King County Elections has posted today's update in the (admittedly meaningless) Viaduct advisory ballot, with no major change from yesterday.
An overwhelming majority, 74%, wants to preserve the highway capacity. The surface-gridlock option, which enjoyed the loudest and best-funded campaign, has been soundly rejected.
YES on elevated Viaduct: 44%
YES on tunnel: 30%
No on both: 26%
The "No on both" was recommended by both fiscally conservative retrofit supporters, and the fiscally clueless surface-gridlock car-haters, so the latter option clearly had less traction than the highway choices.
(and as noted earlier, it's possible that the "No on both" is slightly understated, but only if you're convinced that a significant number of the YESs voted YES on both).
[Be sure to scroll down and read Don Ward's entertaining and insightful analysis]
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 14, 2007 05:00 PM | Email ThisThis isn't simply a matter of "beating the other guy", it should be a plurality.
And saying that, in an election where a rebuilt surface option was not an offering, that therefore the lack of total no votes for the other two options really stretches the limits of extrapolation.
Idiocracy aside, there needs to be another vote and a surface option has to be on the table.
But I think an equally plausible (if not more plausible) interpretation would be:
45% favor replacing the viaduct, and of these:
4 out of 10 favor a tunnel;
6 out of 10 favor a new elevated structure
55% do not favor either of those choices, and of these
x out of 10 possibly want a street solution
y out of 10 possibly want a retrofit of the existing structure
Its misleading for you (and anyone else) to say that no on both equals 26%, arriving at that number by adding the two "yes" votes and subtracting from 100%. The data doesn't support that conclusion.
Posted by: jbs on March 14, 2007 05:47 PM
If the 74% figure divined from a crystal ball is accurate, then it stands that a Stunning Majority of 126% are for not preserving capacity, which is an interesting claim to make by extension of the maths.
O Viaduct, though fair ye be, Mountains and Sound are fairer far to see.
Posted by: Peoples Asphalt Coalition on March 14, 2007 05:54 PMYour spin looks pretty desperate here. Bottom line: a majority said No to the tunnel. Another majority said No to the rebuild. You can't link the two unless you have information about how each voter voted (or abstained) on both measures together. You don't.
Posted by: whoyatryingtoconvince on March 14, 2007 05:54 PMAnd they wonder why they are always out of money...duh!
Posted by: GS on March 14, 2007 08:09 PMPlease tell me you are joking......
Posted by: eric on March 14, 2007 08:10 PMThen I decided I'd just vote no on both. I'd heardnothing of any such campaign to vote no on both. Maybe I've been on vacation from the papers too long, but its ludicrous to think every voter got a message to vote NO on both if they were unhappy with the options. When you were unhappy with your presidential options in 2004 (I know I was) did you vote no on both? Hello-no you didn't.
this was a thoughtful choice and did not come easy. I live in west seattle, but I ride the bus (when it comes). What I want is better transit. that's my selfish viewpoint - what I want. I hate to drive, transit is cheap as it should be, and it is subsidized by my company. Give me more buses and give us a bus lane.
Posted by: Derelict on March 14, 2007 08:28 PMAlthough 75% of voters supported a highway, I would imagine the majority of those voters have the surface option as their second choice: most tunnel supporters are desperate to avoid another "wall" on the waterfront, and most viaduct supporters think (correctly) that the tunnel is a financial disaster waiting to happen.
I guess the only thing one can take away from the vote is that the city's voters aren't in love with any of the options, and that it will take a bit of sensible political leadership (which is in very short supply) to get us out of this.
Posted by: MHD on March 14, 2007 09:04 PMYES on elevated Viaduct: 44%
YES on tunnel: 30%
No on both: 26%
Let's see, 44% YES for the elevated viaduct, 30% YES for the tunnel -- yes, I remember hearing that reported elsewhere. But what's this? King County is reporting that 26% voted NO on both?
Well, actually, no. King County made no tabulation of NO/NO votes -- and, of course, Stefan doesn't actually say that they did. But his presentation sure gives the initial impression that this is so.
Sure, he later presents some qualification that it's "possible" that the NO/NO vote may be "slightly understated." Stefan doesn't say so, but it's also possible that he may have overstated the NO/NO vote. He doesn't provide any guidance as to how much it could be in either direction because he just pulled the 26% number out of the air, or somewhere else.
No problem, I'll do the math so you don't have to.
According to KCE, so far they have counted 124090 ballots. On Measure No. 1, 117503 voted YES or NO, so 6587 were either blank, unreadable, or overvoted (YES and NO) on this question. 3882 were in a similar condition on Measure No. 2. Here's a handy table:
Tunnel
6587 NV (not voted, unreadable, or overvote)
35509 YES
81994 NO
-----
124090 Total
Elevated Viaduct
3882 NV
52609 YES
67599 NO
-----
124090 Total
So, what's the maximum number of ballots that could have been marked NO/NO? That would be 67599. Since there are at least this many NO-tunnel votes, it's mathematically possible that everyone who voted NO on the elevated viaduct also voted NO on the tunnel.
The minimum possible number of NO/NO votes is 25503. You get there by assuming that every NV-tunnel or YES-tunnel ballot also voted NO on the elevated viaduct. That would still leave 25503 NO-viaduct ballots that must have voted NO on the tunnel. There is no possible scenario that yields fewer than 25503 NO/NO votes.
