December 17, 2004

Two Out Of Three?

Someone left this comment on an older post about the WA governor's race, and I thought it was 'brilliant' enough to deserve wider viewing:

I still don't understand what will happen if Gregoire is a few votes ahead in this 3rd count. Rossi won two counts, then her one. It seems to me he would still be the winner. I pray so!

Free advice to the author: don't repeat this reasoning out loud in front of anyone you know and want to think well of you. Whoever wins, recounting an election isn't like playing a game of 'Scissors'. I can barely believe anyone needs to be told that, and I'm glad it isn't someone on my side, exist though they probably must.

Posted by natasha at December 17, 2004 10:20 AM | WA Politics | Technorati links |

Funny and yet chilling ;-). An example like this one perhaps best illustrates the reason why the republicans' use the otherwise inexplicable talking point that "Rossi has already won twice." Obviously, the reality-based response to this talking point is that Rossi hasn't yet won anything and if the hand recount results in a Gregoire win, that Rossi never did win anything. But as Rove has so significantly shown, over and over again, who needs reality to win at all.


Posted by: tres_arboles at December 17, 2004 12:10 PM

Oh yes, I always do that when I'm building something- measure three times, and use the two measurements that are closest together.

Posted by: serial catowner at December 17, 2004 01:10 PM

So I give my 5 year old a cup with 20 jelly beans in it and tell her to count them. She does this three times. The first two times she miscounts to 19. On the third try she counts 20!

Does that mean there are really only 19 jelly beans in the cup?

Posted by: muckcat at December 17, 2004 01:31 PM

Besides, as long as the process is proceeding within the legal framework of Washington electoral law, no one has won. Rossi has led at two prescribed decision-points, but the race remains more akin to Schrodinger's cat than a done deal.

Posted by: N in Seattle at December 17, 2004 04:09 PM

Friday, Pierce County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend ruled that more than 700, newly discovered ballots should not be counted since they were not a part of the original count.

"A recount is just that, a recount of ballots already counted", said Republican Party spokeswoman Mary Lane.

Huh? The logic behind this ruling: a 'recount' shouldn't include ballots that mistakenly weren't counted earlier.

Democrats say they will file an appeal to the State Supreme Court.

Posted by: Artie at December 17, 2004 05:58 PM

And Christine would probably have won twice if all the votes had been counted. Some how I knew to vote in person. I have never trusted absentee ballots and I have voted for 42 years and never missed even once!

Posted by: Sandy at December 19, 2004 05:09 PM