Last Friday when King County reported an unexplained discrepancy of 1,217 more ballots counted than identified voters, they also made this statement:
This number is consistent with historic reconciliation rates for King County. In 2000 this number was 1,230.First of all, as reported later, the 1,217 number turned out to be incorrect and the actual number of unexplained ballots is closer to 1,800 (add to that the explained discrepancy of 348 unverified provisionals and the real number of voterless ballots is closer to 2,150).
But the bombshell revelation here is that the 2000 number of 1,230 does not in any way validate the claim that even 1,217 voterless ballots is in line with historical reconciliation rates. Part of this discrepancy is attributable to so-called "courtesy credits" to voters who attempted to vote, but whose votes were not counted due to either voter error or county error. These credits are simply a notation in the registration record crediting the voter with having voted. (it's apparently important to some who, for example, run for office and like to demonstrate that they have a long record of civic participation and voting). They do not affect the actual vote count. These credits are not normally extended until after the period for filing an election contest is over. The actual historical reconciliation discrepancy before the courtesy credits is typically on the order of magnitude of one or two dozen votes in the entire county. A discrepancy of 2,150, 1,800 or even 1,200 is an exceptionally large discrepancy for which no plausible explanation has been given.
At what point do we stop calling it "clerical errors" and start calling it fraud?
[an earlier version of this post erroneously stated that the 1,230 discrepancy was an excess of voters over ballots. It is an excess of ballots over voters, but still a snowjob. See this later post for a longer explanation]
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 13, 2005 01:14 PM | Email ThisHowever, if this just shows an ongoing cycle of laziness, goofing off, and generally not getting the job done, akin to what Rosenberg blogs about the City of Seattle, then it is tough to use the F-Word.
That being said, I think I still want to use the f-word. As in: Voters in KC are flummoxed.
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 13, 2005 01:31 PMThe documents that they are changing belong to the government and the taxpayers, not King County bureaucrats.
Secondly, if this is being done isn't it a clear violation of election laws?
If it is a violation of election laws, can't they now be prosecuted for admitting it publicly?
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2005 01:32 PMKC keeps hiding behind their "we've always done things this way" excuse, but people here who worked in other counties note that those counties don't tolerate the same nonsense.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 01:55 PMTo ignore the discrepancies and the frustration of the majority of the state is only possible if one embraces evasion as only a Democrat can.
You Dems just keep searching for the real killer. The rest of us can plainly see that many things went wrong with the election process and that the result of the election is in doubt.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 13, 2005 02:04 PMHow does allowing people after the electon to alter the voting record to indicate that they voted in anyway affect the difference votes and voters. There are still 1800 fewer voters than votes.
Posted by: Not a Yank on January 13, 2005 02:06 PMGotta do better....A LOT BETTER...
Like proving REAL fraud
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 02:09 PMThese elections people, who keep changing the story over and over again, are having a hard time keeping the story straight. Isn’t that the pattern of liars?
Only truth tellers can keep the story straight.
Posted by: TADD on January 13, 2005 02:09 PMCourts want evidence, not right wing rumor-mongering.
Posted by: Nelson on January 13, 2005 02:15 PMThis is not where it's being held.
As for "rumors," please bear in mind that King County itself has admitted to some of the things we are talking about. A certain amount of the information is now public record.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 02:19 PMOK. Just seems that many arguments are being debunked as data comes out. Seems that he's not willing to accept losing and is looking for hail mary's everywhere. The courts should have a pretty straightforward effort to separate the wheat from the chaff here. Whatever the law is, it seems that many arguments made by Rossi are being proven wrong as time goes on -- and the claims (like this one) become more startling in their reach.
Perhaps it's time to move on. Put up a better candidate and he or she will win. Rob McKenna proved that. It's not R or D...it's the candidate. Rossi just didn't do it....people really don't want him as Governor....
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 02:20 PMHow can you possibly know that?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 02:22 PMGood article at LATimes.com (!) via RealClearPolitics.com by Van Gordon Sauter, former head of CBS news.
It begins:
Posted by: Boonie on January 13, 2005 02:22 PM
What's the big problem at CBS News? Well, for one thing, it has no credibility. And no audience, no morale, no long-term emblematic anchorperson and no cohesive management structure. Outside of those annoyances, it shouldn't be that hard to fix.
To say there was no fraud in the gubernatorial election sounds like a teenager telling her parents she's only a lilttle bit pregnant. When two votes are cast by one person, it's fraudulent. When a person casts a vote for a dead person, (regardless of the motivation) it's fraudulent. When a person behind bars on a felony conviction votes, it's fraudulent. For lack of a better term, we can call it "disorganized fraud", but it is fraud none the less. It may be just a few cases, but 129 votes falls within Ms. Gregoires definition of a "tie" and most certainly impacted the results of the election. Each case is like a day in that teenagers pregnancy. Deny it all you want, but she's going to continue to swell for a few months until her water breaks.
