Monday, July 17, 2006

A little smackbat to the Anonymous "AP Calls It" Culver Fan

This is for that damn yahoo that keeps bugging me on my Chet Culver election post with his/her facts about how the "AP calls elections".

Q: How and when AP will call the top races?

A: The Associated Press will factor together a variety of points of information before calling any race, and will call a race only when a victor is clear. In the field, thousands of AP stringers are collecting raw vote numbers at precincts across the country. Their information will be phoned into a battery of 450 vote entry clerks at one of APÕs 16 vote collection centers. Meanwhile, more than 1,500 specially trained interviewers, working for the National Election Pool (run by The AP, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News Channel) will be conducting exit surveys of voters leaving the polls. Historical data about voting patterns and detailed political information from every state will also be used. All these strands of information will be used by AP analysts as they study the numbers. A "decision desk" in Washington will then determine when races can be called. The process is designed to ensure accuracy. In the 2000 presidential race, The AP was the only major news organization which did not prematurely declare George W. Bush the victor in Florida on election night.

"The AP uses a variety of tools to call races: counted votes, exit poll data and other projection models based on our deep understanding of the voting patterns, and the judgment of AP journalists who know the states," Kathleen Carroll, AP senior vice president and executive editor said Tuesday. "The AP has been counting votes since 1848 and we have bureaus with experienced journalists in every state — so we bring a lot of experience to each of those race calls." (AP link)

Happy? Do you think I "get it"?

Chet Culver waited weeks before he decided to certify Bush's win in Iowa, although the statistical probability of Kerry winning Iowa went out the window the day after the election.

Up on that now?

Oh, and just because I'm really annoyed at this guy (gender neutral use) for picking a stupid fight with me -- I hate it when people pick stupid fights with me -- I thought y'all might like to see the NRO blog's post on the topic.

Oh Gov Update

[Greg Pollowitz 07/12 07:20 AM]

The latest cry from the left is that Ken Blackwell, Ohio's current Secretary of State, should not be allowed to run the election in November as it's a conflict of interest. From the AP:

COLUMBUS — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, viewed as the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, cautioned a crowd of 3,000 activists Monday to watch Ohio's fall election "like a hawk" — blasting long lines and voting machine shortages in 2004 and accusing the state's Republican chief elections officer of a conflict of interest.

Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's campaign for governor accused Clinton, in turn, of an ignorance of Ohio law, which allows the elections leader to run for partisan office and places bipartisan county boards in charge of much that happens on election days.

Maybe Hillary would like to comment on Chet Culver, Iowa's current Commissioner of Elections and the Democratic candidate for Governor. Culver says his partisanship is a good thing:

"I am proud to be the Commissioner of Elections, the State Registrar of Voters," Culver says. "We've had a tradition in this state of having a partisan in that office to make sure that someone is held accountable and responsible."

For those that remember, Iowa was the last state to certify its election results in 2004, some weeks after the election. Prior to the election, Culver was criticized by Republicans for sending out a "voting guide" that included an application for an absentee ballot. Traditionally, the absentee vote has helped Democrats in Iowa. And on election day, Culver said this:

Another wild card is the 60,000 absentee ballots that were requested but have not yet been returned, he said.

As long as those absentee ballots were postmarked on or before November 1 and are received by noon Monday, November 8, they will be counted, he said.

Care to comment Hillary?

Likewise, care to comment Anonymous "AP Calls It" Culver Fan?

HT to an archived post from Scrivenings for the AP information.


Comments:
For whatever it's worth. We love what you do.

I Love the smackdown and the historical knowledge you provide to the less intellectually possessed.

Looks like the fight gave us an opportunity get some good knowledge for the fight. So, it was useful. Plus, it was fun to see you emote.
 
Chet Culver waited weeks before he decided to certify Bush's win in Iowa, although the statistical probability of Kerry winning Iowa went out the window the day after the election.

You do understand the difference between "calling" and "certifying" - don't you?
 
Anon 8:44 -

I am not sure about what y'all are thinking when using the term emote.

But anyway, I know.

Anon 9:04 -

Oh. No. A lawyer with a comment habit.
 
thanks, you proved I was correct. The A.P. and other national news organizations call the elections, not the Iowa Secretary of State. But now you have changed your position from "calling" an election to "certifying" an election. Anon 9:04 is correct: do you know the difference between calling and certifying the election?
 
Anon Chet Fans,

OMG - You guys really don't want me to write another post about Chet Culver and the aftermath of the 04 election? Do you?

And just because I can:

"Call" an election - is jargon for evaluating multiple piles of election data, some of which is actual vote tabs collected by Chet's SOS office, to predict the outcome of an election.

"Certify" the election - is the official process used to legally declare the winner of an election. In the case of Federal offices, it must be signed by the Secretary of State

Iowa Code -- Ch 50.41

Now, do either of you guys want to give everyone a quick lesson on concepts of probability?
 
Wrong: try again.
The point is to get it right before you post your first blog on the subject; not to have to go back and then do the research you should have done in the first place.
 
It makes no sense to tell some they are wrong without offering clear facts and evidence. At this point you're just a lazy lawyer busting for a fight.

Moreover, you have never made ANY EFFORT to define concepts of probability. My one request.

You're just like all the rest; I keep giving, and giving in that messed up emotionally codependent way only to find that closure is impossible ...unless I just ignore the stupid.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


WWW http://iowaennui.blogspot.com/
Who Links Here