With nothing else to write about on the first day of the new year, the Washington Post experiments with condescending finger-wagging. (Eh, what's that? They do it all the time?):
Such an idea [revoting] may work to resolve a close play in a schoolyard baseball game, but it's not the way Americans resolve electoral disputes. An election this close can never produce a result that is fully satisfying from a democratic standpoint; the margin of victory is so eclipsed by the margin of error in the count that it is simply impossible to know with confidence which side received more support. And Washington's recount process, to be sure, contained glitches and errors and legitimate arguments about which votes should count under state law. With the margin so thin, the resolution of such questions-- always somewhat arbitrary-- takes on immense significance. Still, as the secretary of state said, there is no evidence of fraud or intentional manipulation of the count in either side's favor. Under such circumstances, the certified results, doubt and all, constitute the most democratically legitimate outcome available.Incompetence: check. Glitches: check. Errors: check.
No evidence of fraud? Ahem. Citizens can perpetrate vote fraud, not just parties, and we have cause to be more than suspicious. Not to mention the sympatico between the election office and one of said parties.
Mr. Rossi retains the right to contest the result of the election in court, a process that -- as he notes in his letter -- could drag on for months. But a revote is obviously not an option.Why?
But even had his position been consistent, Washington is not Ukraine and Ms. Gregoire is no Viktor Yanukovych-- the Ukrainian prime minister whose initial victory was evidently procured by fraud. If Mr. Rossi cannot make a compelling argument under the current rules that the final result should not stand, he should refrain from trying to change those rules after state voters, however inarticulately, have spoken."The people have spoken! (Uh, what did they say?)"
So what about the re-vote in North Carolina? Obviously, this is nothing new or unique under the sun.
By the way, I think Stefan is soon to post another shocker about Precinct 1823.
Ahhh, leave it up to the commPost!
Ron
Posted by: Ron on January 1, 2005 02:20 PMAhhh, leave it up to the commPost!
Ron
Posted by: Ron on January 1, 2005 02:20 PMOK show me where in Washington State law, that existed before the election, the re-vote provision based on margin of victory. I don't think you can.
Now I can show you the mandatory recount provision. I can show you the provision for parties to request either machine or hand recounts.
I can show you where the state's chief elections officer, Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed, has said that every vote that was included in the certified total was counted in accordance with long standing election rules of the state. I can show you where the WSSC agreed with the Sec of State unanimously.
I can show you where the next step is for Dino to either give up or to contest the election.
All of those were part of the rules going in. "Do-Over" Dino is trying to make it up as he goes along. Sorry, ain't gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.
Posted by: FlaRich on January 1, 2005 02:22 PMWell, you just did some nice posturing there, and blew a little bit of smoke. The election will be contested.
Any re-vote must be approved by the Legislature, anyway--for whatever reason they see fit. Sam Reed's job is to certify the vote, and he did that. Other quotes from Sam are cute, and fill up space in the paper, but they are not relevant.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 1, 2005 02:32 PMhttp://www.revotewa.com/
Let who is actually elected legally and honestly win!
About time these "people" were held actually accountable.
Posted by: Fox3 on January 1, 2005 02:48 PM"The people who cast the votes do not decide an election, the people who count the votes do." - Joseph Stalin
Posted by: Fox3 on January 1, 2005 02:58 PMThat's the question I would ask too, if I were a Democrat now realizing how much evidence is being discovered by Shark (and others) with voter lists from King and Snohomish County.
It seems like it would be to Gregoire's advantage to “bow out quietly” with a people’s "revote" than to be dragged through the mud with evidence of fraud.
What a gentleman of Rossi to give her that opportunity of escape!
Posted by: TADD on January 1, 2005 03:09 PMHowever, KingCo election officials cross the magic line if they attempt, in any way, to cover-up their incompetence by fraudulently altering voter registration records in order to RECONCILE total # of voters with ballots actually counted. UNDERSTAND? This is why these public record requests are so, so important. What Stefan has in hand is called a benchmark. If & when KingCo magically comes up with a report that reconciles, Stefan will compare that report with this one and analyze each and every change. In addition, hopefully KingCO has back-up records on what was in the election database on election day for further analysis. Stonewalling public record requests is a bad idea when the consequences can be $100/day per voter. In KingCo, that's $90 million/day.
Stefan--Could KingCo be so incredibly incompetent that they actually think they can cover-up their incompetence? PRICELESS!!!
If Logan or any KingCo Election worker has any knowledge of fraud, cover-ups, errors, neglect, wrongful acts etc., they would be wise to come clean RIGHT NOW!! I'm not into mass conspiracy theories...I don't believe this is one. But why would any KingCo staffer hold back the truth at this point in time? They must all realize that they will be deposed and further records requested, don't they. Or are they so incompetent that they don't believe the R's are playing for keeps here??
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 1, 2005 03:15 PMCan you show us who is in the White House? Can you show us which state put him there? From the bottom of my heart, I truly thank your wonderful state of Florida!
You seem to have a preoccupation with not changing 'rules' that don't exist - it's perfectly legal for Dino to request a re-vote, as it is for citizens to request it as well.
And why don't you argue for not changing the rules while COUNTING the votes? King County and the Democrats can change the rules, and that doesn't bother you? Whatever.
