1240 - It Battles On

Over at the No On 1240 Facebook page, I had unofficially said I thought this was done. 

To understand, nearly all the counties were trending the same as they had since Tuesday night and it did not seem possible to overtake that slight Yes lead. 

Today, I realized that the Yes on R74  campaign  had crunched the numbers (even as their lead had been as slim as the Yes on 1240 lead Tuesday night) and said they won. 

So, I thought, if Yes on 1240 has all this money, why haven't they crunched the numbers and announced THEIR win?  Or did they but they really can't be sure?

All I know is the latest numbers from the Washington Secretary of State yesterday were these:

Yes 51.11%
No  48.89%

As of 4:45 p.m.

Yes 50.9%
No  49.02%

The difference is about 43K votes. 

There are three large counties to drop new numbers (and they hadn't since Tuesday night) at 5 p.m. - Spokane, Snohomish and Skagit. 

Again, the trending is not there for a win but I do love that Bill Gates couldn't just take this right off his "to-do" checklist Tuesday night. 


From WSDWG and his/her number crunching:

"I'm running the numbers, and the incoming statewide No vote is currently running at about 52.2% to a Yes vote's 47.8%. With about 750k votes still outstanding, and figuring 500k will have Y or N votes, there may not be enough NO votes to turn the tide. The gap is still 42.5k.

However, if the later-counted ballots creep up toward a 54% or thereabouts NO vote, then the NO votes could prevail. This one's going down to the wire. Each day the NO's are closing the gap by about 4-6k votes, but the gap currently sits at 42.5k. 50.98% to 49.02%, statewide, with King County widening the gap from 51.23% No yesterday, to 51.37% No today."
Looking at the dates, it would seem we will have our answer by 6 p.m. tomorrow as a majority of counties have that as their next announcement of totals.

Pierce, Spokane, Thurston and Skagit are all still to come sometime tonight.
Unknown said…
I was looking at the KIng County results, which have flipped from 51-49 Yes to 51-49 No since yesterday, unless I'm reading it wrong:

Anonymous said…
Last I checked, the gap had opened up to 45k since it was 42.5k earlier. Not good. WSDWG
Anonymous said…
Dear friends, I am barely able to contain my joy:


Check it out!!!

Anonymous said…
Re-Post from earlier thread:
Well MW, if only we had 10 million to get the truth out to people, we might have had a chance. I don't see Roosevelt flipping to a Charter, nor Garfield, so my kids and yours, and our neighbors, will not likely be affected. So, what is it that makes us care? Especially when it seems that for every person who recognizes the selflessness of your efforts by not having a direct interest at stake, there will be another saying "why don't you butt out, then?"

To those I can only say, "My kids have had excellent educations, in public schools, in a big city, by union teachers, and I simply want yours to have the same," while not being exploited for profit and as pawns and stepping stones for careerists masquerading as educators pretending to put the interests of children ahead of themselves.

If hedge-fund managers can't put the interests of their clients ahead of their own, who is so foolish to believe they will put children ahead of profit? Sorry, but although there are honest billionaires, it's generally not in their DNA to check their egos at the door, and not to profit anywhere they can, characterizing it as a "win-win." Wait for it; it's coming.

Who cannot see the "giant vampire squid" waiting to wrap itself around the State of Washington, sticking it's blood funnel into every school where it smells money? (Thank you Matt Taibbi, for calling it like it is, btw.) The methods are the same, as are the rationales. The most frightening part is how many people seem to have blind faith in charters, even when Al Shanker, Ken Libby, and so many others who originated the Charter idea, have long since reversed their positions, sounding the warnings about the insurgents who've co-opted the idea and bundled it into the Right-Wing version of Ed Reform.

Oh well, if people really want a state commission supplanting their local school boards, who are we to stand in the way.

Sour grapes? You bet. And I don't even have skin in the game. WSDWG
Anonymous said…
AS? Is that you Arch? WSDWG
ArchStanton said…
Nope, not me.

Unfortunately, AS, that's just King Co. Not the whole state.
Patrick said…
I don't know how to get numbers on how many ballots are still outstanding. Except I know there's at least one, because mine is caught in signature-mismatch potential challenge limbo.
Anonymous said…
ArchStanton, thanks for the clarification. I was so crazy happy for about an hour. I see that it is just King Co.

I enjoyed my ignorance while it lasted!

Anonymous said…

Numbers of outstanding ballots are posted on the state's site: http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html

My 11 year old son did some math on outstanding ballots and looked at which counties voted yes or no. He still says there's a chance it won't fail. I wish I were at optimistic.

-hope it fails
Anonymous said…
Oops. My above post should read there is still a chance it WILL fail.

