This morning I was listening to talk show host (and Democratic Congressional candidate) Dave Ross and heard him dismiss the evidence that the gubernatorial election was tainted, if not by fraud then by the poor procedures, especially in King County. I wanted to challenge Ross with with a question I sometimes use when trying to make an argument to an opponent: What evidence would persuade you to change your mind?
I have found that question often clarifies matters — if I am arguing with a rational, open-minded opponent. If they say there is no possible evidence, then there is no reason to continue the discussion. But usually they are willing to specify the evidence, especially if I do the same and specify the evidence that would persuade me to change my mind.
So for our Democratic friends I have two questions: First, what evidence of mismanagement or fraud would persuade you that the election should be thrown out by a court? Second, what evidence of fraud or mismanagement would persuade you that Washington state should have a revote?
(Some Democrats have said in comments to earlier posts, in effect, that no evidence would persuade them, because they feel that the Republicans stole an election in 2000, and that the Democrats are owed one. If that's your view, feel free to say so.
And, yes, tomorrow I will sketch the evidence that would persuade me to change my mind in the comments here.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 05, 2005 03:50 PM | Email ThisGiven the number of bogus votes we already know about, I'd have to see a full reconcilliation of all the questionable ballots (including votes for *any* candidate). I'm sure there was fraud on all sides. Those fraudulent votes need to be indentified, and removed from the count.
Only once we are certain that *only* valid votes have been counted, and that *all* valid votes have been counted, would I then accept the outcome of the election, regardless of the victor.
Posted by: Jason on January 5, 2005 04:07 PMFirst, the voter contest statute must be used to separate the easy accusations to be made from the actual fraud that happened during the election.
If the courts did determine that there was sufficient evidence, they would order a re-vote.
Having the legislature order one now without any sort of hearing makes them the decision makers as to the validity of the accusations which they are not in good position to do as they can't hold a trial.
I think the court would throw the election results out if there were sufficient number of fruadulent vots made AND they were of sufficient number to benefit Gregoire from the one act.
Thus, having 10 felons who voted from Walla Walla wouldn't do it. Their voting pattern is unknown and there are not enough of them.
Having someone drop 130 pre-marked manufactured ballot into a Benton County voting bin might do it if there were no voters to back them up.
The reason most challenges fail is that some fraud, double voting and problems happen in probably every state and every election.
The extra absentees into the normal bin might make a difference but there may need to be a great number of them to do so. If Rossi expects 20 precent of them to be invalid and Gregoire has a 20 percent lead in provisional ballots, Rossi would need to locate 5 x 129/.2 [don’t ask ]= 3225 provisonal ballots that were placed in with the other ballots.
There.
Posted by: Erik on January 5, 2005 04:18 PMI have no doubt, for example, that Patty Murray and John Kerry picked up illegal votes due to King County's unlawfully-counted provisional ballots and other malfeasances, but there is zero chance that those results would change if all the problems were cleaned up.
Right now, it seems clear to me that the gubernatorial race is not merely "within the margin of error," but that the problems specifically in King County (which I do not doubt include a certain amount of deliberate fraud) are what finally swung the hand count to Gregoire. That's why Rossi should not concede.
Posted by: ScottM on January 5, 2005 04:32 PMWhat would change my mind is if someone could show that fraud had actually occurred or if someone could provide real evidence (that CG actually received 129 more illegal votes than DR. Fraud to me is not mismanagment or human error. It is not lax registration procedures. It is not the kind of slop in the system that has occurred in this election and in virtually every other election in the US. If someone could show that the same person signed 400 absentee ballots (as alleged earlier today, but then disavowed) or that a county elections board had knowingly allowed any signficant number of voters to vote more than once, then I would support a new election.
Having said that, I do think that election procedures need to be tightened up and if reasonable proposals are put forth, I would certainly support them. Although I love the convenience of voting permanent absentee, I do recognize the increased possibility of abuse that absentee voting makes possible. Perhaps a password system for absentees would provide an added measure of security without added burden.
Posted by: Steve on January 5, 2005 04:32 PMWe have our work cut out for us in dealing with this group.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 5, 2005 04:35 PMWhat they really wanted was the third chance to count votes which legally is the last chance.
