Robert L. Jamieson, Jr. profiles me in his column today: "'The Shark' uses his blog to take bite out of local politics". It's exceptionally perceptive and accurate. Probably the best article that's ever been written about me.
Even though Robert has been critical of the revote proposal in his recent columns [here and here], he tells my side of the story with fairness and insight. Hat's off to him!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 12, 2005 12:33 AM | Email ThisJamieson never thought much of the re-vote effort and still doesn't. Thus, his article is quite a compliment to you.
Looking at the traffic report and posting record, I must admit that you have dominated the Washington blogs.
It helps your traffic and posting quite a bit that Dino is losing though. If Dino had won the election by 100,000 votes, your traffic would be a small fraction of what it is now.
Thus, you have "won" the blog war to date by fortuitously having the losing position. Your readers are much more motivated and "outraged" than the opposition.
The very fact that the governor's race is close is helping you as well as people are dying for the latest tidbit of information. With the contest likely to last several months, I see some extended blog activity.
Looks like you are going to have to give the Seattle PI some credit now after all. Rumor has it they are located in (dreaded) King County.
Hmmm. I don't know about that. Maybe. But praising the PI Stefan? Don't let Carlson know.
Look. This is your day. All through Wednesday, you have a major Seattle newspaper saying something good about you. I guess you and King County get along better than we thought. Plus, you need King County as most of the people in the state with a computer live there.
Posted by: Erik on January 12, 2005 02:06 AMKeep up the good work
Earl
http://instapundit.com/archives/020411.php
Posted by: curt on January 12, 2005 06:08 AMThe papers "break" the news stories exactly 36-72 hours after Stefan proves something from the data.
Just more of that thar coinky-dink ah'm shure.
Posted by: SafeRB on January 12, 2005 06:34 AMGreat article. I usually avoid the P.I. like the plague, but this was worth reading! The King County debacle is an embarrassment to our state. It's just another reason I thank my parents for moving us to eastern Washington many years ago. I've emailed my representatives, and signed the revote petition. (Yes, Erik, some of us over here do own computers.)
Thanks for all you do. You give us hope.
Posted by: Debbie on January 12, 2005 06:36 AMJust ask him!
A reader can't help wonder if your future is in the entertainment world..following the likes of the right-wing radio/print journalists.
Posted by: Peter on January 12, 2005 07:06 AMWonderful work--thank you, Stefan, for stepping up where old media have fallen down.
Posted by: nancy on January 12, 2005 07:23 AMTHANKS!
Posted by: Larry in Renton on January 12, 2005 07:30 AMGood luck
V.A.
Clarks summit, PA
Yao Ming!!!
Sound Politics is invaluable to us for three main reasons:
One is that it actually inquires into subjects on which intelligent citizens need information for making decisions, particularly about King County's neglect and abuse of its ballot-tabulating responsibilities.
The next is that Stefan has mighty chops as a researcher and numerical analyst, and the time to employ them and report the results to those concerned citizens.
The third is that the local media, whether or not it has any analytical chops, is massively disinterested in providing detailed facts about this election, and would rather wallow in human interest angles that inform us of nothing useful. More than likely it will follow the lead of NPR and fawn over the Gregoire inauguration while turning its back to the facts and arguments being presented in Chelan.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 12, 2005 08:31 AMThat right wing paper -- dismisses the vast majority of arguments here on the effort.
It also echoes the comments of all the Democrat legislators who commented about the lack of fraud (and were harangued here for such a position).
It says Gregoire did not admit defeat in the first two counts with grace -- but that doesn't excuse Rossi for the same after the third.
This is the Wall Street Journal!!!!!!!!!!!
Not a left-wing-controlled arm of communists like you claim the PI and Times to be....
Posted by: Peter on January 12, 2005 08:32 AM"This is the Wall Street Journal!!!!!!!!!!!"
What the WSJ (or any other newspaper for that matter) believes, is irrelevant.
The election is no different than any other civil procedure that is legislated. There are laws that regulate the process. If that process is violated, the laws allow for a court to remedy that violation.
Ignoring the violations disenfranchises 50% of the voters (no matter who ultimately wins).
If the violations were benign or frivilous, I believe public opinion would punish Rossi. I do not believe this is the to be the case, however.
Posted by: Ken Muller on January 12, 2005 08:58 AMAll along, the Democrats have said "prove fraud" and we'll act. That's what the leglisators have said. That's what the leadership has said.
Your comment assuming fraud is just that ... a comment. Fraud, last I checked, requires willful intent -- not just errors. Nobody has proven such willful errors, yet the Republicans will do their best to prove so in court.
