Be aware that as the verification progresses, the chances of duplicate signatures increases. 71 may well end up on the ballot, but I'm guessing it won't beat the average number of rejected signatures. It will be close, however.
@ 2) The folks running the referendum claimed to have only 75,000 signatures a few days before the deadline. The secretary of state's office said they were "scrambling." At that point, it looked doomed. Either the heavens opened up and delivered unto them 65,000 more signatures, or--and this would be par for the course--they lied.
Why don't you admit that supporters of domestic partnership/gay marriage sat on their asses and did NOTHING (except post infantile schemes on slog to try to sabotage the petition) while the Fundies hustled.
If we look at the data, a 11.34% rate of disqualification would give us 122,075 signatures, giving them a 1.01% cushion over the 120,577 signature requirement, not a 3-point spread.
I, however, will not make a snarky GED comment like Deceived.
Of course they lied. Wouldn't you? There's no enforcement of election law in this state. They could promise puppies and gold coins falling from the sky and the state would look the other way.
Well then who the fuck is going to begin collecting all the signatures of gay marriage supporters who inadvertently signed this bigoted petition?.
Well, no one, as far as I know. Even though the Secretary of State is allowed to remove signatures upon voter request, apparently the office's current policy is not to accept such request. I called the office and they told me that their currently established policy was to refuse all requests for the removal of a signature, and that if I desired my signature to be removed from a petition, then I would have to call the petition sponsors and trust that they would remove my name for me. As if that would ever happen... All the more reason these petitions need to be public.
I should also note that I was asking in the hypothetical, those douche's couldn't have gotten me to sign their petitions for anything.
I noticed this new group popped up on Facebook called Approve Ref. 71 to protect domestic partnership rights... Is this another lying tactic from the right? I'm kind of confused, and looking at all my gay friends who are fans of the group already, I'd say I'm not the only one. Thoughts?
We are taking this threat very seriously and moving forward as if referendum 71 will make the ballot. Remember we will have to vote to approve referendum 71 to preserve domestic partnerships. Sign up to volunteer at volunteer@wafst.org and show your support on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#/p…
We have nothing to lose by mobilizing now, and everything to lose if we do not.
Thank you,
Joe Mirabella
Join the Impact Washington State Community Organizer
WAFST Coordinating Committee
There may not be many duplicates,
most opponents of domestic partnership are probably smart enough to remember that they had already signed-
of course the hysterically stupid and gullible supporters of gay marriage who "inadvertently" signed the petition are so dumb they may have been convinced to sign multiple times....
@8, you're comparing the padding margin they had in only one day of validation to the raw padding margin they had in total at the outset. unless friday's sample was absolutely representative of the whole pile (doubtful), the apparent padding percentage will fluctuate daily.
Joe Mirabella is right. We can't sit around looking wishfully at numbers. We have to hope that it won't qualify but proceed as if it will. So please, go to WAFST.org and find out what you can do to help prepare.
APPROVE REF. 71 !
Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law.
REFERENDUM 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved ___
Rejected ___
Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.
*That's* your beef? The denial on this issue keeps coming in waves. First it was "Har, har, har, they'll never squeeze the statute onto one page!" Then it was "They'll never get enough signatures," and now it seems to be "It'll never pass!"
This is your "Oh, fuck..." moment, and you really ought to think about organizing to defeat this referendum on a more credible theme than "They lied to get the signatures!" Tim Eyman lied when he sold the voters a fantasy about maintaining our transportation infrastructure on $30 car tabs, and he's still going strong.
Facts about I-917:
-Buffer over required signature count was about 14.5%
-Via the sample method, the maximum number of duplicates in a 4% sample was 4, which was exceeded by 20.
-With a largely volunteer crew and a handful of paid gatherers, Eyman maintains about a 13% invalid/3% duplicate rate
The reason for the 100% check on R-71 was in accordance with what happened with 917 and the incredibly embarrassing rope-a-dope they had with Eyman and his supporters on allegations of tampering since Eyman claimed to have returned more than he did and the Secretary of State clumsily stamped a piece of paper he had written his supposed "total" on. Then they announced a different number of signatures and the press had a fit. Totally the Secretary of State's fault, though.