Posted by: llevrok on January 5, 2005 04:44 PMSo if I accidentally broke a law, I should not be prosecuted?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 04:45 PMIf the law you broke requires intent, then you shouldn't be prosecuted if you did it accidentally.
Jim asked for what would change my mind--I told you. I didn't expect you to like it.
Posted by: steve on January 5, 2005 04:48 PM"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
But you're saying that if I broke a law because I was not aware of it, I should not be prosecuted.
Guess what. It does not work that way. Nor should it.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 04:51 PMNow when a large corporation causes harm through sloppy behavior like this, Democrats are generally hopping mad. (And I consider that a good thing, mind you.) I just cannot understand why you're giving these people a pass.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 04:54 PMThe folks on this board throw the word "fraud" around a lot, but so far, the only actual evidence of fraud that has been brought forth was Mrs. Witte ballot, which was in all likelihood Republican fraud.
Posted by: Steve on January 5, 2005 05:00 PMYou were asked your opinion and you honestly gave it, so thanks for doing that.
Posted by: Shaun on January 5, 2005 05:04 PMIf however, King, Pierce, Snohomish, etc. were willing to clean out all of the felons, illegal provisionals, dead voters, etc. and it was all well documented, and Gregoire was still ahead, then I would admit that it would be hard to contest the election to the letter of the law.
At that point, there is still the natural law of common sense. Most of the state is now in agreement that blindly following the law, even in the face of enormous discrepancy is absurd. Laws are made for the purpose of rational, civil discourse, to the chaos that would otherwise govern human affairs. Laws are not made for the purpose of hiding true wrongs to civil discourse.
A) It was provided for in the law
B) The GOP cared about all of this before they lost the election on the 23rd of December
C) There was one shred of evidence that any of the GOPs complaints would change the total (strange, but apparently you all assume that every vote that you question went for Gregoire, but you have no proof.., Difficult thing, proof)
D) People like John Carlson and Chris Vance would stop making stuff up and admit the problems were not that big (As Sam Reed has said, every military vote went out as it should according to law..., you have a beef, take it up with President Bush).
E) Someone could show that the revote would not suffer from the same problems.
F) There was not another election in four years.
Oh well, the rabid right has to have its meat. What a shame, if you all really thought there were problems, you didn't point them out during the first count or recount when you might have had some credibility.
Lets just hope that when this is over that saner minds can come together and we can get some decent election laws, and provide funding for them to be implemented.
Posted by: Lionel on January 5, 2005 05:17 PMJust because someone doesn't intent to commit fraud doesn't mean that it didn't happen, nor does a non-intentional mistake make the mistake ok. For example, let's say that a felon somehow doesn't know that by virtue of being a felon, his right to vote is revoked. So he votes. Did he intend to commit fraud? No, it was unintentional, he didn't know he wasn't allowed to vote. Does that make his vote any less fraudulent? Not at all, it is not a valid vote, and should not count, regardless of how it got cast.
Posted by: Jason on January 5, 2005 05:18 PMI sincerely appreciate all the work and effort that this website has devoted to this issue. It’s been a welcome change from the MSM. I’m one of those recent Times subscribers that have canceled their subscription due to their lack of reporting on this issue.
Revote.
The bar we set now will have implications for years to come, so the evidence has to be irrefutable that their was fraud, which implies deliberate intent to deceive and change the results of the election. Evidence of mismanagement alone would not be enough, unless it was deemed beyond the levels one might reasonably expect in election circles. By that I mean, you again have to have a case that the reported incidence, extent and numerical magnitude of offical error in the WA Nov. 2 election subsequent official tallies were high compared to other elections here or elsewhere - that this was out of the norm to such an extent that it had an unprecedented effect on the election outcome.
On neither of these counts do I believe we have the evidence necessary for the election to be thrown out in court.
Second, what evidence of fraud or mismanagement would persuade you that Washington state should have a revote?
I don't believe that any evidence of mismanagement would convince me because we would be faced with a do-over under the same circumstances, with a high likelihood of the same end result. The problems need to be fixed before we rush into making all the same mistakes again.
