Torpedo in the water!
Earlier, I noted that it appeared the Democrats may rebut "proportional reduction" with the testimony of felons who voted.
The WSDCC lawyer said in his opening statement that the Democrats will present the depositions of 5 such voters. Apparently, those 5 voted in counties carried by Rossi, but in precincts carried by Gregoire -- thus their votes would be attributed to Gregoire under the statistical inferences made by the GOP's expert witnesses.
Of course, those 5 testified (according to Hamilton's opening statement) that they voted for Rossi and Bennett -- 4 for Rossi.
How many such specific examples would it take to persuade the court that "proportional reduction" is an inappropriate remedy? Is 5 enough?
The WSDCC lawyer said in his opening statement that the Democrats will present the depositions of 5 such voters. Apparently, those 5 voted in counties carried by Rossi, but in precincts carried by Gregoire -- thus their votes would be attributed to Gregoire under the statistical inferences made by the GOP's expert witnesses.
Of course, those 5 testified (according to Hamilton's opening statement) that they voted for Rossi and Bennett -- 4 for Rossi.
How many such specific examples would it take to persuade the court that "proportional reduction" is an inappropriate remedy? Is 5 enough?
posted by Micajah | 10:41 AM
2 Comments:
I'm sure the Democrats think 5 is enough. The constantly use anecdotal evidence as if it were a true random sample. Unfortunately, too many people are too ignorant - thanks to a lousy public school system - to know the difference.
Only five? I've had to work the past couple days, so I haven't had a chance to look at the goings on in any depth, but five?!? I was expecting a couple dozen at least and even that would've been iffy in my book.
Post a Comment
<< Home