Early voting returns, at least in California, risks being highly
misleading because trial courts have ruled that election officials
have discretion in terms of how they stage (order) ballots for
counting. "Early" votes need not all be counted early. In fact in LA
in 2008, the video of long lines for "early" voters were not,
ultimately, videos of early voters at all - they got their vote class
counted pretty late - a week or more after the election. Finally,
for many different reasons, subclasses of voters are not statistically
valid samples and often have partisan differences that are
substantial.
I tracked ballot type wth a Zogby telephone exit poll in 2006 and the
provisional voters were much more Democratic, to give just one
example. In 2004 the touchscreen results in each precinct existed side
by side with hand counted paper ballots due to the Rossi Gregoire
recounts and a liberal "absentee" voting policy. The two populations
had radically different results with Gregoire winning the paper
absentees narrowly in a larger population, and Rossi winning the
touchscreens in a relative landslide. We calculated that the chance
that such difference would occur throughout the county on a precinct
by precinct basis on a random basis was well beyond even 1 in one
trillion. Voter subpopulations simply differ quite frequently
(though in the cited case in Washington state, substantial evidence of
fraud existed as a hypothesis). See
http://www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf
Other reasons for differences have already been pointed out by others.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 10/25/10, Paul Gronke <paul.gronke@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael
Thanks for the reply. I note that Nate has "replied", sort of. It's good
to see the mea culpa.
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-517-7393
Reed College and Early Voting
Information Center
http://earlyvoting.net
On Oct 25, 2010, at 1:34, Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu> wrote:
Here is a link to my response.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/does-early-voting-show-re_b_773236.html
I lay out three main errors in Nate Silver's analysis and Molly Ball's
Politico story:
Nate and Molly assume that overall voter turnout rates are typically
similar for registered Democrats and registered Republicans. This is not
the case. Registered Republicans tend to vote at higher rates. It is
invalid to compare early voters to all registered voters in the current
election.
Nate and Molly assume that early voters are the same as Election Day
voters, when there is plenty of evidence that they are not - except for
the all-mail ballot states. Nate's biggest pro-Republican state,
Pennsylvania, exposes this poor assumption. There is a simple explanation
for the apparent doom that Nate spells for Joe Sestak. Pennsylvania has a
relatively small number of returned ballots because the state requires an
excuse to vote an absentee ballot. There is a mountain of survey evidence
that excuse-required absentee voters tend to be Republican (think:
retirement homes and traveling businessmen). A valid comparison is early
voters in the current election to early voters in a previous election, not
registration in the current election -- or exit polls in 2008, which Nate
also analyzes.
More generally, the first early voting numbers a state reports tend to
heavily composed of absentee mail ballots, like those in Pennsylvania. As
Election Day draws closer, the numbers have tended to shift in a
Democratic direction. A more valid comparison is early voters now to early
voters at a similar point in time in a previous election.
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gronke
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:43 PM
To: Scarberry, Mark; Law Election
Subject: Re: [EL] Nate Silver on early voting stats
ARRGH! This comparison is INVALID folks! Here are my comments on the
Silver posting:
Nate YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS COMPARISON!
This is so frustrating--if Molly had even read a bit of the research in
this area, she, and you, would have learned that Republicans have LONG
cast the "earliest" of the early votes.
GOP voters have long leaned toward absentee ballots, and many of the
states listed above (CA, AZ, CO, IA) are almost complete no excuse
absentee ballots, which you (and Molly) are lumping in with early in
person ballots.
We have no documentary evidence that compares the early voter turnout
measured more than a week before the election with the eventual early
voting turnout, the final turnout, or the registration numbers. Michael
McDonald's quote in the Politico story is dead on: "The large gap could be
a red herring ... we are in uncharted territory."
There is no "value" in looking at these early numbers if they are
misinterpreted as indicating more than anyone can possibly interpret. The
only meaningful piece of information in the Politico story is the comment
about the GOP in Florida leading in the EARLY IN PERSON ballots. That is
a real piece of news. The rest of this is really just unjustified
speculation.
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-517-7393
Fax: 734-661-0801
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
Portland, OR 97202
EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
On Oct 24, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
Nate Silver on early voting stats:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/early-voter-enthusiasm-gap-appears-consistent-with-polls/?hp
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law