If fraud can be proven, then that implies perhaps the problem can be fixed by eliminating the people who committed the fraud, in which case a re-vote could be conceived. But again, did the fraud effect the final outcome of the election. That has to be proven, not just the fraud.
But if you had a re-vote, who sets the rules for the revote? Who gets to run? Who gets to vote? How do we count the votes? What rules govern the whole process? These issues are contentious and unclear.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 5, 2005 05:27 PMGood luck.
Posted by: D.J. on January 5, 2005 05:42 PMThe GOP has been making broad claims based on thousands of opportunities for fraudulent or otherwise illegal votes. I would be impressed if they could come up with actual cases of illegal votes. For example, ballots improperly cast by dead people (people who die after legally casting their ballots don't count) or multiple ballots cast by the same person. Votes cast by felons also fit into this category -- although I'm a little bit unclear about the legal details here.
How many illegal votes would I need to see before I was convinced that the election was questionable? At least 129. However, in order for that number to be material, you would have to assume that every one of those illegal votes was cast in CG's favor -- and that seems unreasonable, although I don't really have another number in mind.
I suppose solid evidence of 129 actual illegal votes would be enough to convince me that the election should be looked at by the WA State Supreme Court. They can determine the actual number needed to invalidate the election. Court is the only place with sufficient standards of evidence and rebuttal to really hash this out and evaluate the evidence on the basis of law. If Rossi and Vance could find solid evidence of 129 illegal votes, I would be satsified that they had a legitimate grievance that should be settled in court. Anything less than that, and I would think they were irresponsibly grandstanding and doing grevious damage to the political climate of the state.
What evidence of fraud or mismanagement would convince me that there should be a revote? That's easy -- a court order. I don't think we should bypass the legal process just because the "losing" side was able to make a lot of noise. I don't mean to be provocative in saying that. It's just that the only way I can tell the difference between noise and substance is by a careful examination of the evidence.
Here's a few things that don't strike me as persuasive:
- Instances of simple transcription errors in voter databases. By this I mean misspelled names, missing gender, and voter registration dates in the wrong century. These are minor errors and don't affect the integrity of the election. Anyone who insists that a huge database be perfect in every detail is clearly unrealistic.
- The mere presence in the voter rolls of dead persons, multiple registrations of the same persons, or obviously phony names -- unless they actually voted.
- I'm also not too impressed with purported discrepancies in the counts of individual precincts -- at least not until I see more detailed information about how those tallies were determined. I've outline my reasons for this in other posts.
Thanks again for opening this line of discussion.
Posted by: scottd on January 5, 2005 05:56 PMI have not accused the election workers of fraud. I have accused them of gross negligence.
In your posts, you have persistently conflated the issue of voter fraud with the separate issue of preventing fraud and errors.
The latter issue is the responsibility of the poll workers. It is not their responsiblity to guess whether an individual ballot was *intentionally* cast illegally or merely cast illegally by mistake.
But by law, it *is* their responsiblity to prevent that ballot from being cast and counted.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 06:05 PMNO matter WHAT happens from here, all will know that CG's election was riddled with fraud--most of it democrat (felons don't much vote democrat, you know, and we KNOW that Ds didn't bring in any Rossi votes during the HUNT for provisionals!)
X-tine girl, you better hope that store tag is still on your ballgown, cuz if it isn't, Nordstrom's NOT takin' it back!!
Posted by: Michele on January 5, 2005 06:06 PMThe legal test is were there UNLAWFUL votes in quantity or pervasiveness that would create enough doubt as to the legal outcome of an election.
Fraudulent votes are clearly illegal votes, but any vote that does not follow ALL legal requirements should be discounted and not counted. If lax procedures and carelessness cause there to be UNLAWFUL votes by the guideslines set out in the WAC, then they are unlawful. Unlawful votes do not necessarily require intent, the legal test is the process.
