Thursday, August 6, 2009
News Bad Signs
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Now I kind of wish I hadn't "declined to sign" I-71. It would be amusing to know that one of those invalid signatures—I wouldn't have given them my real name—breaking the haters' hearts was "mine."
Share via
1
I wish I could find some glee in watching this thing go down. But mainly I just think, "Why do we even have to have this? Why do we have to be counting these signatures? Why are they even reasonably close to the number they need? Why is this an issue in 2009?"
Of course I'll take disqualification over qualification. Of course I'll be pleased if/when it's disqualified.
But the bigger picture still bums me out. For some reason, I'm finding that hard to overcome.
Of course I'll take disqualification over qualification. Of course I'll be pleased if/when it's disqualified.
But the bigger picture still bums me out. For some reason, I'm finding that hard to overcome.
3
Before people get too confident, please see footnotes 2 and 3 on this page. "Pending" signatures are being included in the "rejected" category, even though "From experience, we know that many of the signatures in this category are usually accepted."
So while the reported error rate is 13.54% so far, the actual error rate (assuming that "pending" signatures are valid) is 13.23%. That's still good enough, but let's not get into the habit of trusting the reported error rate, which is inflated by the inclusion of "pending" signatures.
So while the reported error rate is 13.54% so far, the actual error rate (assuming that "pending" signatures are valid) is 13.23%. That's still good enough, but let's not get into the habit of trusting the reported error rate, which is inflated by the inclusion of "pending" signatures.
4
Dan,
I think it is too early to run a victory lap, Lurleen makes some great points in a previous comments thread http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme… .
Although I also am feeling better about this we must continue to organize. Knowing how cautious Senator Murray tends to be, I am hopeful, but we need to keep preparing for the worst.
I think it is too early to run a victory lap, Lurleen makes some great points in a previous comments thread http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme… .
Although I also am feeling better about this we must continue to organize. Knowing how cautious Senator Murray tends to be, I am hopeful, but we need to keep preparing for the worst.
6
"I wouldn't have given them my real name"
RCW 29A.72.130: Every person who signs [a] petition with any other than his or her true name, knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, signs this petition when he or she is not a legal voter, or makes any false statement on this petition may be punished by fine or imprisonment or both.
Plus, you know, it would be lying, which is what we've been giving them hell for doing while collecting signatures.
RCW 29A.72.130: Every person who signs [a] petition with any other than his or her true name, knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, signs this petition when he or she is not a legal voter, or makes any false statement on this petition may be punished by fine or imprisonment or both.
Plus, you know, it would be lying, which is what we've been giving them hell for doing while collecting signatures.
7
I-71. Isn't that the highway that runs between Yelm and Cle Elum? ;)
@1 I actually see the something less than137k signatures that will be valid as a major victory for us, and here is why: all indicators are that there is about 77% voter support in WA for DPs. This means that 23% of voters would potentially sign the petition. With 3,612,000 registered voters in WA, the pool of possible signers was almost 831k. Yet only 137K (or less, really) out of 831K potential signers signed. I find that incredibly encouraging. There just is no stomach for serious anti-DP bashing in Washington state, even among the people who say they don't like DPs. We'll see what the final numbers are in a few weeks, but it looks like maybe only 2.5% of registered voters are truly active haters. This is very good news.
@1 I actually see the something less than137k signatures that will be valid as a major victory for us, and here is why: all indicators are that there is about 77% voter support in WA for DPs. This means that 23% of voters would potentially sign the petition. With 3,612,000 registered voters in WA, the pool of possible signers was almost 831k. Yet only 137K (or less, really) out of 831K potential signers signed. I find that incredibly encouraging. There just is no stomach for serious anti-DP bashing in Washington state, even among the people who say they don't like DPs. We'll see what the final numbers are in a few weeks, but it looks like maybe only 2.5% of registered voters are truly active haters. This is very good news.
