This highly exaggerates the proportion of votes remaining, unless the piece of toast this came from was the size of the Honda Center.
Just 50 paper ballots, of the 640,353 ballots cast from all of OC, still remain uncounted. (Our county’s final turnout number was 45.0%. Not good, but not so shabby.) It’s all over but the shouting (and the 1% canvass and certification and any recounts, if anyone wants to spend the money.) (No counting will take place today.) Let’s look at our close races, in order of largest to smallest margin.
Melissa Fox and Gail Eastman each came up short by a bit over 200 votes in the City Council races in Irvine and Anaheim. Measure N stalled at a deficit of 123, giving it 49.9% of the vote. Jodi Payne in Dana Point ended up down by 61. The wave of provisional ballots that I believed would sweep Jay Humphrey past Jim Righeimer in Costa Mesa never appeared, leaving a deficit of 47 votes. Bao Nguyen is up by 15 for Garden Grove Mayor; Carol Moore is up by 16 for the second spot on the Laguna Woods City Council. But the closest race — ludicrously close, and one that may not be over for another week — is for Measure J, the North Orange County Community College District Bond Measure.
There’s not much more to say right now about those results, except that provisional ballots did next to nothing in the past couple of days, which comes as a bit of a surprise. So let’s just focus on Measure J, which is crazy crazy close. I love this sort of race the way that space scientists love new photos of distant moons and planets and stars.
As Chris Nguyen pointed out on Friday, the NOCCCD, which voted on Measure J, includes a handful of precincts from LA County — 14 from La Habra Heights; one precinct each in Whittier and unincorporated La Mirada. (Chris did not mention that Measure I, from the Fullerton Joint Union High School District, also crosses county lines into La Habra Heights — although at 59% it’s too far ahead for the LA vote to matter. I think that we should face the facts: La Habra Heights should be ceded to Orange County. That’s what the Puente Hills decree.) So, the OC results are insufficient — which matters because La Habra Heights is relatively cooler, by about 4 points, to such measures.
Fair enough — with LA having updated on Friday, here are the current tabulations:
In OC, Measure J is at 55.10316900001%. (I’m prepared to round that off to 55.103169%.) Our raw numbers are:
J-North Orange County Community College District, Fullerton/Cypress Colleges Bond Measure
Completed Precincts: 522 of 522
Vote Count Percentage
Bonds – Yes 82,733 55.1%
Bonds – No 67,409 44.9%
In LA, the report as of Nov. 14 is:
55% OF VOTES CAST
Measure J Votes Percent
COLLEGE IMPROVEMENT BONDS
YES 1,946 51.06%
NO 1,865 48.94%
Registration 11,729
Precincts Reporting* 16
Total Precincts 16
% Precincts Reporting 100
So, adding those together, we’re at:
82,733+1,946=84,679
67,409+1,865=69,274
… and that, Mr. Chris Nguyen, is 55.0031503121%. It is currently passing.
But boy, is it close. Nine more “no” votes would put it at 54.9999350489%.
Let’s imagine that there are 100 more “post-Election Day” votes out there to be counted. What would happen?
If 100 more votes came in from LA County, with the same 51% approval as exists now, it would put the percentage at 55.0005517582%.
But if those 100 more votes with only 49% approval, it would put the percentage at 54.9992535037%.
Jeepers. What if those 100 more votes came in at 50%? How about this: 54.9999026309%!
What if only 50 more votes came in at 50% approval? Then it would pass with 55.0015259443%!
So, if there’s 50% support in any new votes in LA County, how many can come in before it fails?
With 90 more votes, split 50-50, it passes with 55.0002272093%.
With 96 more votes, split 50-50, it passes with 55.0000324572%.
But with 98 more votes, split 50-50, it fails with 54.9999675432%.
Of course, we don’t know how many more votes will come in from LA County, let alone their percentage. I’m not even sure who could (or would) ask for a recount. (Can the school district use its money for that, if it’s narrowly behind? I’ll bet that the local teacher’s unions would. As for opponents … hmmmm.)
I just love close elections! It’s like a throw that just gets to first base at almost the exact time that the runner touches the bag. Except here, instead of instant replay, we get not-at-all-instant recount.
Then again — those 50 paper ballots left? We’d expect about 13 of them to be within the NOCCCD — and about 12 of them to cast a vote on this measure. Those remaining crumbs could easily determine this race.
Here’s an e-mail forwarded to me by a math/statistics teacher at…FJC!
Surprising indeed — just a few days ago the yes-count was so low that it was a statistically impossible TEN standard deviations below where one would expect it to be if 55% of all ballots cast were in fact “yes.” But I guess one should expect such last minute “luck” when half a billion dollars is at stake.
Feel free to share with anyone — especially if you know any statisticians at the OC register? 🙂
Cheers,
Bill
Monkey Business in the countin’ room??
Oh, for God’s sake — THE NATURE OF THE POPULATION WHOSE VOTES WERE BEING COUNTED CHANGED. I covered this in my “Current Results” updates. Once they started counting provisionals, 63% or more favored it — mostly because provisional voters are less likely to pay property taxes and more likely to benefit from the short-term improvement in services without bearing the long-term cost of debt service.
Feel free to pass along my reply, from a Ph.D. and Big 10 Political Science professor who taught stats and research methods. You don’t assume you’ll get the same sorts of results from differing sub-populations. Stats 101, I believe.
The “nature” of the population changed? Why? How? Voters from a completely different planet? Ten standard deviations? That seems most improbable – impossible even. How can this population change so drastically?
These are all rhetorical questions.