Procedures that did not follow the legal guidelines in the WAC are thus illegal. Any provisional ballots that did not follow the legal guideslines are unlawful. Any co-mingling of unlawful and legal ballots violates the WAC. Therefore any legal authority following the law would likely ask for a new special election. There is no such as a re-vote. There is only such thing as a special election to determine the governor in this case.
Posted by: Seattle Todd on January 5, 2005 06:14 PMYou are missing a very big point. WA law does not say you have to prove fraud. An election can be contested for misconduct (not doing what you know you should do and/or do something you should know not to do). THis is a much lower standard than fraud. If the sorry about the signed affidavits (a few not 400) is true than there is fraud and I would bet this is only the tip of the iceberg.
What the KC board is admitting too can easily qualify as misconduct.
Posted by: Doug on January 5, 2005 06:21 PMAs for your points, have you considered this?
A) Why should the lack of legal precedent prevent an option from being considered?
B) The GOP did complain before Dec 23, and why are you fixated on intention anyway? What does the GOP's innermost thoughts have to do with the issue, right here, that this election was botched?
C) It is suspicious that the recounts all favored Gregoire or were neutral. That is a piece of evidence, and it could be used in court. I do not assume that I know what the outcome would be for a revote. I just think the law should be followed, and the current result is tainted because the law was not followed.
D) You choose to believe one guy's word over some other guys' hearsay. That's reasonable. I hope that when voters & poll workers come forth in a courtroom with their firsthand accounts, you're willing to believe them too.
E) It's not rocket science, there are lots of very specific things WA could do, and you will have LOTS of people watching.
F) If we apply pressure now to improve this election, that should greatly increase the chances that the next election will be conducted properly.
In contrast, there was an expose in 1998 (after an election) about the scandalous practices--and guess what, nothing happened. I have very little confidence that anything would be fixed if this election is allowed to get by.
Steve requires that "...someone could provide real evidence that CG actually received 129 more illegal votes than DR." However, even if someone proved that a million illegal votes had been cast there is no way of telling who each one went for since the ballots are anonymous. Given that, it is impossible to show that Gregoire actually received 129 more illegal votes than Rossi. Therefore, Steve is saying that it is impossible to change his mind.
Lionel's duplicity is even more obvious since he requires that "There was not another election in four years", which of course is false, therefore, he is also saying that it is impossible to change his mind.
There are no Democrat answers that honestly answer this question. Let's face it, Democrats are completely closed-minded about this.
Posted by: Doug on January 5, 2005 06:31 PMI assume that there is a statistical amount of mismanagement and human error in all elections, in all Counties. The perception created, all too frequently on this site, is that all of this error is happening ONLY in the counties that are vote-rich for Gregoire. And, because King Counties numbers are so large, the problems look larger than they actually might be. I've seen no evidence that would lead me to believe that the levels of mismanagement aren't spread equally across counties and party-line voters.
It is not enough to look at King County and find questionable votes. You have to look at the State as a whole. And it is this selective process that the GOP is engaging in that is damaging to the concept of Democracy. The problem here is not fraud, it is an unusually close election. Close elections are difficult in any election, because human error exists in any and all human systems.
So, I'd support a revote if is it shown that there was specific intent to give votes to Gregoire above and beyond simple human error. Otherwise, I assume that mismanagement and human error would distribute equally throughout the State, benefiting Gregoire and Rossi in amounts reflective of the final vote total.
Posted by: Timothy K on January 5, 2005 06:37 PMIt is www.revotewa.com and come to the rally on Jan 11 at 10:30 at the state capitol (wear orange)
Robyn
129 is the minimum number of illegally cast ballots that must be proven. Easy - already have that.
Some people insist that not every illegally cast ballot went to Gregoire. If I remember right she took King Cook County by 58% to 40%...so...
129/.18 = 717. It would require 717 ballots to result in a difference of 129 for Gregoire if the illegally cast ballots showed the same ratio as the rest of King Cook County (dubious, but it's a number). I think that should be the maximum number needed.
Right now there are 5 times that many voterless ballots. That doesn't include the felons, dead voters, precinct 1823, nor all the rest. Seems like a pretty easy hurdle to clear in any case.