That's their right and the right fight to fight. They do have a big uphill battle, because as I was watching the leglislature debate, I heard Republicans say (paraphrasing) "No one has claimed fraud, this isn't about fraud." Vance echoed this as well. These comments come from your elected Republican leaders.
So...the WSJ agrees that only fraud should overturn this election, your Republican leaders say no one is claiming fraud and the "evidence" you give is hearsay that has no indication of prove of willfulness.
Errors do not equal fraud. Prove fraud and we'll have a revote. Without it, your arguments have been shown to be without merit by a media instrument firmly in the Republican camp.
PS...it didn't even mention that most of the dead votes (8 last I checked) were Rossi votes....
Posted by: Peter on January 12, 2005 09:03 AMMr. Jamieson,
My hat goes off to you. Thank you for your fair coverage of this
subject. I, too, once felt that, of course, I had to be a
Democrat...after all, look at all the mean things that are said about Republicans! But, once I really started paying attention to politics (thanks to the abusive, dishonest and arrogant Clintons!), I realized that I always held Republican values.... And, I'm proud to be one!
I'm a retired businesswoman, who owned businesses in Washington State, for 23 years. Although I'm retired now, I know, too well, how unfriendly this State is to business. I also own real estate, including acreage in the rural zone. I'm disgusted with the way our government treats property owners, too. We need a change in our leadership, particularly in King County!
It's easy for people, especially those who aren't business owners, and land owners, to not pay attention or be concerned about the abuses in those areas. Some feel that we just don't have a voice. Well, now we do, thanks to Stefan Sharkansky, and other contributors to his blog! We can also thank local talk radio hosts, like KVI's Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson, specifically.
If just one felon, or one dead person, voted for Christine Gregoire, or if one person voted twice for her...then, my vote for Dino Rossi was disenfranchised. I'm totally outraged by that alone!
We need big changes in our State, in most every area of government. We need to clean up our elections, starting LAST November!! I believe a re-vote is the only solution, unless the courts realize, after looking into ALL the known fraudulent votes, that Dino Rossi was the real winner, and chose to certify him!
Stefan is doing a great service to Washington State, by simply getting the truth out! A job, hopefully, mass media outlets will do (again?) some day!
Again, thank you for a fair and balanced column. Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Posted by: J.C. on January 12, 2005 09:09 AMToday, thanks to this piece. ;)
"the WSJ agrees that only fraud should overturn this election, your Republican leaders say no one is claiming fraud and the "evidence" you give is hearsay that has no indication of prove of willfulness"
I guess I don't get your point.
When there are admittedly large numbers of additional ballots than actual voters, that constitutes fraud. When there are large numbers of unverified provisional ballots put into the regular ballot box, that constitutes fraud. When ballots from dead people are counted, that constitutes fraud.
The courts are the proper avenue to correct the situation, not newspaper editorials or or comments from the local legislators.
Posted by: Ken Muller on January 12, 2005 09:25 AMWhy do you expect evidence of fraud at this point in the process? They haven't even been in court yet and, correct me if I'm wrong, that's where fraud would be proven, 'willful intent', whatever.
Furthermore, the court decision on which the contest is based clearly states that fraud is not the hurdle that must be met, it is neglect:
"Where appropriate, [the court's powers] include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect." - Foulkes v Hays 1975.
Now, you can argue that neglect should not overturn the election result - that's your opinion. But can you honestly say that there has been no neglect?
Sam Reed warned KCEC several years ago of the problems with provisional ballots, and suggested a simple solution - color code them. KCEC did nothing, and Dean Logan admitted in public that provisional ballots were put directly into the machines because the poll workers were not paying attention. Is this not the definition of neglect - knowing of a problem and ignoring it?
And how about the public statement by Logan that voters could have voted without signing in? Is this not also neglect on the part of poll workers?
If you think fraud must be proven, bully for you. We'll let the courts decide if fraud, and not only neglect is necessary, and whether fraud actually occurred. But your insistence that fraud must be proven at this point is putting the cart before the horse.
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2005 09:27 AMN Seattle: Just prove fraud and it's all worthwhile.
Ken: Errors don't equal fraud. Even your republican leaders (elected officials and Vance) have said this. You maintain errors do equal fraud. That proof, if it exists, will have to come in court.
Larry: Good point. Nothing has to be proven at this point. If the standard in law is fraud or neglect, and the courts agree that is the standard (I don't know enough about the specifc 1975 case you highlight and its relevance to other cases before/since and the law itself), then that proof would be fine.