Soundpolitics.com is NOT a court of law, okay? Why do people keep posting on here about 'if this is all you have' and 'courts want evidence' and all that????
Rossi, Vance, and the WSRP have mounds of evidence, and they're gathering more every day. They're getting their ducks in a row for the upcoming election contest.
WHY IN THE WORLD would they have a press conference and announce the evidence? If you were in a legal battle with someone would you lay out the evidence in public BEFORE you went into a court of law? Heck no - if you did you'd be stupid, because the other side would then know your tactics, your plan, and your evidence.
Get a grip, okay? The real evidence will come out in a court of law. We're here to discuss ideas and possibilities as to what went wrong in the absence of any real media coverage. To expect to see evidence now is putting the cart three blocks before the horse!
Posted by: Larry on January 13, 2005 02:24 PMWhy should he concede? Fraud is not the bar, it is neglect.
1. King County was warned about the danger of provisional ballots several years ago;
2. King County was offerred an simple, inexpensive solution: Color-code the provisionals;
3. King County did nothing;
4. At least 348 Provisional ballots were fed into machines without being checked in an election decided by 129 votes.
Is this not the definition of neglect? Knowing of a problem and doing nothing?
Posted by: Larry on January 13, 2005 02:35 PMI paid very little attention to the Boxer rebellion because I was sure it was a dead end. I didn't need to drop in at dKos and say so.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 02:35 PMIts interesting to see (after the initial shock of more ballots than voters) how the debate rages. Liberal versus conservative. Republican versus Democrat. Everyone spinning.
Unless the judges in Washington are completely clueless (that's always a possibility after we caught a glimpse of the Florida Supreme Court), they will ask KC election officials why there are more ballots than voters. Its a simple straightforward question.
If there is a good logical reason (computer failure, third party mistake, error in tabulations, etc) the election result will stand. If a logical reason cannot be supplied and verified, there will be another election, with extra court monitors.
Its the path of least resistance and will satisfy much of the populance. Democracy in action.....all over again.
No one on any court wants the baggage of determing the winner. Better to let the people decide........
Posted by: Ken Muller on January 13, 2005 02:44 PMA revote scares people because it's saying "If you don't like the results of the election, go ahead and sue."
The eleciton followed the law (a law that apparently Rossi himself voted for). There's one thing to be said with changing a law...but that's for future elecitons...not for the current one.
I remember that Rossi wanted Gregoire to concede when he held a 42 vote margin under the recount provided by law. But the second recount, equally provided by law, showed Gregoire actually got more votes. Rossi didn't take his own advice...he fought on! Seems that if the election was broken -- it was broken when Rossi was ahead by 42. But he didn't ask for a revote...he asked his opponent to concede.
This summarizes the issue: the election wasn't a "problem" until Rossi was behind. When he was ahead, the systems, etc. were just fine...
Once behind, the magic hunt went for fraud. As we see, some of the arguments proferred have been found to be fruitless.
An observer can look at all this...and conclude that Rossi really wants to win and will do anything to overturn the legitimately elected, certified governor.
I think this further demonstrates why he didn't get more votes...can you imagine him as governor and changing/suing when he doesn't like the result of something? At least Gregoire stated from the beginning that it was her desire to finish the counting, as proscribed by law, and she would accept the final result. She did just that. No changing. It's nice to have a governor with conviction -- instead of one we could have ended up with. Collectively, Washington State Residents should be proud and releived with this outcome.
All that said, if the courts rule otherwise, we'll go with their ruling. Let's not hope, however, that it becomes a partisan decisoin like the US Supremes in 2000.
To date, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled once in favor of democrats and once for republicans (both times unanimously). I trust their decision...their fair decisions. Let's hope the US Supremes don't interfere with the state's election. But 2000 suggests a different, constintutionally scary story.
Agree about Rossi's view changing. However, you can't convince me that Gregoire wouldn't be looking at the problems with this election if she had lost. They're both guilty of inconsistant stands.
It appears as though that the law was broken when Sam Reed certified the election when 3 counties didn't supply an affidavit and 24 counties didn't provide their county seal. Stuff that matters when an election is won by less than 150 votes.
Posted by: Greg on January 13, 2005 02:52 PMWhen that happens, you wonder, what's going on? Are those King County people playing straight with us? Maybe we should take a look for ourselves. Maybe we should not take this lying down.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 02:55 PMYou forgot to consider that King County elections personnel translate their statements into "code" before releasing them. Somehow, the "+/-" was inadvertently omitted from where it belonged in front of the number representing the discrepancy. It should have said the historical difference between a perfect balance of the number of voters and number of ballots is approximately "+/- 1200."