What would convince me that we shouldn't have a re-vote? If Christine Gregoire called in the FBI, asked Rob McKenna to perform a full investigation of King Cook County election commission (and other counties that have known problems), and presented Ron Sims, Larry Phillips, Sam Reed, and Bill Huennekens with pink slips and subpoenas to testify at the investigation. I think that's a good start.
Posted by: Larry on January 5, 2005 06:40 PMIf all that we are finding in King County alone is simply due to error and incompetence.........what was the purpose of the *corrective* actions taken over the years? What was the cost to the taxpayers? People have lost their jobs in the past years because of errors in the election system, absentee ballot mailing and processing,etc....Heads rolled!
Why does it appear that our election system is more broken now than when it was *corrected*? And why are we supposed to accept this current broken state?
With all of the problems exposed so far in the hand count alone....How could ANYONE from ANY PARTY accept ANY result?
Posted by: Deborah on January 5, 2005 07:16 PM1. For Mr. Cynical's post earlier saying, "Soon there will be a revelation that the County Auditors Assoc. led by Corky Mattingly tried to get members to blindly support Dean Logan without ever actually looking at what happened in KingCo." We already got that revelation right here at SP. I think it was a link to a news report about an email Mattingly sent. Some 4 or 5 county auditors refused to go along with the scam, so it fell apart.
2. Regarding verifying signatures by "amateurs." Here in Oregon our county elections officials have TONS of experience comparing signatures. They've gotten very good and very fast. I attended a demonstration in our county courthouse as one of the clerk's showed us how she did it. The differences were STARK and easy to see. So, while there are other problems with absentee or mail-in balloting, verifying signatures isn't usually one of them.
Having said that, I will immediately turn around and point out that our SOS (D) questioned signatures on petitions that REALLY raised the ire of the circulators who had signed legally.
So, I'm not saying signature verification is fail-safe. Anyone with bad intentions can throw a monkeywrench in the election works. That's what scares me about the present situation throughout the world as losing candidates question voting procedures.
3. Repub's may have been the majority party in the U.S. for years and didn't know it! Many, many posters on this board have noted the known crooked voting patterns all over the U.S. in large cities: New York, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, etc., etc. We're all looked at the red and blue map - where are the blue areas? New York, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, etc., etc.
I've said for years that Repubs should work FIRST on getting control of the voting machinery at the LOCAL level to ensure that we have fair and accurate vote counts.
Posted by: Mac on January 5, 2005 07:26 PMIf we were discussing ballots that were merely invalid, then his calculation of 3225 ballots required to erase CG's lead would be correct, as one could (arguably) assume that the distribution of invalid provisional ballots mirrored the distribution of all valid ballots.
But the discussion, and indeed, the increasing evidence, is that there was a considerable amount of vote(r) fraud involved. And after fraud enters the picture, the above assumption becomes very questionable.
In the example that Erik gave, I very much doubt that anyone willing the stuff the ballot box with 130 ballots would mark 65 for CG and 65 for DR.
Posted by: ewaggin on January 5, 2005 07:45 PMI understand Sam Reed is holding a press conference tomorrow to announce his 'agenda for election reform'. I find it quite interesting that he would be so anxious to do this in light of the noisy (and getting much much noisier, tyvm) calls for a REVOTE. Perhaps our pal Sam is feeling a bit of heat or has looked himself squarely in the face and admitted this whole debacle has been a sham that he sanctioned and figures he better attempt to have it all right for the REVOTE
http://www.revotewa.com/
Go ORANGE!
I would support a court's giving the election to Rossi if the R's proved organized fraud by the D's that almost certainly (based on testimony, since I realize the ballots are anonymous) denied Rossi a victory.
I *might* be convinced to revote if the R's proved that practices in a heavily D county such as King were significantly shabbier than WA standards and that this discrepancy likely denied Rossi a victory. But even if this were proven, I would want to think about 3 other issues before having a revote:
1) Arguably such problems should be addressed before the election, not after. Florida clearly broke many laws in 2000 -- the butterfly ballot, disqualifying felons who should have been allowed to vote, etc. -- and the general response was that after the election it was too late to do anything, no matter what the effect. Am I bitter about this? Bitter? BITTER? ***BITTER***????? Oh, excuse me -- the nice doctors told me to stop thinking about that. But seriously, this issue needs legal and even philosophical debate.