-hope it fails
Anonymous said…
@ Hope It Fails: Your 11 year old son did the math? Does this mean he's in a school that has un-adopted Discovery Math/EDM? LOL


PS: I repeat my point from yesterday. If this does pass I do hope the backers of the measure see that they do not exactly have a mandate for this measure and that they act accordingly in interactions with districts and individual schools. As my wise friend notes, they simply do not seem to understand or care how notorious charters are for tearing apart communities.
one Nation Under A Nacho said…
1240 did win deal with it
Anonymous said…
Nacho: Here's how we'll deal with it: When paid signature gatherers start contacting parents at home, trying to get them to sign a petition to flip their school to a charter, I will be there to confront them, and find out who's paying them (although we already know who will be), and I will be handing fact sheets to the parents, so they don't get duped like the parents in California did with a Green Dot charter.

When the parent trigger effort is made, it will not be done above board. It will be done through manipulation and misrepresentation. That's how it's happened in other places. But, Seattle is not big enough for the charlatans to fly under the radar in.

As always, I am not anti-charter, so long as there is full disclosure to the end users, so they know what they are signing up for.

That's how we'll deal with it in Seattle. WSDWG
Jan said…
Ed Voter said: "If this does pass I do hope the backers of the measure see that they do not exactly have a mandate for this measure and that they act accordingly in interactions with districts and individual schools."

Unfortunately, they will believe no such thing. In their world, the "mandates" come from the business/philanthropy interests that fund them, and that know far better than we "what is good for us." Frankly, they will believe they have a mandate even if they LOSE!
everyday is like sunday said…
The reason 1240 did win is because Seattle school failed end of story
Jan said…
Hang in there, Melissa! If we lose, we lose, but that doesn't seem to be something we know for sure yet. The information we don't really know (though the yes people might) is what the trend is with respect to the later votes. In Seattle's case, the statements by Mr. Banda and the board came extremely late (better than never, though) -- and so anyone voting early had already cast their ballots. It is just really hard to know without more "trend" data, though it does seem like a long shot.

I am very heartened by this, though. Knowing how very little money and press there was on our side -- and having endured plenty of the inaccurate and false "yes on 1240" on the other side -- I have no doubt that we would have prevailed in an evenly funded campaign. (There, I guess that is MY sense of a mandate!) And many of the counties voting no were rural counties. It wasn't just "liberal, pro-union" King County pushing back on this. LOTS of Washingtonians could see the poverty of this scheme, with virtually NO help from the unfunded "No" side.

Not sure why I am so buoyed on the verge of maybe losing -- but I am. The closeness of this vote, the vast disparity in the campaign funding, and the fact that the "no" side carried counties all through the state somehow makes me optimistic that the Bezoses, Waltons, and Gates can't "buy" Washington's public schools after all!
Jan said…
everyday is like Sunday:

Nope. It is losing in King County -- where Seattle schools are -- and in many other counties as well. IF we lose, it will be because out-of-state billionaires "bought" this election by lying about both the costs AND the benefits of charter schools. And we will do everything we can to make sure people all across Washington know that.
Jan said…
Oh -- and a few in-state millionaires and billionaires too, probably. Location is less important than motive and size of checkbook.
Charlie Mas said…
As of this morning, the state reports that there are about 600,000 more votes to count. About 215,000 of them are from King County.

As of this morning the vote stands at:
1,201,011 Yes
1,155,429 No

A difference of 45,582.

For the No to equal the Yes, the remaining votes would have to go 277,200 Yes and 322,800 No, a ratio of 53.8% No and 46.2% Yes.

The vote isn't going that way in King County. The votes in King County are now running only 51.3% No.

This measure is likely to pass unless the remaining ballots to be counted are significantly more opposed than the ballots counted so far.
Anonymous said…
Thanks, Charlie. Let's play the new parlor game - who might Jay Inslee appoint to the Commission? He gets 3 slots and state legislators get 6 slots. The initiative requires that no more than 5 of the 9 be from the same political party, that at least 1 be a public school parent, that the members possess the requisite experience to be qualified, and aspires to geographical diversity across the state. Pretty big powers for these nine and they serve four year staggered terms, so I'm not sure how that will work with the first 9 that are appointed. Will the Commission start with less than 9 or something?

- Curious public school parents
Eric B said…
@Curious: I believe that each person who gets to appoint people to the commission appoints one each to a one-year, two-year, and three-year term. Each commissioner can be reappointed once or twice. Someone with the initiative text at hand may have better info.

Tell you what. I'll volunteer for the commission. I'm completely committed to the success of all schools, and charters fall under that. I'd hold them to the same standards of transparency, parent involvement, financial stewardship, and service to all students that I expect from our public schools. I'm a parent with a child in public school, I have experience in capacity management, and I have some indirect personal experience with charters since my father-in-law helped found a charter in another state. Not to mention that the pro-charters folks said that the commission would provide real oversight. Providing that oversight would be all kinds of fun.
seattle public said…
Sps can be closed 365 days and never help one student!! Yes on 1240
Curious, you left out one thing.

