Rec this thread if you're not sure you trust the results of the WA GMO labeling bill
Nov 4th: Polls indicate edge to proponents of I-522
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Proponents-of-Washington-s-GMO-labeling-bill-say-they-have-slight-lead-going-into-Tuesday-s-election
Nov 5th: "Too close to call"
Nov 6th: Looking like it's failing.
Washington state voting technology: Some paper ballot scanners, some DRE electronic voting machines with paper records for auditing purposes. 4% of DRE machines are audited and 25% of this audit is done by machine. For the DREs that are selected to be audited, three election contests or ballot issues are randomly selected to be audited on each machine.
More details on Washington's audits:
http://www.ceimn.org/state-audit-laws-searchable-database/states/washington
my personal opinion: the first count was very close. statistical models show that the closer it is, the larger the sample that should be audited to verify the results. This is what they call a risk-limiting audit. Washington does not have risk-limiting audits, so the same procedure and number of ballots are audited regardless of the first-count results. In this case the ballot measure in question might not even be selected to be audited for many or most of the machines that are picked for auditing. Bottom line, all of the ballots were counted by proprietary software on machines made by private companies (like Diebold, ESS, Premier, whatever....) on the first count, and the audit will barely touch this ballot measure.
People should know the facts before they decide if they trust the results.
= new reply since forum marked as read