On a serious note: It would be important to know what circumstances result in crediting a registered voter with having voted, even though that voter's ballot isn't included in the total count of ballots cast.
Here in Kitsap County, I've read in their local instructions about one situation: A voter submits a properly signed absentee ballot envelope, but includes two voted ballots in the envelope. If the two ballots are voted exactly the same, only one ballot is accepted. If the two ballots are voted differently, then neither one is accepted as a properly cast ballot (I suppose since no one could know which ballot belongs to the person who signed the envelope). In this latter circumstance, the county auditor's instructions to election personnel tell them to credit the voter with having voted in the election, even though both ballots were rejected. [See Chapter 7, section 7d, page 21 of "Kitsap County Canvassing Board Administrative Rules," revised August 2004.]
I don't know how often that would happen, resulting in more voters than ballots.
I also don't know what other situations would produce more voters than ballots.
If we knew what all the situations were, we would perhaps know what to look for in the election records to determine how many of the people "credited" with having voted in King County in the last election submitted ballots which were set aside and not included in the final total of ballots and votes.
I wonder: Wouldn't King County put those ballots which were rejected into a separate file and retain them along with all other materials?
I wonder, too: Did they code those ballots in a way that would permit someone to count how many came from voters who were nevertheless credited with having voted?
Posted by: Micajah on January 13, 2005 02:58 PMThat couldn't be further from the truth. The reason the dems don't want a re-vote is that they know that Rossi would win easily if the voters were given another chance. They've seen what's been happening and I think the result would be that the next vote wouldn't even be close.
Well, that’s about what Sam Reed did for King County when he certified votes that did not even have voters!
Isn’t that psychotic?
Posted by: TADD on January 13, 2005 03:08 PMCome on Tom, you are losing all credibility here. Ohio and Florida had margins of victory of hundreds of thousands of votes, not 129 votes. There's no similarity at all.
Posted by: Dave on January 13, 2005 03:12 PMMy question is: how long has this been going on? Do continued errors become routine and acceptable as time progresses? Does the mindset of the individual participants dull to truth and what is right? That many mistakes can hardly the result of a well oiled canvassing machine, but more descriptive of a few individuals trying to hide something. Any thoughts?
Yes, both have been somewhat inconsistent (the politicians come out). But Rossi's flops are much more dramatic. Gregoire said "Tied" after 1 legal recount knowing there was 1 more legal recount to happen. She also paid for the entire state recount (not selective) and said she's stand by the results.
Bostonian, if true, we should expect to see some proof in court...
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 03:35 PMNever ,ever let ANYONE forget that our sitting Attorney General Gregoire proudly proclaimed.."this election is a model for the rest of the nation" and the world at large???
How about this Chris:
This election was a model to the rest of the universe. Aliens watching us from the depths of outer Space are marveling at Washington State and me, Chris Gregoire. Why, many of you Washington citizens may not know this but my ancestors come from a far away planet called Remulac. Yes folks, the same Remulac where my good friends, the Coneheads came from. Why Connie Conehead and my grandmother were Sorority Sisters at EMU (Earth Muffin University).
Uh, earth to Chris. The mothership is hovering over Olympia ready to beam you up!
Let's have some fun too folks!
count, loser by 261 = "Tie"
machine recount, loser by 42 = "Tie"
manual recount, winner by 129 = "Win"
And, yeah, Gregoire paid for the recount out of her own pocket. Whatever.
Posted by: Mike Christianson on January 13, 2005 03:54 PMThat's been tightened up and now the CFO has to certify that the numbers are correct *and* that he understands where all the numbers came from. It can be enormously complex.
Why does the public sector get a pass? Is it so hard to keep track of voters & ballots?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 03:56 PMOnce it became clear that the rules changed to benefit the Dems, the Reps sought redress to treat all categories treated the same. That was denied them.
The claim of "lack of fraud" is so blatantly over the edge as to negate the arguments of people relying upon that claim.
Besides, each one of the problems standing individually is enough to contest the election. Add 'em up, and you also find the 'pattern of wrongdoing' that is at the core of many of the organized crime statutes.
This isn't a difficult call, and to argue that it is undermines your credibility.
Flop? Spare us all. That's like saying that if a burglar steals the family jewels, you should trust that he's only borrowing them.