The Washington Post is in over its head, just like Sam Reed. He neglected his post and his duties by letting the WA state election process become so filled with incompetence, fraud, and lack of accountability. He is in full CYA mode now. He certified an election knowing that it was fraught with problems that make it impossible to know who got the most votes cast by legitimate voters. He's out next election, if not sooner.
Thanks again to Florida, by the way.
Posted by: Larry on January 1, 2005 03:15 PMWe had people voting twice and dead people voting? That would be serious, but this is the first I've heard of it. How about filling us in with a citation?
Posted by: scottd on January 1, 2005 03:59 PMI am oppossed to changing the rules while COUNTING votes. Thank God so is Sam Reed. That's why he not once but twice went to the WSSC to prevent each party from changing the rules.
Also why twice the WSSC agreed with him - unanimously both times.
Sam Reed was heralded by the republican party as a man of integrity and impartiality all through Sep. & Oct. Now that he's proven they were right the partisan hacks among us turn on him.
The rules were the rules. CG won by those rules. No changes - no bending. Certainly no evidence of fraud on her part.
You are right any citizen can ask for a rule change - heck I could ask that they change the lottery rules so that they use my ticket to choose the winning numbers.....shouldn't happen, ain't gonna happen but I can ask. I think Dino's request is only a little more likely to occur than mine.
Let Dino contest the election. It'll take a while to determine what's the appropriate forum....then a while to hear his issues....all that time CG will in fact be serving in the office. The burden DR will have to overcome to force a re-vote will be huge - especially after the legislature certifies the winner.
DR ran a good race but he lost....time for him to get a grip.
Posted by: FlaRich on January 1, 2005 04:17 PMWhy would I want to make a bet with you? I have no information to base it on -- do you?
Bleeding Heart: Thanks for the info. I assume you're refering to Stefan's 12:19pm post of 12/21.
I don't know about the two "120 year olds". Maybe it was a simple error in transcribing the registration date -- I hope someone follows up on it.
As for the dear departed Mr. Huber who died in 1998, according to Stefan's post, he was kind enough to stop voting after 1995, so I'm not sure where the fraud comes in.
Finally, I've run across households where two adults share the same name at the same address. Sons have been known to be named after their fathers or grandfathers. Same with daughters or granddaughters. Sometimes, they even live in the same house for a while. Out of a million registered KingCo voters, how many cases are we talking about? Maybe it is fraud -- someone should follow-up on it.
Posted by: scottd on January 1, 2005 04:44 PMYou don't have a clue. I mean, you don't know what you're talking about.
We know what the proper forum for the dispute is, even though you don't. It's Federal court. And the judicial remedy for this election when this election is contested in Federal court (argued on precedent I've cited on this site) is not a re-vote. It's the disposal of the hand recount. Then the Federal court will say that the valid election tally reverts to the machine recount, which Rossi won by 42 votes. Of course, since that's the final correct tally, then Rossi becomes the new Governor. Duh!
The Court will not order a re-vote. Only the Legislature can do that but there are Democrat majorities there, so they won't do that.
Now I recommend you start at the top of this post and read it again.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 1, 2005 05:19 PMTerms Expire in January, 2007
Berkey, Jean (D-38)
Brandland, Dale (R-42)
Delvin, Jerome (R-8)
Eide, Tracey (D-30)
Esser, Luke (R-48)
Fairley, Darlene (D-32)
Finkbeiner, Bill (R-45)
Franklin, Rosa (D-29)
Honeyford, Jim (R-15)
Jacobsen, Ken (D-46)
Johnson, Stephen (R-47)
Keiser, Karen (D-33)
Kline, Adam (D-37)
Kohl-Welles, Jeanne (D-36)
Morton, Bob (R-7)
Mulliken, Joyce (R-13)
Murray, Brian (R-6)
Oke, Bob (R-26)
Poulsen, Erik (D-34)
Roach, Pam (R-31)
Schmidt, Dave (R-44)
Sheldon, Tim (D-35)
Shin, Paull (D-21)
Thibaudeau, Pat (D-43)
The truth of the matter is, the Washington Post is right. You will never know the winner. All voting has a percentage error, just like a poll. Yes, the percentage of error is insignificant in nearly every circumstance, but this is not one of them. All three vote totals from this election were within such a margin, meaning that it is virtually "impossible" to know the true outcome. If Rossi had asked for a revote after the first count, I may support it now with some sort of donations. However, that was not the case. Rossi is just trying every last option he has, and that doesn't mean it is the right one. One crucial reason is that turn-out would be dramatically less in any revote, particularly in Democratic King County. It just wouldn't be fair either. I'll defer to the Sec. of State for the judgement, and he says there was "no...intentional manipulation." There you have it.
Posted by: Jason R on January 1, 2005 11:20 PMI guess if Dino decides that he trusts the lawyers and not the voters he can whine to federal court. But I don't see a federal issue. This is a state election. According to the republican Sec of State it was held in accordance with state law.
The appropriate forum for contest is the state legislature or the state court system. But if Rossi REALLY wants to drag this out he can head to the federal system. I'll love it - the republican Atty Gen supporting the republican Sec of State in arguing that the state elected a democrat gov.
Posted by: FlaRich on January 2, 2005 06:29 AMBesides, Shark's investigations reveal a pattern of incompetence and sloppy registration verification, and the ballot disparity is readily verifiable as above 5500-- and the "victory" was 129.
But a 4500 error with a margin of 2000 win is worse? So i disagree that a NC reference is not apt.