2) A re-vote would involve a different voter population (thousands of people who have turned 18 or moved in-state replacing thousands who have died or moved out of state). It might involve different 3rd-party candidates, changing the nature of the contest. These changes would seem to make more difference than any potential fraud or errors in the original election. What's more important, to get as close as possible to the will of the people at some point in time, or to get as close as possible to the will of the people on the original Election Day? I don't know.
3) The R's arguably need a practical plan to ensure that a revote would be any better. If the problem is in King County's registration system, must we re-register the entire county? Is this practical?
Posted by: Bruce on January 5, 2005 09:44 PMHowever, suppose for a minute that the spotlight were aimed directly at this state's election debacle by the National Media. That would not likely involve the mainstream alphabet channels or newspapers (aka dead fish wrappers). However, conservative talk radio, largely read internet sites and the Fox News Channel and maybe a few other cable channels would turn the spotlight to this state - and if the FBI or US Attorney was sent to investigate this election, the Dems would get backed into a corner...It's high time also. Light shines truth which some of them (not all Democrats) get squeamish and tend to wither under that light.
That would be a goal worth striving for (before Jan. 12th) and would take some local participation, say by writing to these media outlets to alert them about this story which is NOT getting enough play yet at the national level. If the WSRC goes ahead with their challenge before next week, that may be enough to sway the spotlights of truth to the shady abyss of King County. I am going write and send an article from this website to the Fox News Channel website and a few other choice sites and hope others will follow suite.
Posted by: KS on January 5, 2005 09:59 PMI'm not sure what standard the court should apply to determine that a revote is necessary. Do there need to be >=129 ballots that are provable invalid? >X ballots, where X is enough, based on county/precinct of origin, to give Y% probability of a swing of 129 votes? Does there need to be provable fraud or are mistakes or the possibility of mistakes enough?
I'm also not sure how a revote/special election should be conducted. Do all counties have to reregister all voters to eliminate dead/duplicate/etc registrations? Is Ruth Bennett on the ballot?
I trust our courts to work these things out reasonably. I don't trust the political (ie legislature) or media system to do so.
Fox News, Air America and local talk radio personalities know that name-calling is good for ratings and profits. So they give us a political version of Jerry Springer - and we lap it up and start behaving like that is reasonable. Or effective.
Rossi or Gregoire. Recount or no. We deserve what we get.
Posted by: Grutz on January 6, 2005 09:28 AMScott...can you or anyone else here point me to the specific RCW that you are referring to? Thanks.
Posted by: Timothy K on January 6, 2005 09:33 AMDross demanded no proof from Gregoire, but later browbeat Mary Lane from the Rossi campaign. Using a snarky snarl he usually inflicts on bad dogs & Tim Eyman, Dross demanded that Lane prove conservative counties were not violating state laws about ballot validation. She did.
Then we learned that it's Gregoire County that counts its provisionals without validating them. "Mayor" Nickels? Monorail? "Senator" Cantwell? "Governor" Gregoire? In this county, it's all ... provisional. For all we know, John Carlson, who lost by only 20 points, is really Governor Carlson, and Dave Ross is what he always ways, a lefty little Mercer Island elitist who implored his listeners to grovel to al Jazeera last May.
Posted by: sandalista on January 6, 2005 10:03 AM
George W. Bush must resign and in the re-vote another Republican (I don't care who as long as the only bush running is George H. W. Bush ) Runs instead for the Republican Presidency.
Additional good will gesture... George W. Bush, Turns himself in for Voter Fraud in Florida (Which also means he goes to jail).(additionally: Jeb Bush resigns as Governor of florida, Governor Taft resigns as Ohio Governor, and Katherine Harris resigns her house seat in Congress and they all promiss not to run for any public office again). And if mr. bush does this, I will publically apologize for my comments on this Blog and pull my own blog.
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 6, 2005 11:09 AMDo the math: 129 does not equal 119,000.