Oh, and the maximum statistical allowance for duplicates in a 4.5% sample of R-71 is about 2.75 with a margin of error based on precedent (only 97 years worth, sigh) of around plus or minus 1. At this rate, Ref 71's error rate is about 15-16% if we count conservatively.
Then again, it's far safer to assume it will make it to the ballot.
Just to make things even more clusterfucky, voters will have to vote "yes" in order to approve and keep the domestic partnership expansion.
Strategy: Mail out a zillion flyers in Eastern Washington telling voters to vote "yes" to protect marriage, save babies, murder everyone one of those gawdam hummuhsekshals, etc. Those stupid fucks will fall all over themselves to vote for it.
@23 I think that is a great idea. Set up a pac called Citizens to protect lawful marriage and then a mailer stating that families are under attack by forces that want the government to say what marriage is. Tell them a yes vote is the only way to save families and protect marriage. I'd happily kick in for a campaign like this!
Past pro-gay rights campaigns of futility have taken the high road by trying to appeal to voters' non-existent sense of decency, fairness and compassion.
Welcome to Loserville, population: Gay rights supporters.
We have to acknowledge that voters only respond to sleazy, dishonest, outrageous lies and roll with it.
What do you think Dominic? Are you in favor of recognizing polyamorous relationships under the law? I heard Oprah also recognizes polygamy. Mr. George has a point.
32
Any argument for gay marriage also applies to polygamy.
It is ironic that the greatest benefactors of gays' struggle will be apostate Mormon polygamists.
I really don't get why people think polygamy is such a big deal. Aside from a purely economic arguement that it would cost money to extend benefits to multiple partners, I can't really think of any good reason to give a fuck if someone wants to marry multiple people.
Perhaps you could write the Consulate of Oprah and ask for examples of how that recognition works within their national borders & society. There's also this thing called The Googles, which might also help.
Please post again when you receive an official response from Oprah's Ambassador.
I just had a very interesting e-mail exchange with Lornet Turnbull, who has been writing about this in the Seattle Times. Ultimately she acknowledged that she is aware that Gary Randall is a registered Oregon voter & homeowner, but feels that since he resides in Issaquah, these facts are not pertinent to a story quoting him as the head of a Washington state voter referendum effort. Pretty sad reflection on our newspaper of record.
Sadly I don[t sign anything anymore for just this reason. After finding out years ago (prolly thanks to the Stranger) that most of these signature gatherers were not only paid but weren't honest in their portrayals of what it is you are signing I decided to avoid all of them.
I was confused by Yes on Referendum 71 too. I thought Referendum 71 was AGAINST gay partnerships. No on Prop 8 but yes of this? It's really really really confusing.
We are so fucked if this has enough signatures because we're going to need massive voter education and it's hard enough for honest people to fight liars to begin with.
Sorry. I'm feeling really unsure of what productive things we can do. I feel like there are grounds to sue for a recount based on the freedom of information rejection. It's impossible to validate the names -- don't we deserve some sort of independent validation?
yeah
Dom assured us it was DOOMED!!!
Were you stoned at the time?
Have you considered getting your GED?
whaa wha whaaaaaaaa
Why don't you admit that supporters of domestic partnership/gay marriage sat on their asses and did NOTHING (except post infantile schemes on slog to try to sabotage the petition) while the Fundies hustled.
Grasshoppers, meet the Ants.
I, however, will not make a snarky GED comment like Deceived.
Or punked you,
you ever naive, clueless Jackass...
Goldy did some math on this basis and thinks it probably won't qualify.
Well, no one, as far as I know. Even though the Secretary of State is allowed to remove signatures upon voter request, apparently the office's current policy is not to accept such request. I called the office and they told me that their currently established policy was to refuse all requests for the removal of a signature, and that if I desired my signature to be removed from a petition, then I would have to call the petition sponsors and trust that they would remove my name for me. As if that would ever happen... All the more reason these petitions need to be public.
I should also note that I was asking in the hypothetical, those douche's couldn't have gotten me to sign their petitions for anything.
We have nothing to lose by mobilizing now, and everything to lose if we do not.
Thank you,
Joe Mirabella
Join the Impact Washington State Community Organizer
WAFST Coordinating Committee
most opponents of domestic partnership are probably smart enough to remember that they had already signed-
of course the hysterically stupid and gullible supporters of gay marriage who "inadvertently" signed the petition are so dumb they may have been convinced to sign multiple times....