I will try to pass this thread along to “Bill” who I understand has a PhD in mathematics. He can respond if he wants to.
Keep playing in the shallow end, Dave. Maybe if you were mathematician or superstar blogger you might see that it’s precisely this difference in populations which explains how Jay Humphrey was swept into… Oh.
Oh, look, now that it’s safe to make an after-the-fact “prediction,” the old muppets from the balcony are here to jeer. This would be a lot more impressive if you took a stand before the returns came in.
I’m still surprised by the lack of a leftward turn at the end in Costa Mesa. However, if it turns out that Righeimer had someone there challenging provisional ballots, and that a lot of the ones from the “wrong neighborhoods” therefore were not counted, then I will not be surprised. (That’s what happened, for example, in the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota.) And if that did happen, then the results could still be reversed.
Of course, if that happens, then the old muppets in the balcony can just close the curtain and be quiet until it’s time to jeer again. It’s an advantage of being a cranky old muppet.
Provisional voters are a different population (technically a sub-population) than those voting on a normal ballot, whether absentee or at the polls. They are disproportionately ethnic and racial minorities, lower SES, and renters — the sort of people whose right to vote gets challenged. If you presume that they are the same as the rest of the population, you’re going to get burned. To take another example, if in an area with a large Chinese population you decided to count ballots in alphabetical orders, the last votes that you counted would skew in the direction of Asian candidates, because Asian voters have disproportionate representation among those with last names starting with “X” and “Z.” Same “population” — voters — but different subpopulation, in that the people counted at the end share a distinct characteristic. All you saw was the proportion of “Yes” votes move from 54% to 64% when provisional votes (from poorer and more transient voters) came in. Not a shock at all.
This is where you don’t want to talk to a mathematician, but to a quantitatively oriented political scientist, like I was as a university professor.
Wait, what? If I wanted to jeer about the election I could talk about Squirk or, well, you.. I’m just saying that it is a peculiar lack of self awareness that allows someone with your recent track record to say “DUH!” when someone else is surprised by how things shook out.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t read, understand, absorb, retain, or maybe just find yourself able to abide my explanation of how the people whose votes are counted at the very end of an election, when the provisional ballots come in, may be a group with very different characteristics from those who voted by mail or by normal ballots at the polls. Otherwise, I’d have to believe that you were being disingenuous here.
Ten standard deviations? Ten?
Yes, I think I’ll still want that professional’s opinion.
Oh man. You don’t understand what’s being assessed here. This is going to have to be a long reply. We’re testing the proposition that two binomial distributions derive from the same underlying population. They don’t. You’re applying the “plus six sigma” notion to an area where it would not be expected to hold.
I am still waiting for the three thousand word defense of Solorio and Quirks piss poor campaigns. Especially the prior.
Guess we’ll have to get distracted for a while…….
Who defends Solorio around here? Not sure who you have us confused with.
SQS I know worked hard, I don’t know how she could have done better. Bad year for Democrats. Sad, Young Kim is so undeserving.
What I had to say was here.
Given that I’ve been criticizing Solorio’s campaign since before the primary, why you think I’d defend it now is puzzling. As for Sharon’s, she had a hard draw: very motivated opposition. She’d — or she’ll? — do better in a Presidential year, when the novelty has left Young Kim and their records in office can be fairly compared.
That’s a pipe dream Diamond – SQS is finished in state politics.
Sure skally. Still liking that President McCain.
He sure is confident when he makes that sort of declaration, though.
Is there anybody in the Dem bullpen?
Chaffee, Keller . . . Don’t think either want to run.
We’ll have a candidate, but if it’s not Sharon then it may not be a current or recent officeholder. Which I realize would make it less competitive than it might. (I’d be happy to see Jane Rands run again, as she did in 2010. I’d try to clear the field for her, to the extent that would help.)
Ughh… Chafee or Keller … in what way would either be 1. better or 2. more viable than SQS?
It almost doesn’t matter much. We Dems have such a majority in Sacramento that we lose sleep over losing our SUPERmajority. I just don’t like seeing Young Kim or Janet Nguyen gaining any recogenition.
And MIMI WALTERS, the liar! Have you seen in the national news how she’s the new lady they stick behind Boehner now? Gross….
How exactly does one in your position “clear the field”?
I don’t know that one does. One “tries,” as stated. One may or may not succeed. In this instance, one believes that one can make a persuasive case, and one’s opinion still appears to hold some sway.
One is weary of arguing with those who can be snotty without accountability.
Next time perhaps one could bring one’s instructor a nice shiny apple if one is serious about being a teacher’s pet.
I sippose if I went by a handle like “truck drivin’ Mike” or “Demagouge” and agreed with you blindly. One wouldnt be considered “snotty”.
I would still love to hear how a blogger could “clear the field” in a hugely contested race. Super powers? Blackmail? Force?
Clear the field of Democratic candidates, you idiot. Or did you really think that I was saying that I could push Young Kim out of the race too?
I hope that you’ve enjoyed your experience commenting here.
Jane is not a Democrat. As a Greenie she couldn’t get more than 20% of the vote. Why on Earth bother?
I would love a world in which she COULD win, but … yeah.
If no Democrat runs, she would make the top two and advance to the general election, where she’d get plenty of Democratic votes.
If a Democrat who stands a chance runs — Sharon, maybe a few others — then you’re right that there’s no point in running. If not, then her motive for running would be the same as when she ran against Norby and Democrat Esiquio Uballe in 2010 — except this time it would make even more sense. I presume that her purpose would be to promote favored issues.