So, the number of NO/NO ballots is somewhere between 25503 and 67599 or between 20.55 and 54.48% of the ballots counted so far. That's really all we can know from the data presented so far.
Stefan claims that his number of 26% (toward the lower end of the possible range) is reasonable because he assumes it quite unlikely that anyone would vote YES/YES. He's free to make whatever assumptions he likes (or needs) to get to the numbers he wants, but there's really no reason to believe this and he offers none. I could just as easily put together reasonable scenarios that place the NO/NO vote at 43% or any other number between 20.55 and 54.48%, but what's the point? I don't know and neither does Stefan.
I think it's perfectly plausible that someone would vote YES on both questions. Suppose you were a supporter of the tunnel, but you thought it unlikely the tunnel would pass. On the other hand, you wanted to make certain something would get done. The only sensible thing would be to vote for both. Following this reasoning, it's possible that many or most of the people who voted for the tunnel also voted for the elevated viaduct. Of course, I really don't know and I have no way of telling. The only difference is, I'm willing to admit it.
Posted by: scottd on March 14, 2007 10:48 PMIf we assume a 15% Yes-Yes, then give the now 11.5% spread and the fact that more people voted on the elevated choice, almost every single no-yes would have to support the elevated despite voting against it. Seems unlikely.
Your right that we just don't know, but at the same time putting together a reasonable scenario were yes tunnel no elevated voters actually support the elevated option despite not voting for it seems difficult if not nearly impossible.
As stated on previous threads, I do not know how you can determine that the 30% of tunnel voters would support another viaduct at all. These voters would choose a surface/transit option over another viaduct. So when you combine them with the NO-NO voters, you have 56% opposed to another viaduct, a landslide.
The question is how many of the NO-NO voters were really voting for a retrofit of the existing viaduct? Not enough in my opinion to make it the majority pick if the choice were between rebuild and surface/transit.
In today's Times article, Gregoire said they are moving forward with construction on the parts they agree on, and they are postponing the decision on the main stretch of viaduct until "late 2008", which in political speak means "after the election, so you will not know my decision unless you vote for me".
Posted by: Palouse on March 15, 2007 08:45 AMIn fact, let's try this. If we just "forget" about all the "no" votes attributed to the tunnel (as if it weren't even on the ballot) and threw all its "yes" votes to the viaduct crowd, we would have 88,118 votes "for" and 67,599 "against," which is barely a 56% majority. But to even get to that point, you have to make a HUGE and totally unsubstantiated assumption that all those who voted in favor of the tunnel would favor the viaduct if the tunnel were not on the ballot. I frankly don't think that is anywhere close to a fair assumption.
Posted by: jbs on March 15, 2007 11:11 AM88,118 (37.5% / 75%) votes counted for building something
149,593 (62.5% / 126%) votes counted for not building something
Unless, in the interest of a rather creative and poetic interpretation, we consider that it is not true that every ballot was two separate votes cast for two different issues, but rather to be counted as two votes or more per person toward an amalgamation of the spirit and desire of the electorate to move freely and the voters are strongly voicing their dissatisfaction with this democratic interference in addressing their needs.
Posted by: Peoples Asphalt Coalition on March 15, 2007 11:50 AMYou can get a plurality win in a vote for, say, President, because no matter what we gotta have a President.
There's no such thing with the viaduct vote. The reason both issues lost is that for each of them more people think they suck than don't. Yes/yes was an option just as much as no/no was.
Or to phrase it in html-speak, this ballot was a pair of checkboxes, not a radio button. (So you can put me down as a yes vote on 'this was an incredibly useless ballot' too.)
Posted by: brent on March 15, 2007 11:52 AMY1, Y2 .121
Y1, B2 .009
Y1, N2 .156
B1, Y2 .022
B1, B2 .002
B1, N2 .029
N1, Y2 .280
N1, B2 .020
N1, N2 .360
How many NN ballots were cast? The probablility is that there were .360 x 124,090 = 44,672 NN ballots.
N1, N2 .360 = 44,672.4 votes 36%
N1, Y2 .280 = 34,745.2 votes 28%
Y1, N2 .156 = 19,358 votes 15.6%
Y1, Y2 .121 = 15,014.9 votes 12%
B1, N2 .029 = 3,598.6 votes 2.9%
B1, Y2 .022 = 2,729.9 votes 2.2%
N1, B2 .020 = 2,481.8 votes 2%
Y1, B2 .009 = 1,116.8 votes 0.9%
B1, B2 .002 = 248.2 votes .02%
still show a clear preference of neither option ....curious - what are they based on?
Posted by: Peoples Asphalt Coalition on March 15, 2007 01:24 PMGuys like Locke, Evans, Sims, Nickels, Allen and the corporate media really don't want another viaduct, or a retrofit, and they'll all spin it any way they can to get what they want, which is really just more money in their pockets and their friend's pockets. To hell with a populace who just wants to travel as freely tomorrow as they do today. Who's being the selfish ones?
Don't get me wrong - if they hadn't killed the monorail or built a decent rapid transit system by now I'd be less concerned with the waterfront roadway. But to hear them call themselves forward thinkers when they did little to avoid the problems we find ourselves confronted with today when they had a chance makes me want to move to another state. Though not a Republican state. I do have to say that we have more than a few bad (as in phony) Democrats around here... and I regret ever voting for Mayor Nickels and Dimes.
Posted by: Pelon Ito on March 16, 2007 07:21 PM