Sorry to hear you think I'm delusional, as you forgot one important thing (see CAPS):
count, loser by 261 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
machine recount, loser by 42 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
manual recount, winner by 129 = "Win" -- NO MORE LEGAL RECOUNTS REMAINING
It was a TIE given that there remained a LEGAL RECOUNT. After all the LEGAL RECOUNTS were completed, the winner had been determined once and for all.
No delusions, just reality. And legal reality. Using the laws Rossi voted for.
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 04:01 PMNice list, but our illigitimate Gov actually took it one step further. "Tie", "Tie", and yesterday she proclaimed a "Mandate". This should come as no surprise from the same women that claims this contested election has been "a model to the rest of the nation." What a joke!
Posted by: Young Repub on January 13, 2005 04:04 PMThis is the thing that has bothered me from the beginning, that you would have more votes than voters.
My time as a precinct inspector included 4 cycles, and the ONLY time we were unable to reconcile the numbers was the '96 Presidential election when we had 1 extra voter. As standard procedure, we counted the amount of unused ballots as a cross-check, and sure enough we were missing 1 from there, and we were 1 short from the ballot box. No idea what happened to that persons' ballot. Maybe he/she wanted a memento of Clinton/Bore vs. Dole/Kemp...
Posted by: smegma on January 13, 2005 04:04 PMAre you saying that if Rossi won the hand recount, and the democrats discovered all these "issues", there would be no problem? Or would the Rossi folks woud say "you're right...too many problems...let's do a revote"?
(How could this happen? Say all that "democrat fraud" didn't quite tip the balance...")
I feel good about my credibility. I'll judge yours after you anser this (hopefully honestly).
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 04:04 PMAs for fraud, "misleading" isn't necessarily fraud and I agree with those who shy away from attaching that label in this instance.
But it certainly looks like they were trying to DECEIVE the press and the public with those slippery numbers. It may not be fraud, but neither does it help their case for the man in charge of election integrity to be caught in such obfuscations.
Perhaps a better F-word would be "Fudging" the numbers.
Posted by: JeanneB on January 13, 2005 04:06 PMCertifying and election, at least as I see it, constitutes the "making official" the results of an election.
Though Reed seems to be gettin' squishy on us, he really only has only a cameo role in the election....at least after it has already been done.
What maters is the set of rules in play prior to the election, or lack thereof in the case of our current mess.
You want to call it "game over" when the "losing" team still has a runner rounding third base heading for home........
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 13, 2005 04:13 PMAnyway, making it "official" does not magically nullify the illegality of actions by King County.
For example, KC officials admit that they illegally let provisional ballots get mixed in. That fact that doesn't vanish in a poof of smoke just because someone said, "I hereby certify this election." Nor is anyone off the legal hook because of it.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 04:16 PMNo, not less legitimate. The law provides for a contest and that is fine. And the law provides for a manual recount (as the last legal recount) and that is fine. Both are equally legitimate.
Mike, just responding to Scott's assertion that the "rules changed" after the first recount -- and my credibility was attacked. If the "rules had changed" the same way -- but resulted in Gregoire losing the hand recount, would all the Republicans here still claim the election was invalid since the rules changed, fraud happened? That point is to defend my credibility, which I believe remains in tact if logic and arguments flow.
Posted by: tom on January 13, 2005 04:19 PMThis was a dead heat, folks; let's not waste our time. Ultimately it's not going to make an iota of difference who our governor is. The Dems would circumscribe Rossi's conservatism if he were guv, and Gregoire would move to the middle the way Locke did when he governed. The effect would/will be the same. Gridlock government will prevail either way in Washington state. And neither ideological extreme will get what they want.
Posted by: Herkimer on January 13, 2005 04:34 PMHe is interviewing Ken Schram. eek
Posted by: R.W. Nut on January 13, 2005 04:35 PMYou're missing the point.
This movement is about exposing and therefore forcing King County and Washington State to fix an election system that is an embarrassment to all of us.
If Dino had let this go, we could be sure that little, if anything, would have been done to correct things.
You probably understand the ramifications of this process and want of it.
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2005 04:40 PMOddly, you're incorrect. Look at the manual count results; MOST counties found additional ballots. And because most counties went Rossi's way, MOST counties in Washington showed net gains for Rossi.
Probably so -- since they used the arguments in Florida and Ohio that the Rs are using here.
I guess all politicians are the same.
So...the law has to rule. Phew.
Tom
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 04:43 PMSorry to hear you think I'm delusional, as you forgot one important thing (see CAPS):
count, loser by 261 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
machine recount, loser by 42 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
manual recount, winner by 129 = "Win" -- NO MORE LEGAL RECOUNTS REMAINING
It was a TIE given that there remained a LEGAL RECOUNT. After all the LEGAL RECOUNTS were completed, the winner had been determined once and for all.