Joe Mirabella is right. We can't sit around looking wishfully at numbers. We have to hope that it won't qualify but proceed as if it will. So please, go to WAFST.org and find out what you can do to help prepare.
APPROVE REF. 71 !
Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law.
DONATE TO WASHINGTON FAMILIES STANDING TOGETHER !
PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE HANDOUTS AND PLACARDS !
*That's* your beef? The denial on this issue keeps coming in waves. First it was "Har, har, har, they'll never squeeze the statute onto one page!" Then it was "They'll never get enough signatures," and now it seems to be "It'll never pass!"
This is your "Oh, fuck..." moment, and you really ought to think about organizing to defeat this referendum on a more credible theme than "They lied to get the signatures!" Tim Eyman lied when he sold the voters a fantasy about maintaining our transportation infrastructure on $30 car tabs, and he's still going strong.
Facts about I-917:
-Buffer over required signature count was about 14.5%
-Via the sample method, the maximum number of duplicates in a 4% sample was 4, which was exceeded by 20.
-With a largely volunteer crew and a handful of paid gatherers, Eyman maintains about a 13% invalid/3% duplicate rate
The reason for the 100% check on R-71 was in accordance with what happened with 917 and the incredibly embarrassing rope-a-dope they had with Eyman and his supporters on allegations of tampering since Eyman claimed to have returned more than he did and the Secretary of State clumsily stamped a piece of paper he had written his supposed "total" on. Then they announced a different number of signatures and the press had a fit. Totally the Secretary of State's fault, though.
Oh, and the maximum statistical allowance for duplicates in a 4.5% sample of R-71 is about 2.75 with a margin of error based on precedent (only 97 years worth, sigh) of around plus or minus 1. At this rate, Ref 71's error rate is about 15-16% if we count conservatively.
Then again, it's far safer to assume it will make it to the ballot.
AmeriKKKans are such mindless, hateful, sadistic sacks of shit.
Just to make things even more clusterfucky, voters will have to vote "yes" in order to approve and keep the domestic partnership expansion.
Strategy: Mail out a zillion flyers in Eastern Washington telling voters to vote "yes" to protect marriage, save babies, murder everyone one of those gawdam hummuhsekshals, etc. Those stupid fucks will fall all over themselves to vote for it.
Past pro-gay rights campaigns of futility have taken the high road by trying to appeal to voters' non-existent sense of decency, fairness and compassion.
Welcome to Loserville, population: Gay rights supporters.
We have to acknowledge that voters only respond to sleazy, dishonest, outrageous lies and roll with it.
Christian Citizens to Protect Lawful Marriage works perfectly!
More infantile wetdreaming from slog.
Meanwhile the Fundies kick your asses.
How?
I was unfortunately never approached by the bigots. I so wanted a chance to tear a strip off one, too.
This has nothing to do with the ballot initiative (I wasn't approached and wouldn't have signed it) but what's your take on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…
What do you think Dominic? Are you in favor of recognizing polyamorous relationships under the law? I heard Oprah also recognizes polygamy. Mr. George has a point.
no.
but homosexual bigots will harass them once the list is made public.
they can take that opportunity to apologize.
Any argument for gay marriage also applies to polygamy.
It is ironic that the greatest benefactors of gays' struggle will be apostate Mormon polygamists.
I really don't get why people think polygamy is such a big deal. Aside from a purely economic arguement that it would cost money to extend benefits to multiple partners, I can't really think of any good reason to give a fuck if someone wants to marry multiple people.
Oprah recognizes polygamy?
Perhaps you could write the Consulate of Oprah and ask for examples of how that recognition works within their national borders & society. There's also this thing called The Googles, which might also help.
Please post again when you receive an official response from Oprah's Ambassador.
Nate Silver.
Mathematical cleanup on Aisle 1-40. Cleanup on Aisle 1-40.
We are so fucked if this has enough signatures because we're going to need massive voter education and it's hard enough for honest people to fight liars to begin with.
Sorry. I'm feeling really unsure of what productive things we can do. I feel like there are grounds to sue for a recount based on the freedom of information rejection. It's impossible to validate the names -- don't we deserve some sort of independent validation?