Understanding the Sunshine Count: Who is Watching
the Watchers?
by Alan Balch, PhD Candidate
Note: This is the shortened version of this article. To link to the entire article, click here.
For a group that claims the moral high ground, Judicial Watch's announcement that "Bush is still the winner" following their partial "sunshine count" of the undervotes was contrived and misleading at best. Moreover, the reports in the media regarding this analysis are similarly spurious.
Here is the crucial excerpt from their analysis (download entire report here).
"In total, we have inspected ballots representing 42,724 (68%) of the 62,605 ballots reported as undervotes in the certified State tally. Based upon the results of this inspection, the results of the Florida election would not have changed with a manual recount of these counties. Further, based upon the scope of our inspection and the analysis of the results thereof, it is our view that the results of the Florida election would not have changed with a manual recount of all the counties in the State."
Commentary: Technically, these sentences are accurate by themselves. The first is a statement of fact, and the second one is an opinion, albeit one not backed up with any evidence. However, these two sentences put together are highly misleading because they provide the appearance that their review was sufficient to determine who would have won Florida following the statewide undervote count -- an appearance dutifully reported by some media outlets as fact. If their goal was determining who would have won the statewide undervote count, then their analysis is significantly less extensive than they make it sound on paper. Relevant to the statewide undervote count, they studied approximately 25,000 of the 45,000 undervotes statewide that would have been canvassed pursuant to the State Supreme Court's decision. They studied ballots from six of the 64 counties covered by the Court's recount order. While their results from these six counties show that Bush's 193 vote lead would expand if only these six counties conducted undervote counts, they tell us nothing about the remaining 20,000 undervotes from 58 counties that would also have examined their undervotes along with these six counties.
Their 42,724 is derived by adding the Palm Beach and Broward undervotes, which they analyzed as part of their review of the ballot counting methods in these counties. However, the undervotes from these counties would not have been included in the statewide undervote count because they would have already been included in the state's certified totals prior to the undervote count. The 62,605 number they use includes all the undervotes from across the state including those from Broward, Palm Beach, and Volusia. Once again, the ballots from these counties would be irrelevant to determining the outcome of the statewide undervote canvass because these ballots would not have been included in that effort. Judicial Watch notes that these 62,000 ballots represent the total reported to the state; what they neglect to tell you is that this figure is not the number of ballots slated to be canvassed in the undervote count.
They apparently rely upon the 68% figure quoted above to make their study seem more expansive than it actually is in terms of determining the outcome of the statewide undervote count. They make it clear that their conclusion is only an opinion (i.e., "their view"), but their report offers no evidence or validation for this opinion. In other words, they did not show that Bush would have won in a statewide undervote count; they only speculate that he would have based on the results from the six counties they actually analyzed. Why should we assume that a review of the remaining 20,000 undervotes would not turn up a net gain of 300 to 500 or even 1,000 Gore votes? Their own analysis shows incredible variations across counties in the number of possible uncounted votes and the distribution of those votes between Bush and Gore. Click here for an example. No discernible pattern exists in the six counties they studied, so how can they use the results from those counties to predict the results of the undervote count from the remaining 58 counties and 20,000 undervotes? They only rationale they provide for such a conclusion is that their examination of a little more than half of the undervote ballots is sufficient in scope to justify such a conclusion. Their lack of empirical or logical evidence for this conclusion suggests an ulterior motive: a "Bush Wins Statewide Recount" headline. A more accurate and honest press release would have simply stated that Bush netted 116 votes in undervote count from six large counties.
Judging Judicial
Watch by Their Own Standards
Judicial Watch claims to be "an ethical and legal "watchdog" over
our government" in an effort to "promote a return to ethics and
morality in our nation's public life." Based on the way they
unethically distorted and misrepresented their own supposedly bipartisan
and unbiased study, it seem that this pledge does not apply to their own
efforts. In a clear effort to stretch the truth until they could
arrive at their desired conclusion (i.e., that Bush would have won Florida
during an statewide undervote count) and provide the media the necessary
fodder they need to spin the same story, Judicial Watch displays a flagrant
disregard for the type of ethics and morality so desperately needed in
our nation's political discourse.
In other words, they reported just enough information and blew the
little information they did gather out of proportion in order to reach
their politically loaded and partisan conclusions. As is true
of most politicians and political groups across the political spectrum,
ethical and moral behavior conveniently become irrelevant or excusable
in the expedient pursuant of one's own partisan agenda.
To read about how the Washington Times botched its report on Judicial Watch's analysis, click here.