Marc: I have never wanted to prevent Rossi his day in court. Neither has Gregoire or the Democratic leaders. Gregoire herself said she support the right to contest the election. The Democratic leaders on the floor said if the courts rule, they'll follow. Also, how do you know that dead people votes weren't counted the first two times? Why would the machine count eliminate all these errors or illegal votes? I can't imagine how the machine recount is any more valid given your concerns.
Posted by: Peter on January 12, 2005 09:38 AMKevin K
Posted by: Kevin K on January 12, 2005 09:40 AM"Ken: Errors don't equal fraud."
?????????????????????
Hello? I haven't seen an explanation for the "errors" yet. Perhaps you are aware of some information that hasn't been dessimanted yet?
When the KC election board can explain how they got 1800 more ballots than voters, I'll accept your "errors" comment. Until they do, its prima facia evidence of fraud.
Posted by: Ken Muller on January 12, 2005 09:48 AMI am a published writer with twenty year's experience. Writer intent and semantics are my forte. And the intent of this piece was not what it appears to be.
Jamieson stated,
"[Stefan] believes democracy is not based on elections so much as the will of the people. Elections are just a tool to measure that will. But if the tool is faulty, he says, it must be fixed or replaced."
The crafting of this single statement exposes Jamieson's and the PI's intent: to present the idea of constitutional government by and for the people as quaint and irrelevent, and to marginalize the ideals that we are attempting to uphold.
The way Jamieson described Stefan (and those who agree with him) uses the same condescending tone that one would use when discussing the village idiot. Just smile and nod, and pretend to be interested.
This attitude reflects that of the PI, which has openly embraced Gregoire as governor. The trademark tactic of the maistream press is to present those who embrace the ideals of liberty, of justice, and of government for and by the people as bitter and irrational outsiders.
The PI is not doing us any favors. They are simply tossing a bone to what they perceive as a pack of angry dogs with the hope that by acknowledging us we will somehow settle down and melt away.
Not me.
Stefan, I applaud you for the work you have done. I stand with you. God bless you.
Posted by: AjalonVox on January 12, 2005 10:33 AMThis was obviously done to avoid a federal probe which should now occur against both KC elections and the WA Sec State as Sec State said all absentees were out or would go out the next day when the feds threatened to sue in October. The ballots did not go out until the 13th, over a week later if postal records are accurate.
Posted by: Peter on January 12, 2005 10:53 AMFire them all.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 11:07 AMI think Dino and Chris are being generous ... yet again ... by not directly calling it fraud. They have worded it carefully and will let the court decide based on the evidence. Wise political position.
The courts might rule that human errors and mistakes in KC weren't overt enough to legally change the outcome based on WA state election laws.
We all know KC changed their rules and procedures at will and still feel that it was within their legal perogative. If the courts rule is was, then we are not only stuck with Gregoire, but the credibility of our election laws will be lost admist calls for reform. It may get messier than either candidate ever wanted.
But, I think Dino is trying to be honest but not so bloggishly honest as we. I think Dino hopes to preserve some shred of confidence in both our electoral system and related judicial rulings regardless of outcome. He's doing what we as citizens expect to maintain our checks and balances.
The bloggers will blog, and the politicians will do what they do. Remember, sometimes it's not what you say, but what you don't say.
Posted by: Mike J on January 12, 2005 11:15 AMThis Robert L. Jamieson, Jr. might indeed have a career ahead of him.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 11:29 AMThe venacular of legaleze is a strange one...words mean things we never thought of in that realm...
The main crux of this issue, in my understanding, is would the errors, irregularities, fraud in blogeze result in changing the outcome...
Since no one here, including *The Shark* himself, will answer the questions of who did these supposed erroneous votes go to, there can only be assumptions...
And it appears all of you are assuming all the questionable ballots were cast for CG...is that the case?
Without knowing which of the *irregularities* went to which candidate, how can anyone assume the winner of the hand recount would be different?
Without patterns of consistent malicious intent, a ruling for a revote (or more aptly coined reelection) will do nothing but disenfranchise the half of the electorate that voted for CG...how is that fair and just?
So maybe *The Shark* could show us some patterns...something more affirmative than tossing out vague atatistical anomolies...
Get to the truth...that's justice and how our government should work...
Then fix the system so this never happens again...
Somewhat. If an election official allows someone to vote without signing in, knowing that the person is not allowed to vote, has already done so, or will do so again, and knowing that the person will vote for Gregoire, the election official is clearly a party to a fraudulent vote cast for Gregoire.
If an election official allows someone to vote without signing in, in wanton disregard for whether that person is allowed to do so, has already done so, or might do so again, that might not rise to the same level of fraud but would nonetheless clearly constitute malfeasance.