10
5,491
a) Number of stars in the night time sky
b) Total weekly ridership on LINK light rail for 6pm to 12 midnight
c) Invalid signatures rejected today
d) Amount of money Dan Savage would pay to play Chloë Sevigny role in a dinner theatre remake of "The Brown Bunny" with reprise performance by Vincent Gallo.
a) Number of stars in the night time sky
b) Total weekly ridership on LINK light rail for 6pm to 12 midnight
c) Invalid signatures rejected today
d) Amount of money Dan Savage would pay to play Chloë Sevigny role in a dinner theatre remake of "The Brown Bunny" with reprise performance by Vincent Gallo.
11
#7
Are you kidding? There have been 6 votes in this state on Gay rights, two in Tacoma, one in Spokane, two in Seattle and one statewide. We won in Seattle, lost state wide, won and lost in Tacoma and won in Spokane.
The data in actual votes is very telling about the striking number of homophobic voters... commonly called the bigot factor, alive and well.
Adjusted forward for the changed times, there would be some better numbers .... a guess how much better among real voters with the privacy of voting in front of them..
In all of these petition drives only a fraction of voters are ever asked to sign - bad data base.
Are you kidding? There have been 6 votes in this state on Gay rights, two in Tacoma, one in Spokane, two in Seattle and one statewide. We won in Seattle, lost state wide, won and lost in Tacoma and won in Spokane.
The data in actual votes is very telling about the striking number of homophobic voters... commonly called the bigot factor, alive and well.
Adjusted forward for the changed times, there would be some better numbers .... a guess how much better among real voters with the privacy of voting in front of them..
In all of these petition drives only a fraction of voters are ever asked to sign - bad data base.
12
@11 I'm not talking about what might happen if it gets to the polls, I'm only talking about how miserably the petitioners did at finding people to sign the petition. They also did a piss poor job in 2006, and the anti-gay R-65 failed to get on the ballot. I'm not saying it's all roses here in WA. But when you look at the mountains of signatures that referenda and initiatives on other topics get, the turnout for R-71 was miserable. Even the very contentious Death with Dignity initiative get on the ballot with signatures to spare. Of course I would have preferred if they weren't able to get enough signatures to turn in at all, but the fact that they barely squeaked through the door in the first place is something to be very happy about, in my view.
13
@6 i love that. it's illegal to lie ON the ballot, but lying about what the ballot IS is completely fine. brilliant.
14
I remember some kid came up to me while I was waiting for the bus home with one of Eyman's initiatives; he tried selling me with some line that I could sign now but vote against it later. I just looked at him, then did what signature gatherers HATE the most - I spent two or three minutes reading the initiative in full. Good times...
15
Don't worry, Dan, I signed your name for you. If I recall correctly, your middle name was "Jodie" with a heart dotting the "i", and you lived in Bellevue.
16
Lurleen - Death with Dignity was funded by one of the wealthy men in the state, former Gov. Booth Gardner, a scion of the timber baron family, the Weyhausers (sp) - money talks in politics - and talks and talks.
Considering the lack of unity among the religious right and lack of leadership skills, they have done EXCEEDINGLY well.
What relief - Ref. 71 goes in the dust bin, now, end of summer is only wondering who will be the dog catcher and so forth. Relieved only begins to express the collective sigh...
Ace
Considering the lack of unity among the religious right and lack of leadership skills, they have done EXCEEDINGLY well.
What relief - Ref. 71 goes in the dust bin, now, end of summer is only wondering who will be the dog catcher and so forth. Relieved only begins to express the collective sigh...
Ace
17
Is it also illegal to say "trip and spill your coffee all over it, destroying the petition" while "reading all of the facts?"
18
Why is it legal to lie when collecting signatures, but illegal to lie when signing? This process makes no sense to me.
19
So I have a secret weighing on me. I’ve shared this with no one. Until now, of course. Now I will share it with the world. Or, at least, Slog.
