Washblog || What are the odds?

What are the odds?

By N in Seattle
Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:55:58 PM PST
Section: Washington State Topic: Election news/info

In looking at the earlier diary by Absentee, asking for help in choosing which Supreme Court candidates to vote for (answer = Owens, Alexander, and Chambers), I noticed something interesting about the order in which Absentee listed the candidates. After checking the online version of the King County voter pamphlet, my surmise was confirmed.

What surmise, you ask? See below...

All three incumbent Supreme Court Justices are displayed LAST on the ballot for their positions.

It's a well-known political truism, confirmed by statistical researchers, that ballot order is a significant factor in voting outcomes. Being listed earlier on the ballot is highly likely to increase the number of votes received by a candidate, especially in races where the voters are less-than-familiar with the actual personages on the ballot and/or their positions on the issues.

I know that ballot order is determined through a randomization process; I don't think anyone intentionally set up the ballot in this way. Still, the probability that each of the incumbent Justices will be given the least advantageous position on the ballot can be readily calculated. With five, two, and two candidates for the respective positions, and assuming complete independence of the three order-selection procedures, the probability that all three of the good people in the races would be listed dead last is:

(0.2) * (0.5) * (0.5) = 0.05

That's a 5% chance.

Will the ballot-order effect -- on top of the huge piles of dollars thrown at Groen and Steve Johnson by BIAW and their nasty friends -- be enough to swing the results? We can't know that, of course, but it sure would have been a hell of a lot better if Owens, Alexander, and Chambers had been placed at the top instead of the bottom.

< This is for the metaphor | Two more Ft Lewis Stryker soldiers killed - Cantwell to rally support from veterans >

What are the odds? | 9 comments (9 topical)

Interesting analysis

So I'll throw in another 2 cents to the equation. If they can bother to add identification i.e. "attorney", why can't they also add "incumbant" where appropriate? I'm glad my question brought this all out.

by Absentee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 03:46:23 AM PST

* 7 5.00 1 *

Do you have any evidence....

.....that the process was not random?

Because as you know, on its own, a low probability of an outcome suggests nothing.

Is it possible to game this process?

Personally I don't like the voter pamphlet process very well. I think that candidates need to be able to get their messages in closer to the election and I would suggest that multiple versions of the voter pamphlet should be printed. This would eliminate the position question as a statistical disadvantage.

Of course one of the useful things about knowing what all the voter pamhlets will look like is that you can use that in your phone-calling - especially important for down-ticket races.

by dlaw on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:44:00 PM PST

* 2 3.00 1 *

sheesh, dlaw by N in Seattle, 08/28/2006 10:05:09 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

I misunderstood the intent by dlaw, 08/28/2006 11:24:02 PM PST (5.00 / 1)
N, your answer follows: by Particle Man, 08/29/2006 09:55:25 AM PST (5.00 / 1)
and yet... by Pen, 09/01/2006 02:00:22 PM PST (none / 0)

Also N

did you notice that they identified one Johnson as a Senator/attorney and one as an attorney? Jebuz they could at least have said Republican Senator

by Particle Man on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:12:08 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *

not only that... by N in Seattle, 08/28/2006 10:08:31 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

They Could / Should Pick in Public, BUT

this means you need to be able to notify the public and do it in public, AND

this means that people need to think of taxpayers as something mroe than sheep to bleed, AND

maybe you need to FIRE all public officials who do not believe in open processes?

People who want secrets can be relied on to take care of their personal agendas ahead of the public's all the time, Dem or Thug.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:43:43 PM PST

* 3 none 0 *

What are the odds? | 9 comments (9 topical)

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

WELCOME AND FAQ
ABOUT

Login


Make a new account
Username:
Password:

HELP

Recommended Diaries

Free Speech for People moves forward in Washington State
At my urging, Senator Jacobsen has introduced a Senate Joint Memorial asking for Congress to submit to the states a Federal
By chadlupkes (1 comment)
State Budget Craters By $2 Billion More. The Good News Is....
... Now Progressives are going to have to stop talking about tax hikes and start talking about the value of government.
By dlaw (19 comments)
Why Aren't We Fighting for a State Income Tax?
I am getting really tired here: I've been asked to sign petitions and send emails by almost any advocacy group that
By ktkeller (24 comments)
We Want to Take You and We Will Nyah Nyah
Last week I'm watching a podcast of Monday's House Local Government and Housing Committee because I'm interested in the Executive Session
By ktkeller (7 comments)
Online Voting Rights for Overseas Military Personal
Having been deployed during an election I have some very passionate views on this issue. I have seen my friends simple
By dorsolplants (20 comments)
A Modest Proposal: How to Cut Education Funding
As cited in a recent Seattle P-I article, Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, chairwoman of the state Senate education committee, warned that budget
By OrneryDemocrat (7 comments)