Ferguson Township Community Bill of Rights is a Bill of Disaster

In September, I blogged briefly about a proposed "community bill of rights" on the ballot in Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania. I didn't spend much time on it because 1) from a constitutional perspective, it was a complete disaster; and 2) frankly, I didn't think it would pass.

The township considered an injunction to allow the measure's constitutionality to be tested in court before appearing on the ballot, but decided to allow the vote first.

Anyways, I should mention that it did pass: 4,272-3,896.

The cruel irony of this "bill of rights" is that many of the provisions are extremely hostile to individual rights, especially property rights. Additionally, other provisions assert power that the township has no authority to assert in the first place. All in all, a disaster of epic proportions.

I would be surprised if any significant portion of this "bill of rights" goes into effect. If it does, the slippery slope will have gotten a lot steeper.

Anne Arundel County and presidential elections

Anne Arundel County Presidential Election Results, 1998-2012

Year	Democrat	Percent	Republican	Percent	Margin
1988	55,440	35.7	98,540	63.5	+27.8R
1992*	68,629	37.0	81,467	44.0	+7.0R
1996**	72,147	42.2	83,574	48.9	+6.7R
2000	89,624	46.0	104,209	53.5	+7.5R
2004	103,324	43.6	133,231	56.2	+12.6R
2008	125,015	48.2	129,683	50.0	+1.8R
2012	116,065	48.3	118,319	49.2	+0.9R

*In 1992, Perot received 19.0% of the vote.
*In 1996, Perot received 8.4% of the vote.

As the chart above indicates, Anne Arundel County has voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every year since (at least) 1972 (summaries back to 1960 are available here). The margins have fluctuated, but until 2008 had been 7 points at a minimum in 1996 and as much as 28 points in 1988. Thus, even when Ross Perot was on the ballot, Republican candidates mantained a significant advantage in the county.

The last two presidential elections have seen a significant decrease in that margin: 1.8% in 2008 and just 0.9% in 2012. This year also marked the first time that (notwithstanding a strong third party candidate) the Republican candidate did not gain at least 50% of the county's voters.

Turnout in the county was down--69% across the county (which was the same turnout as statewide) compared to 79% in the county in 2008 (78% statewide).

UPDATE: The 69% turnout figure that I cited does *not* include absentee or provisional ballots. In 2008, Anne Arundel County had 17,540 absentee ballots and 3,942 accepted provisional ballots. These ballots represented 8.2% of the total turnout; turnout without them would have been 72.9% without them. Extrapolating similar absentee and provisional ballots for 2012, turnout projects to be about 75-76%.

Observer-expectancy effect, confirmation bias and the 2012 election

Quite obviously, political predictions and projections are not made in a vacuum. We use results from previous elections, polls, and whatever else we can get our hands on to make a best guess about the next time. We make inferences on that data, and we assign more value to some things and less value to others. In many ways, it is indeed subjective. And we often see more data as somehow being better. But sometimes this can be problematic.

As I put together my projection, I tried to be conscious of confirmation bias. In a close election, partisans on either side are likely going to tilt the projection to their side. I'm not necessarily going to discount this data, but I want to look beyond it, too. So while I acknowledged the potential for confirmation bias, going beyond that for more data tended to mentally insulate me from it. The problem was that additional data, gathered from very smart people, wasn't necessarily any better; just more confirmation bias. And as a result, my results were ultimately biased because of a sort of observer-expectancy effect. Acknowledging the initial confirmation bias gave me the assurance that I was on the right track, yet it was that assurance itself that covered up the secondary bias associated with the additional data.

It's an Inception-like bias inside another bias. Weird. At least that's how I see it.

Next time, I'll have to figure out a way to acknowledge confirmation bias without also simultaneously and inadvertently insulating myself from it at the same time.

Election post-mortem: How I was wrong (and why)

Let me be clear upfront: I was wrong, and I have no problem admitting it.

On Friday, I projected that Mitt Romney would defeat President Obama on the strength of Republican turnout and relative strength among independents. I based this projection upon the estimate that the +7D turnout of 2008 (39D/32R/29I) would look more like +2D/+3D.

In fact, the exit polls from last night showed 38D/32R/29I, or +6D (not sure where that extra percent went!). This seems to suggest that 1) the Republican edge in enthusiasm didn't transform the electorate enough; and conversely, that 2) the relatively less enthusiasm among Democrats didn't reduce their share of the vote as much as I expected.

Among self-described Independents, Romney won 50-45. Indeed, polls have suggested a high single digit lead among such voters, and here the projection was pretty close. But it couldn't be overcome by the relatively higher turnout than expected among Democrats.

Nate Silver will get well-deserved props for his projections, but the much-maligned pollsters (especially from those on the right) deserve props, too. My case for Romney rested on the assumption that polls were oversampling Democrats; and they were, but just ever so slightly. As a result, I thought the numbers going into Nate's model were not accurate and thus likely to edge the model toward the President.

I have tried to make it clear that the race was very close (and indeed, by measure of the popular vote, it was much closer than 2008). A few points here or there may have made a significant difference. Indeed, as I stressed on Friday, it doesn't now surprise me that Obama was able to exceed 300 EVs.

More to come on other election-related issues...

2012 election prediction

I confess I have no idea who will win. I wouldn't be surprised if either candidate wins, or even either candidate surpassing 300 EVs. But there are two reasons why I think Romney will win: First, the GOP base is fired up and more energetic, as seen in virtually every poll. As a result, I think Republicans will turn out in greater numbers than the polls generally project (for reference, 2008 was 39D, 32R, 29I or simply +7D). I think turnout is likely to be closer to 35R, 37D, 28I or +2D, maybe +3D). Second, most every poll shows Romney winning among self-described independents by large single digits. As a result, I have no good reason to deviate from the same map I have drawn over the past month or so. Final prediction: Romney 275, Obama 263.

Maryland's ballot questions in November

Here are the four ballot questions on November's General Election ballot that apply statewide (questions #1-3 are constitutional amendments that only effect certain jurisdictions). The text in the heading is a short summary, while the next that follows it is the actual ballot question text:

#4 - Give in-state college tuition benefits to illegal aliens:

Establishes that individuals, including undocumented immigrants, are eligible to pay in-state tuition rates at community colleges in Maryland, provided the student meets certain conditions relating to attendance and graduation from a Maryland high school, filing of income taxes, intent to apply for permanent residency, and registration with the selective service system (if required); makes such students eligible to pay in-state tuition rates at a four-year public college or university if the student has first completed 60 credit hours or graduated from a community college in Maryland; provides that students qualifying for in-state tuition rates by this method will not be counted as in-state students for purposes of counting undergraduate enrollment; and extends the time in which honorably discharged veterans may qualify for in-state tuition rates.

#5 - Keep Maryland's gerrymandered congressional districting plan:

Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.

#6 - Redefine marriage in Maryland to include same-sex couples:

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

#7 – Expand gambling in Maryland:

Do you favor the expansion of commercial gaming in the State of Maryland for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education to authorize video lottery operation licensees to operate “table games” as defined by law; to increase from 15,000 to 16,500 the maximum number of video lottery terminals that may be operated in the State; and to increase from 5 to 6 the maximum number of video lottery operation licenses that may be awarded in the State and allow a video lottery facility to operate in Prince George’s County?

Ferguson Township Community Bill of Rights

Ferguson Township is a mostly rural township in Centre County, Pennsylvania, just west of State College. This fall, the citizens of Ferguson Township gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the November ballot to amend the township's home rule charter to create a Community Bill of Rights.

Here's the text. There are so many problems with this thing I stopped counting.
Ferguson Township Petition for Community Bill of Rights