No delusions, just reality. And legal reality.
Using the laws Rossi voted for.
Posted by Tom at January 13, 2005 04:01 PM
You conveniently left out one IMPORTANT little part Tom. (be sure to read all the capital letters)
count, loser by 261 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
machine recount, loser by 42 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
manual recount, winner by 129 = "Win" -- NO MORE LEGAL RECOUNTS REMAINING
LEGAL ELECTION CONTEST AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
If you are going to loosely cite laws pertaining to the manner in which the election was conducted, be sure to loosely cite the COMPLETE law you are using to try to bolster your argument, not just the part of it that you find convenient.
Posted by: dragon on January 13, 2005 04:45 PMWhat fraud did the liberals find when they were behind? Infact they didn't find fraud they found ballots. Big difference.
Posted by: Young Repub on January 13, 2005 04:45 PMThe Democrats have already signaled that they're less interested in protecting the rights of voters than they are in adding new voters to the rolls. (Any review of their recent legislative history shows this.)
I keep wondering, is the Department of Justice gonna have to get involved?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 04:47 PMThis election does mater! 20 years of overspending, lack of accountability and a host of other reasons (there is not enough room on this post to list the reason's) is why it maters. Seems that our only avenue to stop such waste is to get someone in there, not from the majority party on both sides of the isle, to veto all the pork flowing from Olympia...and benefiting mostly King County, I might add.
Kinda like taking drugs…just say no! Say No to waste, say no to Fat Government, Say No to spending (continually repealed by initiative, thankfully….the Dems have never seen a spending package they did not like). Just say No! Enough is enough.
All along I said Rossi could contest. I was just responding to the claim Gregoire flipped..showing it wasn't true. Your post does nothing to refute that.
Posted by: tom on January 13, 2005 04:53 PMDem: "Let every vote count!"
GOP: "Let every legal vote count!"
Good rhetoric...but GOP didn't walk the walk.
The GOP and Rossi SUED to stop counting legal votes, remember? The supreme court had to rule to allow legal votes to be counted.
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 04:55 PMThe position would be full time, effective immediately, and would last for approximately three to six weeks. If you know of an interested college student, send them my way! The time will be compensated, and the location is Olympia.
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 13, 2005 04:57 PMAll along I said Rossi could contest. I was just responding to the claim Gregoire flipped..showing it wasn't true. Your post does nothing to refute that.
Posted by tom at January 13, 2005 04:53 PM
Answer me this.
Both Gregoire and Berendt and numerous others(including former governor Booth Gardner) claimed that the 261 voter lead was a "tie". They claimed again that the 42 vote lead was a "tie". Then when they had a 10 vote lead, it was no longer a "tie" but a "victory". When it swelled to a 129 vote lead, it was an even larger "victory". Can you explain how positive rational numbers can behave this way, contrary to the laws of mathematics? I believe that is what is meant by the comments about Gregoire flipping on the issue.
Tom...you keep inferring this hypocrisy angle without actually saying it. The point I was making is that if Rossi had won despite the King County and other shenanigans, then he would have just taken office and dealt with the election problems as the top elected officer of the state.
That's not how it worked out...now he must go back and deal with all this junk in the here and now, before he is able to take the office that the majority of voters in this state believe he fairly won.
Of course incompetance/cheating matters in all its various forms. But he'd have a lot more ability to cut through the resistance, obfuscation, and perhaps even criminal/fraudulent stuff as Governor than while being in this electorial pergatory.
Skeptical conservatives have long harbored the notion that election system problems and their correction were on the backburner from the various counties, and King in particular. It's the behavior of those involved that raises additional red flags...
Posted by: scott158 on January 13, 2005 05:05 PMIf the Rs win in court - then we'll either have more legal votes to count, less legal votes to count or the same. Until then, it's over when the final count is done.
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 05:18 PM> count, loser by 261 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
machine recount, loser by 42 = "Tie" -- LEGAL RECOUNT REMAINING
manual recount, winner by 129 = "Win" -- NO MORE LEGAL RECOUNTS REMAINING
That's just too much spin for me. I'm dizzy.
CG clearly had no need to threaten legal action *at that point* (though I have little doubt she would have if needed) because she had the KC democratic machine there to assure a "victory".
One other thing: the dem's mantra seems to be "every legal vote was counted". Do they not see how hollow that sounds? The votes that *should* have been counted is not the problem at all, and their little catch phrase says nothing to address the real problem. Perhaps they're blind to it, but apparently most Washingtonians are not.
Just some observations from a former Washingtonian.
Posted by: Moscow Mark on January 13, 2005 05:41 PMThe result is that in 2000 the figure was 18 (approximate). In 2004 it is 1800 or 18x10x10!