Since no one here, including *The Shark* himself, will answer the questions of who did these supposed erroneous votes go to, there can only be assumptions... And it appears all of you are assuming all the questionable ballots were cast for CG...is that the case?
It would seem likely that in a precinct run by Democrat election officials, the ratio of illegal ballots cast for Gregoire (versus Rossi) would be at least as high as the ratio of legitimate ballots in the same precinct.
Without knowing which of the *irregularities* went to which candidate, how can anyone assume the winner of the hand recount would be different?
The hand count introduces its own set of problems, since it is known that Democrats illegally altered some of the ballots that they claim had "unclear" Gregoire votes so as to be solidly marked for Gregoire; although state law requires that the original markings be preserved, the Democrats destroyed them. It is thus unknowable whether the Democrats created any Gregoire votes out of thin air, because they have illegally destroyed the evidence that would show their actions to be legitimate.
Without patterns of consistent malicious intent, a ruling for a revote (or more aptly coined reelection) will do nothing but disenfranchise the half of the electorate that voted for CG...how is that fair and just?
How will it disenfranchise them? If CG has the true support of half the people, she should win the revote. If she doesn't really have the support of half the people, the revote would be the only way to prevent the disenfranchisement of the more-than-half-the-people who voted for Rossi.
So maybe *The Shark* could show us some patterns...something more affirmative than tossing out vague atatistical anomolies...
The Democrats have committed malfeasance which is indistinguishable from fraud. In many cases, it may be impossible to prove that it is deliberate fraud rather than wanton disregard for legal procedures, but such difficulty is a consequence of Democrats' unlawful mishandling of evidence.
To borrow a hypothetical analogy from another post, suppose that King County were to certify that their handcount yielded 50,294,197 votes for Gregoire and 23 votes for Rossi; suppose they were to further announce that they shredded the ballots. Should such a count be accepted?
The situation at hand is much less blatant than that, but the fundamentals are the same: the Democrats have released anomolous numbers, and have destroyed evidence which, were it examined, would determine whether those anomolies were the result of fraud, mistakes, or chance.
Even if Gregoire did get more legitimate votes than Rossi, it would not be Rossi that wronged her, but the election officials who destroyed the evidence that she won legitimately. If the winning party in an election acts with sufficient incompetance and malfeasance to render an election result untrustworthy, there is nothing unjust about subjecting them to a revote. If the party wanted to win without a revote, it should have done so cleanly (assuming it could).
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 03:39 PMIn the field of law, I think that to prove fraud a person and specific act have to be named. If in public Rs said 'fraud,' they could get sued big time by every D who could plausibly assert those darned Rs had defamed them. THAT is why we don't see Rs saying Fraud publicly. Anyway, since WA only requires mistakes, etc. that is all they have to allege and show.
Re: WSJ - I read all the responses to that article. Everyone except one person who responded disagreed vehemently with the notion that it's okay to have fraudulent (see common usage, not legal usage, definition above) elections, but don't have a revote. I had hoped they would say the judges should just roll back to the second count, but they didn't.
What's going on? Personally, I think the national Rs don't want this revote to happen. To them, Seattle and the State of Washington are just flyover country. I loved that they trotted out the old tired "graceful loser" canard. One of the A respondeses to the column said Rossi wouldn't be seen as a 'graceful loser,' but just as a 'loser.'
I couldn't agree more!
Given that King County election workers unlawfully destroyed ballot markings during the hand-recount, it would not have been unreasonable for Dino Rossi to have insisted that the third count should be simply thrown out. Unfortunately, had he done so, it would be impossible for him to avoid being regarded by many as a "selected not elected" governor no matter how thoroughly he proved his case.
Dino Rossi is hoping to capitalize on a few things with a revote:
-1- If he wins with a significant margin of victory, it will be impossible for his win to be regarded as the will of the courts rather than the people.
-2- In calling for a re-vote, he can appeal to people's sense of fairness as well as to people's desire to have a governor who is widely considered to have been elected fairly. No course of action other than a revote could produce such an outcome.
-3- People tend to look negatively at those who accuse others of cheating. In seeking a revote, Rossi can say that there are severe enough irregularities that it is likely he should have won, without having to come out and occuse his opponents of fraud.
-4- People tend to look negatively at those who turn down a fair and legitimate challenge. If Gregoire legitimately won the first election, she should be better off politically beating Rossi in a rematch than refusing one. That she refuses one will be seen as an admission she thinks she'd lose.
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 04:29 PMThe Dems on their own didn't destroy any ballots unless you know of some other than those talked about in the MSM...
Posted by: G Davis on January 12, 2005 08:44 PM