No case has been made that Ohio had enough (119,001) flaky ballots to possibly tip Ohio into the Kerry column. Not even Kerry makes that case because it's a case that can't be made.
Gregoire County has way more than 130 flaky ballots, more than enough to cast doubt, aspersions, & stones at Christine's landslide.
Disregard the DaveRoss straw man or straw dog that the plethora of bad ballots in Christine country must be provably fraudulent to discredit Christine's coronation. The dog won't hunt. Gross incompetence is sufficient cause for discreditation because many more than 129 votes are in dispute. (When in doubt, Mega Serp, read the RCW.)
Florida 2000: Bush won it by every possible recount regime (except creative accounting with overvotes) that left-wing liberal media could devise. The civil rights commission found no proof of intimidation or disfranchisement, aside from c. 110 names that were added erroneously to felon lists, lists vetted by Democrat election officials in Democrat counties. By contrast, more than 3000 felons, Felons for Gore/Lieberman, voted illegally. By contrast, many soldiers and sailors didn't vote at all, disfranchised by count-every-vote Democrats.
Posted by: sandalista on January 6, 2005 03:00 PMThere was no re-count in Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court declared mr. bush acting president and haulted any and all re-counts. Katherine Harris continually blocked re-counts and a gang of christian thugs took over one polling office and prevented a re-count
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 6, 2005 04:34 PMI thought the discussion that followed helped highlight something important: Washington
law does not require fraud for an election to be overturned. Slade Gorton made the same
point on the radio this afternoon, and it seems reasonable when I think about it.
That said, I think I would be more willing to support a re-vote if 130 fraudulent votes are found than if 130 mistaken votes are found -- if I were a member of the legislature trying
to decide whether to support a re-vote. I don't know whether Washington law distinguishes
between those cases, so I don't know whether I would make the same distinction as a judge.
As of now, I tentatively support a re-vote, though I want to see more of the evidence that
the BIAW and the Republican party has been gathering. I think that there were enough invalid
votes for Gregoire just in the counties of Snohomish, King, and Pierce to have tipped the
election to her, based on the evidence that I have seen so far.
What evidence would make me change my mind? A good explanation of the mismatch between votes
and voters in this area. The discovery of mistakes (or fraud) benefitting Rossi in other
counties that offset those that may have helped Gregoire in this area. A solid study showing that there are fewer non-citizens voting than I have estimated. A third party examination of a large
sample of signatures on absentee ballots that would test whether, as I believe, that the
clerks are much more likely to accept invalid signatures than to reject valid signatures. A
check of those who voted in precinct 1836 to see whether any were bribed.
I am asking for a lot of evidence, so I should add that I would not need all of that to
change my mind. Obviously, fraud or mistakes benefitting Rossi in other counties could be
enough all by itself, and there are some combinations I can think of that would also change
my mind.
And note again that Gore disfranchised overseas voters, mostly military, and that Big Media disfranchised Panhandle voters, mostly GOP. (Media called Florida for Gore so early that many upstate Repuplicans, in a different time zone, gave up and went home without voting.)
And note again how WA differs from Ohio: Rossi won 2 out of 3 here; Bush won 2 out of 2 there. George Bush already won the Ohio recount that you and Dave Ross and Mike Tangled Webb and Erin Hart demand.
(I've heard that 'Crat precincts in Ohio refused to install more voting machines, although they were offered. What's with that? Why is it that stolen elections always seem to be filched in 'Crat counties where 'Crats run the elections and make the butterfly ballots and change rules in the middle of the game and then whine that it all isn't fair?)
And about that gang of rampaging Christians in Florida .....
Posted by: sandalista on January 6, 2005 07:15 PMNow we know what an idiot you are!
Posted by: Ben Franklin on January 6, 2005 09:15 PMNow we know what an idiot you are!
Posted by: Ben Franklin on January 6, 2005 09:15 PMYou know, ben, my grandmother told me the person who was the real Idiot was the one doing the name calling. This means you!!!
There was one official re-count in 4 republican counties in Florida, and no other re-count occured. Katherine Harris, or the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against it.
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 6, 2005 09:50 PM