Stefan's question is correct "At what point do we stop calling it "clerical errors" and start calling it fraud?"
Posted by: TomasM on January 13, 2005 05:58 PMI think Rossi understood this back then too. Christine should have conceded, and let things go as the election results showed. But she had her sights set on that Mansion and did everything in her and her party's power to make sure she could get there. But they forgot about a few things, namely the people here on the internet and their abilities to gather information from all kinds of sources. And how EASY it is to get that information and distribute it.
It wasn't like this back in 1960 Chicago. At that time, Nixon chose not to have things looked at even though there was ample evidence that the electorate was compromised. His reasoning was that it wouldn't be good for the country. Unfortunately, that logic was flawed in that it could have put a start to reforms in the election processes so that it wouldn't happen again.
Hopefully we have learned from our history and are not doomed to repeat it this time.
Personally I think King County screwed up. They should have let Rossi win and then show that there was fraud/incompetence in the election process. Then they would have a much more comfortable outlook going into a revote. As it stands now, this state is on the verge of going Republican in the next series of elections.
It's a case of focusing so much on this one battle and winning it, but they end up losing the war because they lost their hold on the rest of the territory.
Posted by: Netraven on January 13, 2005 06:03 PMGOP- "ok, we'll change the rules if you say so...now lets start counting those military votes that you didn't want to count"
Dems- "Too late, we're ahead, stop counting"
This says nothing about the felons and mystery voters.
Posted by: Andy on January 13, 2005 06:07 PMSeems like an odd procedure, especially since it would seem to entail examination of the votes on the ballots in the presence of the envelope (what ever happened to secret ballot?) If enclosing two ballots isn't grounds for an automatic disqualification of an absentee ballot, the ballots should be fastened together and marked with identical control numbers and a note explaining that they were found in the same envelope; later they can be examined.
In any case, if the ballots are later examined and found to match, one should be marked as a duplicate (of the other with the matching control number); if they mismatch, a special 'duplicate' ballot form should be filled out with a matching control number and marked "spoiled".
Thus, the total number of coutable ballots will always match the number of votes. I wonder why that fundamental rule isn't always followed.
Posted by: supercat on January 13, 2005 06:16 PMI wish people would quit using terms like public sector.
The public in this state and the government are two entirely different things.
I say we start defining our enemies a little better.
The tyranny sector (or if we want to be nice the socia1ist sector) is what we should call those who work for the government, the old media, most NGO's (basically anyone who says they work for an NGO would fall into this cartegory.)
NGO's people who work at the Salvation Army for instance would not fall into the tyranny sector as they would not say I work for an NGO. They are proud of where they work and would say that they work for the Salvation Army.
Those that don't work for the government, the old media, or NGO's - in other words those who don't work in the tyranny sector we would say work in the free sector - this would include businessmen, Moms, private educators, church workers, etc.
Some people might work in the tyranny sector, but not themselves be tyrannists. They would describe themselves as people who are free at heart who presently work in the tryanny sector most likely because the tyranny sector has so constricted our economy that these poor people have few other options. I mean can you imagine them trying to open a business when about 30% of the population is actively working to destroy, constrict, or control capitalism.
One other exception - there are of course a limited number of statesmen who work for the government, but they are so rare and generally so manificantly thick skinned that we would not offend them with the use of tyranny sector.
We could of course use the term that Christ and John the Baptist used to describe these tyrannists: Brood of vipers I think it was. They also used the term White Washed Tombs.
Maybe we could bring these back into the venacular? What say you?
You need to experience numbers more - emote on them - not think that there is any rationality in them.
Try this on for size - Go into the woods with a big drum (a self-made one not one you bought from a merchant) - or go downtown to Fremont or Westlake and chant, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, rational numbers have got to go." You will feel much better afterward and be more in tune with the pan of it all.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 06:39 PMDems- "Count EVERY vote"
GOP- "follow the rules, no digging for new votes"
GOP -- "Sue! Stop counting legal votes!"
Dems- "change the rules to count every vote"
actually: Dems -- "Don't change the rules, follow the law and count legal votes"
Court- "yes- change the rules and respect the votes"
actually: "Yes, follow the law; count legal votes"
GOP- "ok, we'll change the rules if you say so...now lets start counting those military votes that you didn't want to count"
actually -- GOP "If you're counting all legal votes, we'll contest the election!"
Dems- "Too late, we're ahead, stop counting"
actually: Dems - "Military votes were sent out on time and those received until certification were counted, as per the law"
GOP - "Now that all legal votes have been counted, we lost so we will Sue! Contest the election! Fraud! No, just kidding, not fraud. Irregularities!"
This says nothing about the felons and mystery voters.
This says nothing about Rossi voting for the very process he now claims is unfair.
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 07:04 PMGood job! Again, you speak the truth. Only, next time, make sure you type 'paternalistic', but I am such a pedantic...
Posted by: smegma on January 13, 2005 07:04 PMIf the Rs win in court - then we'll either have more legal votes to count, less legal votes to count or the same. Until then, it's over when the final count is done.
Posted by Tom at January 13, 2005 05:18 PM
Tom, you say it is over after the final count is done. Seems to me you are still trying to ignore the fact that the law provides for a contest.
You also seem to conveniently forget about the topic of whether Gregoire is a flipper. I may be wrong, but I don't recall ever having heard Dino say this was tied. I have heard him say he was ahead, and I have heard him say that this election is seriously flawed. I have also heard him state that there should be a re-vote to remove the cloud of illegitimacy that hangs over this election. All these were/are valid statements. At no time, IMO, has Rossi been inconsistent in his approach. On the other hand, Gregoire has been very inconsistent, in her judgement of what constitutes a tie and what constitutes a victory, as well as what constitutes a legal vote, (as have berendt and the WDP). You can ignore this till the cows come home, but it won't change reality.
Posted by: dragon on January 13, 2005 07:10 PMSalute to Dino Rossi and Republicans for standing up to the stench of the lefty machine that controls the urban politics in this state and taking them to court and exposing this chronic condition to the light of day. Under their control the taxes and unemployment are high and many businesses are moving out and more government jobs are created. Is this what we the people of this state want ? I think not unless you swear by the hammer and sickle !
Whether its later this year or in 2006, the Democrats will pay the price for their stench that they have created and if they keep protesting too much - it will be more dramatic ! Extreme liberalism is a mental disorder and too many Seattleites/King County Officials appear to be suffering from it !
Posted by: KS on January 13, 2005 08:08 PMI agree,, fraud, fraud, fraud. if it is close, the dems cheat.
Posted by: ray on January 13, 2005 08:14 PMwould Jesus get the whip out like he did with the money changers in the temple to rid of these vote changers in kc?
Posted by: ray on January 13, 2005 08:17 PMHoping you know the definition of your monicur.
And by the way if you feel you need to reconstruct my spelling then you haven't been deconstructing your own emotions enough. Get to chanting boy! :-)!
ps. We here in Tac-town had some deconstructed art for our first night event. Did you hear about it?? - the rolling the heads - it turned into a mini-riot - the farce media as well as the 'artist' still had the nerve (excuse I mean vision) to call it art, and not only art but better art than they had planned it to be.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 08:23 PMYour post was to Jericho. But, I want to respond. You said "would Jesus get the whip out like he did with the money changers in the temple to rid of these vote changers in kc?" an interesting thing that Jesus did before driving out the money changers was that he braided the whip. Anyone who knows anything about braiding a whip (I haven't done it personally, but have talked to horsey people who have), knows that it takes time and patience. Maybe Dino is "braiding the whip" so to speak. :)I think so. Look how composed and calm he is. He doesn't need to scream "fraud, fraud" he merely just needs to gather the facts and present them in a court of law. Quit worrying everyone and try not to get caught up in the circular debates with the opposition. If you're not actively working on this, i.e. doing your own investigations (cross-referencing lists, etc..) at least write letters to legislators, or encourage those that are working hard at presenting a rock solid case. What say you?
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 13, 2005 08:27 PMMaking a whip???? Hmmm, might be difficult if He tried to make it out of unmailed military ballots. :-)! Further if Christ sat down in Seattle to construct a whip I don't think He could finish it for He would be spending all His time fending off 'well meaning' leftists trying to shove money in His face.
I suspect He would instead have been at the innagural last night aiming a pea shooter at Paul B. :-)!
Seems like an odd procedure, especially since it would seem to entail examination of the votes on the ballots in the presence of the envelope (what ever happened to secret ballot?)
"Supercat" was talking about my comment, posted at 2:58PM on this thread, in which I described the procedure followed when two ballots are found in one envelope.
If I understood the procedure followed in this county, the only thing available to the people looking at the two ballots was the inner "security" envelope -- not the outer envelope which contained the voter's signature.
The secrecy of the ballot wasn't compromised, then, since no one could know which voter put those two ballots into that inner "security" envelope.
I suppose the fact that they couldn't at that point identify the voter is the reason why they "credit" the voter with voting even though both ballots are rejected unless they are identical. They already credited the voter with voting back at the step when they verified the one signature on the outer envelope.
How the county election officials keep track of the rejected ballots is something I don't yet know. That's why I posed that as something I wonder about:
"I wonder: Wouldn't King County put those ballots which were rejected into a separate file and retain them along with all other materials?
I wonder, too: Did they code those ballots in a way that would permit someone to count how many came from voters who were nevertheless credited with having voted?
It seems that you need to know how many ballots were rejected under this and other circumstances, so you can calculate how many "voterless ballots" were accepted and counted. The rejected ballots would otherwise reduce the apparent number of "voterless ballots" by putting "ballotless voters" into the total count of voters credited with voting. To know how many voterless ballots there were, you need to take those ballotless voters out of the count of voters credited with voting -- which would produce the same result as adding the number of "ballotless voters" to the number already calculated as "voterless ballots."
Without that reconciliation, you know there was a higher number of voterless ballots than has been calculated so far, but you don't know how much higher the number is.
DOJ- "SEND OUT THOSE BALLOTS RIGHT NOW OR WE WILL SUE THE CRAP OUT OF YOUR STATE AND POSSIBLY CUT OFF FEDERAL FUNDING"
County Auditors- "Oh no! We forgot about the fact that 4% of the Active Duty US Military is eligible to vote in Washington! Whoops!"
And for those of you talking about the federal write-in ballots, they are just that: Federal. As in, for federal elections.
Posted by: Aaron on January 13, 2005 08:55 PM"Is this not the definition of neglect? Knowing of a problem and doing nothing?"
Actually, I think that is the definition of criminal neglect.
So, yeah. I guess KC is guilty of criminal negligence.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 13, 2005 10:18 PMThis was a dead heat, folks; let's not waste our time. Ultimately it's not going to make an iota of difference who our governor is. The Dems would circumscribe Rossi's conservatism if he were guv, and Gregoire would move to the middle the way Locke did when he governed. The effect would/will be the same. Gridlock government will prevail either way in Washington state. And neither ideological extreme will get what they want.
You make an excellent point. If Rossi gets a revote and somehow wins the governorship, in the short run little will matter. The Dems still control the legislature after all -those lockstep partisans who back Gregoire even in the face of fraud. And on top of that those Democrats will probably be feeling rancorous at Rossi for undoing it. He won't be able to get much done.
But that's short run stuff. How the Democrats are stealing this election needs to be thoroughly publicized and contested because of the long run implications. First, there are the obvious deleterious consequences of allowing such fraud to stand unchallenged. But beyond that it helps to remember that the hard core liberal left that are willing to coutenance fraud just so they can win are a minority, even in Washington. The majority of people, especially including the middle of the road swing voters, are watching how the Democrat politicians are handling the smelly rotten fish head in their midst. I'm predicting a backlash in two years. Those middle of the road moderate voters won't want to reward those Democrat pols running for re-election in 2006. And Republican voters sure as heck won't forget.
So I say let it play out, challenge and all, to its natural conclusion. It needs to be completely aired out. The chips will fall where they may, Rossi may win, and meanwhile the Democrats seem to be determined to dig their own holes just so they can hang onto the precious governorship for 4 more years.
Posted by: jay bird on January 13, 2005 11:42 PMIf we put all of the emotion and partisan politics aside.....and just look (with the eyes of an outsider) at what has transpired with the election.......we would have no doubt about the implications of fraud!
I hope the courts remember that the rest of the country IS watching them and this contest and how they handle it all......And if they try to sweep any of this under the filthy rug of King County....or try to minimize the importance of the illegal vote findings.....they will not only have to answer to the people of Washington State...but to the people of this nation!
Posted by: Deborah on January 13, 2005 11:52 PMActually.....
There is a reason the Dems are willing to so blatantly steal the Governorship from Rossi.....
You see...Even though the Dems control the legislature....the Governor has *line item veto* powers here! Rossi could effectively stop the Dems machine!
The Democrats have an enormous stake in this Governorship! That is why they are pulling out all of the stops to try to discredit Rossi, the BIAW, Sound Politics, Us.....etc....anyone who tries to get to the bottom of this mess!
Rossi has experience in the legislature..he knows how to impound that Democrat machine!
They must truly fear him!
"Hoping you know the definition of your monicur."
I was once in a 'debate' of sorts with a rather smelly hippie after returning, in uniform, from deployment. He was losing, so he resorted to the common term for my monicur (d-cheese). Hard to argue with success...oh, and it allows me to remember that personal attacks can be learning experiences.
BTW - I love your posts. I just happen to be pedantic...I will try to refrain from my obsessive-compulsive need to correct people on spelling. After alll, when fingers are flying from responding to the latest lunatic like jim or hotairjoe, it is easy to misss something! (you have no idea how difficult that was for me...)
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 03:36 PM