At my up-to-now very apolitical church (we’re of the Holiness movement; i.e.: focus on your own relationship with God, love one another, show compassion and condemn no one…) The Sunday before the referendum was due, one of the congregants put the petition on the foyer table and apparently led people to it. When I became aware of it after the service, I was incensed; this was not what our church is about. So, I threw the petition into the office and at the board meeting the following evening made this a huge issue (“We are not a political group!”). Then, the next Sunday I saw the petition in the office still. Which means that that petition never made it to the deadline. There were only five or six voters who had signed it and I wasn’t intending to hide the petition, just to get it out of our foyer until it could be discussed in the board meeting.
Am I guilty of fraud or something of the like?
At my up-to-now very apolitical church (we’re of the Holiness movement; i.e.: focus on your own relationship with God, love one another, show compassion and condemn no one…) The Sunday before the referendum was due, one of the congregants put the petition on the foyer table and apparently led people to it. When I became aware of it after the service, I was incensed; this was not what our church is about. So, I threw the petition into the office and at the board meeting the following evening made this a huge issue (“We are not a political group!”). Then, the next Sunday I saw the petition in the office still. Which means that that petition never made it to the deadline. There were only five or six voters who had signed it and I wasn’t intending to hide the petition, just to get it out of our foyer until it could be discussed in the board meeting.
Am I guilty of fraud or something of the like?
22
@1 If you think about the number of signatures potentially collected and compare it to the actual number of voters in Washington it is about 4%. That means at least 96% Washington voters did not sign the petition. I am very optimistic about the future of equality in Washington for LGBT residents. While we are awaiting the results, please remind your friends and families to vote to Approve Referendum 71 to preserve the domestic partnership bill.
23
Allyn,
Didn't the person who put the petition out wonder where it went? Shouldn't they have been responsible for returning it? I'd think if it was so important to put it out, it would be equally important to see that it was turned in. Maybe, they decided for themselves that it was inappropriate to have brought it in the first place, and left it to languish?
Didn't the person who put the petition out wonder where it went? Shouldn't they have been responsible for returning it? I'd think if it was so important to put it out, it would be equally important to see that it was turned in. Maybe, they decided for themselves that it was inappropriate to have brought it in the first place, and left it to languish?
24
Kim, my thought, too: I didn't hide it and it was there to find, except perhaps he didn't think it would be in the office since that's not where he left it. He was at the board meeting and silent during the discussion. His petition-pushing most surprised me since his long-deceased brother was gay. I know that having a gay relative doesn’t always mean acceptance and tolerance, but…
I don’t think his mind has changed, though. But the discussion is not through.
I don’t think his mind has changed, though. But the discussion is not through.
25
No you don't want to sign fake names to petitions you don't agree with.
If the number of submitted signatures greatly exceeds the requirement, then the signatures are only SPOT checked. That means your if your fake signature isn't checked and disqualified, then you contributed to the success of the petition drive.
If the number of submitted signatures greatly exceeds the requirement, then the signatures are only SPOT checked. That means your if your fake signature isn't checked and disqualified, then you contributed to the success of the petition drive.
Most Commented on Slog
-
High School in Mississippi Cancels Prom to Prevent Lesbian Student from Bringing Female Date—and Potentially Incites Violence Against Lesbian Student by Dan Savage
-
But Won't It Confuse The Children? by Dan Savage
-
Today In Un-American Activities by Dan Savage
-
The Only Exercise I Got... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile On Teresa McNeece's Facebook Page... by Dan Savage
-
Itawamba School Superintendent Teresa McNeece's Facebook Page by Dan Savage
-
There's Just No End to the Hate by Dan Savage
-
Whitey and the Moon by Charles Mudede
-
Mission Accomplished: Lesbian Student Blamed, Ostracized By Other Students for School Board's Decision to Cancel Prom by Dan Savage
-
Constance McMillen Update by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS