defacing the affidavit printed on it
or mutilating the enclosed ballot and, without viewing the ballot,
remove it and destroy the numbered slip, if any remains, and store
the ballots in a secure location.

15108. If a challenge is allowed, the board shall endorse on the face of the identification envelope the cause of the challenge and
its action thereon.

15109. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the counting and canvassing of absentee ballots shall be conducted in the same manner and under the same regulations as used for ballots cast in a precinct polling place.

15110. Reports to the Secretary of State of the findings of the
canvass of absentee ballots shall be made by the elections official
pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15150) and Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 15300).

15111. The elections official shall keep an accurate list of all voters who have received and voted an absentee ballot at each
election and compare this list with the roster of voters as provided
in Section 15278. That list shall include the election precinct of
the voter.

15112. When elections are consolidated pursuant to Division 10
(commencing with Section 10000), and only one form of ballot is used
at the consolidated election, the ballots cast by absent voters shall
be counted only in connection with elections to which absent voter
privileges have been extended by law.
Whenever the period of time within which absent voters' ballots
shall be received by the elections official in order to be counted,
as provided for any election by this code or any other law of this
state, is different from that period of time provided for another
election, and the elections are consolidated and only one form of
ballot used for both elections, all absent voters' ballots issued for
the consolidated election may be counted for both elections if
received by the elections official within whichever period of time is
longer.


:kick:

[republicansareevil]

11. Some updated numbers

As of 7:58 Pacific Time with 98.8% of precincts reporting.

yes to recall 4,217,411 54.8%
no to recall 3,488,465 45.2%
total 7,705,876

Schwarzenegger 3,577,278 48.2%
total* 7,421,738

*I estimated this total by dividing 3,577,278 by .482 and rounding.

So the difference between Schwarzenegger votes and "no" votes is 88,813 (about 2.5%). So Arnold's "lead" as of now is 88,813 minus the number of voters who voted both "no" on the recall and for Arnold on the second part.

This "lead" is growing quickly as we move closer to 100% it seems. At 5:58, it was only 1%. (I didn't post those numbers but I'll show them below now.) I realize that the 90-some percent of reporting precincts is not a randomly chosen sample, but I'm still surprised the numbers are changing so much.

numbers at 5:58 Pacific Time:

yes to recall 4,096,670 54.4%
no to recall 3,439,300 45.6%
total 7,535,970

Schwarzenegger 3,477,359 47.9%
total (est.) 7,259,622

"lead" is 38,000 votes (1% lead)

[republicansareevil]

12. More updated numbers. This is strange.

(Sorry this is in plain text. I wanted to have the columns
line up.) 

Okay, the first time I looked at the numbers was at 5:58
Pacific. I didn't post these numbers but I saved them. I think
there were between 96 and 97% of precincts reporting at this
time:

PART 1: RECALL
yes to recall...... 4,096,670...... 54.4% of votes on part 1 
no to recall....... 3,439,300...... 45.6% of votes on part 1
total.............. 7,535,970

PART 2: CANDIDATE
Schwarzenegger..... 3,477,359...... 47.9% of votes on part 2
total (est.)*...... 7,259,622    

difference between "no" votes and Arnold votes:
38,059 votes (1% more Arnold votes)

(*For the vote total on part 2, I couldn't find a total number
of votes for candidates, so in all cases I estimated by
dividing Arnold's raw number by his percentage.)

Now here are the numbers just over four hours later...

99.2% (15117 of 15235) precincts reporting as of 10:02 am:
 
PART 1: RECALL
yes to recall...... 4,273,259...... 55.0% of votes on part 1
no to recall....... 3,507,933...... 45.0% of votes on part 1
total.............. 7,781,192		

PART 2: CANDIDATE
Schwarzenegger..... 3,624,154...... 48.3% of votes on part 2
total (est.)*...... 7,503,424    
        	
difference between "no" votes and Arnold votes: 
116,221 votes (3.3% more Arnold votes)

So if you subtract the earlier numbers from the later numbers
you get these votes that were reported between 5:58 and 10:02

PART 1: RECALL
yes to recall........ 176,589...... 72.0% of votes on part 1
no to recall.........  68,633...... 28.0% of votes on part 1
total................ 245,222

PART 2: CANDIDATE
Schwarzenegger....... 146,795...... 60.2% of votes on part 2
total (est.)*........ 243,802
			
difference between "no" votes and Arnold votes:
78,162 votes (114% more Arnold votes)

************************************************************

Does it seem plausible that these later votes coming in would
be so different from the first 96% or so of precincts
reporting? This is a sincere question and not an accusation. I
know just a little about statistics and even less about how
votes are reported in elections. I realize that this is not a
random sample and that there may be logical reasons for
late-reporting precincts to differ from early-reporting
precincts. Maybe they use different voting technologies that
take different amounts of time to process votes. Or maybe
larger precincts take more time than smaller. But it still
seems like a very large difference to me. Because you are
comparing a quarter-million votes against 7 or 8 million
votes, you would expect the larger sample to be more
"stable" (I don't know the statistical term). But
this quarter-million was able to make a noticable difference
in the later votes compared to the earlier votes. Anyone with
any knowledge of statistics who can shed some light here?
Also, does anyone know what determines the order of how
precincts report? Are conservative areas traditionally the
last to report?
         

[Spazito]

13. Kick

Your numbers are interesting and I hope someone can answer your questions.

[CoolerKing]

14. I was wondering the same thing...

see discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=496277

[republicansareevil]

15. good points

I just checked out your thread and made a comment.

[republicansareevil]

16. Sorry to kick my own thread...

...but it took some time to compile those numbers and I'd really like to hear some opinions about it. What do you all think about the numbers changing so fast near the end (post #12)? Is there anything remarkable in that? Why do some precincts take longer to report than other precincts?

[BevHarris]

25. Hope you don't mind -- your work deserves more analysis

I carried it over to the "How to lie with statistics" and the "bad math" threads at http://www.BBVreport.org

We are accumulating reports there for analysis and submission to the press.

[republicansareevil]

26. wow. thanks!

I'll check it out.

[KFC]

18. Two Major NoCal Papers said not to vote on the second ballot

Both the SF Chronicle and the SJ Mercury News said to vote NO on the recall and abstain from voting for any replacement candidate. Probably had some effect.

[Capn Sunshine]

19. This was the LA Times position as well

[republicansareevil]

21. I didn't know that.

I knew some papers had withdrawn their endorsements of A.S. Is this what happened in these cases or had they been suggesting abstention on the candidate vote from the beginning? Did the papers that withdrew their A.S. endorsement change their recommendation for the yes/no on recall vote?

[gasperc]

20. And there was NO record turnout, about 7.5mill. in 02- 7.8mill. recall

Let's see where the total ends up after the absentees are counted, but I bet it'll be less than a 2 or 3% uptick

[hippiegranny]

24. last night on nbc

at about 8:00 they ran a ticker across the bottom of the screen calling the recall and naming arnie as the winner. at that time they said 60% of eligible voters participated. f-in' nbc - they are so jack welch.

[ParanoidPat]

27. Actually, it was a 'record turnout'.....

.....for a 'non federal' election. :)

There were also quite a few reports of provisional ballots being cast due to voters being sent to the wrong polling places and/or not being found on the registration rolls. A good friend of mine in south Santa Cruz County was sent to THREE different polling places and was asked to fill out a provisional ballot at each one. He refused in all three cases and happened to stop in a fourth (a local church) to ask if his name was on the list. The nice old lady at the desk told him she couldn't find it and offered him yet another provisional ballot. He asked if he could see the book and pointed out his name and she responded, "Oh, your name ends in c'H'i! After 5 phone calls and 2 1/2 hours or getting the run around from elections officials he got to cast his vote! :toast:

[MaryBear]

23. Still, although the projection

was that Ahnold would win without a majority, that is, with fewer votes than "no on recall," Ahnold seems to be winning by a LOT of votes. We need to find good candidates and get them out for future elections with well run campaigns that educate voters about how and why their self interest is best served by progressives!