Engineer on @googlechrome. Involved in CSS and W3C standards. Previously @mozilla, @w3ctag. Mastodon: @dbaron@w3c.social
Rockville, Maryland, USA
Joined March 2008
- Tweets 7,521
- Following 1,244
- Followers 4,296
- Likes 18,519
It's also possible it's obvious if you know you're looking for an escalator... but not if you don't.
1
There are a whole bunch of fires nearby (upwind from us given the current wind patterns): rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/H…
(Image is from rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/H… .)
1
I'm sort of amused that these numbers are so precise... yet the totals of the two proposals differ by 13.
(I'd have expected either 0 or a larger difference.)
Yes.
@JerryBrownGov vetoed a bill that would have fixed this statewide in California:
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f…
ca.gov/archive/gov39/wp-cont…
Hopefully the legislature will try again under @GavinNewsom.
That article has a significant rounding error. The proposition needs 66⅔%, not 66.6%... which means as of last count it's 12 votes short of what it needs.
So really, way too close to call until much more of the vote-by-mail is counted.
For what it's worth, current numbers have:
Pre-election vote-by-mail: Brown 54.5%; Preston 45.5%
Election-day (non-provisional): Preston 56.7%; Brown 43.3%
Right now VBM is 53% of D5 ballots and e-day is 47% of ballots.
1
1
2
I think it's reasonable to expect VBM and e-day voters to have different demographics (e.g., income, age, employment status, how well informed they are) that influence their choice of whether to vote by mail or in person and also influence their votes.
2
I think it's far too early to call the D5 race given how many vote-by-mail ballots are still to be counted, and the relative skew of the vote-by-mail versus election-day ballots.
1
1
This is looking like less of a respite than I thought before -- even though the forecast is roughly still holding up -- because it looks like things should switch back to the N/NE wind pattern during Saturday, and thus bring us more smoke again.
1
The rule for counting ballots with stuff like that is that once you reach a rank with multiple candidates, the ballot doesn't count.
So a ballot that says Alice #1, Bob #2, Christine #2, David #3 will count towards Alice until she's eliminated, and after that will not count.
I already went through a bunch of the overvotes (multiple votes for the same rank) to debug the problem. A few people always vote in interesting ways. A bunch of fun things like "rank three candidates #5 and three candidates #6".
1
Also, the amount of data that SF will be publishing for this election is going to be ridiculously large. I believe it will include images of every ballot.
1
Well, they moved to an entirely new voting system that produces output in a different format that I needed to implement support for.
I had a test dataset last week, but I didn't have the corresponding tables from the city to check my output against, so I needed to do that live.
1
1
OK, I figured out why my numbers didn't match the city's RCV results; I needed to discard marks that had the IsAmbiguous field set to true.
So at least my RCV tables match the city's tables now.
1
2
The errors are pretty small -- but I'd have expected these things to match.
I suppose the least bad explanation is that the reports were produced at slightly different times during a count that was adding ballots to the dataset.
We'll see if the later results match...
2/2
1
So I'm a little confused by the election results numbers coming out of San Francisco right now. The first-choice results on sfelections.sfgov.org/novemb… don't match the short RCV tables at sfelections.sfgov.org/novemb… and neither matches my calculations at dbaron.org/sf-elections-rcv/ .
1/2
1
Where did SB 330 do that? I thought it only prevented cities from making lot size requirements (among others) stricter than what they already were...
1