They ALL must pledge fidelity to charters as a way to improve the system. It's in there and naturally that's just wrong.

You do NOT stack a commission with only true believers of one way to do something. What you need are people who care about PUBLIC education (and charters are quasi-public schools). Eric has that right.

Eric, I would love it if you applied. I encourage people TO apply because many who want to be on the Commission probably no longer have students in the system.

I continue my list of likely suspects and will print it sometime and our new parlor game will be figuring out who they will be.

Ed Murray may end up being Senate President.

Fred Chopp is Speaker of the House.

Both are from the 43rd.

I live in the 43rd.

And Lisa Macfarlane ran around during the campaign talking about her epiphany for charters. I'm sure that can happen to more than one person especially those that have done their homework.
Anonymous said…
Thanks all! Isn't it also strange that the text says no more than 5 may belong to the same political party? Doesn't that pose an even bigger problem than pledging commitment to charter schools as part of the solution? Would this provision require appointees to pledge commitment to a political party? Would it mean someone who is principled as independent could not serve?

- Curious public school parent
Charlie Mas said…
The rule that no more than five of them belong to any single political party doesn't mean much in a state in which people do not have to declare a party affiliation.

They could all be progressives, but so long as no more than five are officially Democratic Party members (which may mean that four of them have to cancel their party membership immediately prior to their appointment) it's all cool.

Independents are, of course, welcome.
Anonymous said…
As far as the makeup and function of the appointed charter commission, what it means is that when you really start fleshing out the "requirements" it becomes quite clear that this section of the initiative is as poorly conceived and drafted as the rest. When the proponents say "best law" what they really mean is that it's best for the interests of the corporate ed reform crowd - the billionaires, privatizers, trough-feeders and hangers on.

Unknown said…
That would be funny - 5 Dems and 4 Independents. You'd see a lot of screaming from the Republicans.
Charlie Mas said…
Messrs. Inslee, Murray, and Chopp might just decide to let 'em scream.
Charlie Mas said…
As of 3:40pm the vote stands at:

1,213,372 Yes (50.95%)
1,168,026 No (49.05%)

A difference of 45,346.

About 250 votes narrower than this morning on an additional 25,000 votes. That doesn't close the gap fast enough for the initiative to be rejected.
Jan said…
I agree with Charlie's analysis. I think it will pass. I LIKE the "no more than 5 of the same party" language, because at least it prevents 9 teaparty Republicans who hate government in all forms from taking the thing over (though 5 of them would be a majority -- and THAT is scary enough).

And remember -- just being a Democrat, or an Independent (or a moderate Republican who likes reasonably sized, efficient government) isn't any guarantee. There are plenty of DfER democrats (like Lisa) who are ready to hand over the keys of the kingdom to Big Ed for-profit companies.

I do think though that it makes sense to have people on the commission that think charters can do some good. I just want them to be people who care about charters IN THE CONTEXT of an entire public education scheme -- not people who secretly (or openly) wish public education would go away entirely, to be replaced by ALL charters and vouchers. Hmm. Maybe that is an amendment that should be proposed for the bill. Since the charter folks (falsely, in my opinion) claim that charters are really public schools, maybe the criteria should be that the only folks who can serve on the Commission need to be people who bo only believe that charters are an appropriate "tool in the box," but who also believe in and are committed to a joint charter/public system and believe that charters should only be created when their success does not adversely affect the public (or "other" public -- as they would term it) schools in the area.
Jan, we need to care about ALL schools in the context of public education.
Jan said…
I agree, Melissa. But when I read 1240, I can see nothing that requires charter schools, or their organizers, to care about anything except their own little school. Assuming this bill is constitutional, I would love it if the charter commission, at least, had to make decisions that were defensible when taking into account ALL schools -- not just the charter ones.
Jan said…
Sorry, Melissa, I hit send before I had really finished.

I mean -- it is clear they want a charter commission because they think Schools Boards will dislike them and not give them a fair chance. And perhaps some wouldn't. But at the same time, I assume a school board -- caring about ALL THOSE OTHER kids, would also not allow a conversion that would wreak total havoc on every other school around. I am not at ALL sure that the State Commission will care -- or even be allowed to care under the regulations. I think they should specifically HAVE to take into effect -- for conversion charters, at least -- the effect of the takeover on accessibility, capacity, etc. Frankly, the fact that you can't get from the bill any responsibility in this area is one of the things that leads me back to the whole constitutionality issue. We will see, I guess.
Unknown said…
Jan, as usual, good points.
Yes on 1240 said…
Deal with the no on 1240 lost and the yes on 1240 did win thanks for the help on the yes vote westbrook
Charlie Mas said…
Yes on 1240 has declared victory.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools