February 18, 2005
"Distributed vote fraud" enters the lexicon

The latest Woodinville Weekly seems pretty skeptical of the King County Elections report. It quotes at length both Councilmember Kathy Lambert and Rep. Toby Nixon offering their doubts about King County Elections and closes with this reaction to Ron Sims' statement that the election was "99.98% 99.8% accurate"

Rep. Nixon disagrees: “The King County 2004 Elections Report is certainly an attractive document, fulsome in its self-satisfaction, but shocking in its complete dismissal of the existence of individual ‘distributed’ voter fraud.”
Heh. Our own Jim Miller should be proud that the phrase he coined is helping shape the policy debate in Olympia.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 18, 2005 12:45 AM | Email This
Comments
1. The whole Democrat mantra is to dismiss the sins of the individual for the good of the collective. I don't care if the vote fraud is distriuted or organized, it is simply wrong.

Until we have a result that is accurate, there will be no decrease in pressure on King County, our legislators, etc. Washington deserves better and we are at a crossroads that allows us to be leaders in making future elections "a model for the rest of the nation." But what happened in November is an embarassment and an insult to all honest Americans.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 18, 2005 01:22 AM
2. I appreciate the concept, and think that it has a lot of explanatory value for understanding the elections process here. My one significant problem with it is the inclusion of the word “distributed”, as if there an “unseen hand” or other form of motive force behind it. It think that is much more a matter of a collection of human, technical, and other imperfections accumulating over time, and it’s simply not been in the self-interest of the people in charge, primarily the Dems, to do anything about it; a purposeful, non-benign neglect and malfeasance.

The Dems take offense at the inclusion of the word “fraud”, as they argue that there is no group policy or intent to commit fraud. Yet they know and have known about the problems for a long time, and have clearly no INTENT to do anything substantive to fix it. Not doing something that you should do morally, legally, and as part of your job description is just as bad legally as committing an actual fraud by intent. Think of bank guards leaving a door open and “forgetting” to set the alarm, and sleeping on cots rather than tending to their appointed rounds…

So I have no problem with including the word “fraud.” For “distributed,” I’d prefer to substitute something like, “Disassociative.” Or perhaps “Collusional.” Disassociative, because there is widespread, but low-level irregularities committed by many hands either fostered or protected by malfeasance. Or both. Collusional because the irregularities have many active hands, under the protection of either corrupt or incompetent officials.

Have you read “On The Waterfront” lately? It’s pretty close to what we’re dealing with here. A corrupt system. With Paul Berendt playing the part of “Weeping Willie” or whatever that union clown was. And Brando as Terry, saying that “I coulda been the champ!” There was no Rocky-esque sequel.

We have Rossi denied his office by what appears to be corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and political machinations. The difference is that our Constitution allows legal recourse, and there are people of substance and character who are intent on not letting the issues slide. And we have the blogs and the law, giving us the light of day.

Posted by: scott158 on February 18, 2005 07:08 AM
3. Scott 158, wow, well written. Perhaps we could try making voter fraud a capital offense? I figure a few hangings and a lot less New York upper East Siders will "double vote" in NYC and Miami. Problem solved in WASH, too. JCH

Posted by: JCH on February 18, 2005 08:02 AM
4. JCH - your comment was tongue in cheek, of course. Each state that has voter fraud will have to solve it their own way, but maybe if things are satisfactorily cleared up in WA eventually, other areas like NYC, Miami, Philly and Chicago can look upon here as a model.

When you say "hangings", this isn't the traditionalist 1800's or wild west, when that kind of punishment would have been a reality. A hefty fine and jail time is probably real consequence for offenders. I would like to see public humiliation in the town square and slapping the offenders in stocks - as was done in earlier history, but in order to do that - the ACLU would have to be brought to its knees first - which is an admirable mission - since they side with criminals and terrorists and are an enemy within.

Posted by: KS on February 18, 2005 08:34 AM
5. The phrase distributed fraud is quite useful. It captures the essence of the problem, that disorganized groups, cells really, engage in electoral hijinks, biased toward one candidate.

Almost like gangs.

A thought just popped into my head... would it be appropriate to refer to this distributed voter fraud as DRIVEBY VOTING?

Posted by: Huckleberry on February 18, 2005 09:06 AM
6. Great analysis, Scott158, on the "back alley" KC political scene. From Sims and Logan on down, KC government is a disgrace. Wake up, KC County Council and voters! It's happening on YOUR watch!

Also, the Woodinville Weekly article is worth a read. It says something when a weekly publishes an objective, newsworthy article that is far more concise than what I've read in the Times or Pravda-Izvestia (PI).

Posted by: Saltherring on February 18, 2005 10:23 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?