I'll be on John Carlson's show in the 4pm hour talking about King County's mysterious "Big Binder" of election secrets.
The binder really does exist, by the way, or at least it did at one time. I have that from a credible source. The mystery is what is actually in it, and why nobody outside the elections office (including the Secretary of State's office, County Councilmembers, and members of the press) has been permitted to see it yet.
UPDATE: I'll be on right after the 4:30 break.
UPDATE 2: David Goldstein, who inadvertently embarrassed the King County officials he was trying to help when he trumpeted the existence of the allegedly exculpatory binder that King County has never allowed anybody to actually see, was on the Carlson Show right before I was. Mr. Own-goal-stein is disappointed that I wouldn't debate him on the air. Hell hath no fury, but why would I bother? I'm only interested in understanding what happened in the King County election and the only people I'm interested in challenging and questioning are the people who are responsible for King County elections. I want to see the binder and have Election Officials explain to the public what it means. I couldn't care less about David Goldstein's opinions and feelings about a binder he's never seen, and which he's already told us no matter what's in there, it's good enough for him.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 25, 2005 02:14 PM | Email ThisGOLDY-lox and the BIG BINDER---that's a fairy tale too!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 25, 2005 02:37 PMYou're doing a great public service!
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on February 25, 2005 02:37 PMThe BIG BINDER is apparently a summary that STARTS with data from the Pollbooks. Someone will need to track the infromation from the SOURCE DOCUMENTS (pollBooks) to the reconciliation (BIG BINDER) and then verify each line item in each precindt reconciliation. HUGE JOB!!! But I wouldn't take KingCo's word for anything.
Need to get all the source documents and tie them into the BIG BINDER!!!!!!
Why, oh why, didn't Logan have SOMEONE in his office simply set up a huge spreasheet and compile each precindts reconciliation???????
Logan knew what folks were looking for.
I'm concerned that these reconciliations may consist of some ALTERED pollbooks or other ALTERED data. Need all the SOURCE DOCUMENTS!!
Challenge Goldstein to actually do some work for a change!!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 25, 2005 03:09 PMIt's such a relief to know that the big binder existed at one time -- assuming your confidential informant is correct.
Is it such a deep dark secret that your informant wants to remain unknown to the rest of the world?
Posted by: Micajah on February 25, 2005 03:17 PMOr is the Big Binder simply King County's own method of record keeping? Maybe this is why Dean Logan was hired, because he brought his innovative "Big Binder" approach to record keeping and management.
Posted by: Jason on February 25, 2005 03:18 PMDo other counties only have Medium or Small Binders? Maybe KC election official really meant "we wear Big Blinders." This could put the legitimacy of this election in a bind.
They're still trying to clean all those globs of peanut butter and jelly off the pages.
Goldy loves to keep harping on this dang BIG BINDER. Then he admits to Carlson that he has never even seen it!!! But he plans on seeing it someday. That's probably what he used to say about the tooth fairy!!
We all understand the difference between ballots counted and voters credited. We all understand, IN THEORY, what the precindt pollbook reconciliations are intended to show. Carlson missed his best shot at Goldy. He should have asked GOldy..."with information from the BIG BINDER, shouldn't Logan be able to then reconcile votes and voters???????"
Carlson came close when he reminded Goldy that Logan spent weeks trying to reconcile and claimed he had whittled your 3600 discrepancy down to 1200(which you courteously informed him was actually 1800--another Logan math oops).
According to Logan, he did try and said it was "impossible" (even though Jefferson County reconciled votes & voters 100% and other County's were very, very close).
I can't wait to see this BIG BINDER and more importantly the SOURCE DATA that was used in compiling that BIG BINDER>
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 25, 2005 05:45 PMIt would seem to me that there is an inverse correlation between the veracity proven by the "books" and the likelyhood of us seein' 'em in the near future.
Posted by: scott158 on February 25, 2005 05:50 PMYes, we've heard this one before. It involved a man called Saddam and stuff called WMDs. They said, if he doesn't have anything to hide why doesn't he let us in to take a look? So he must have them, they said. Turned out there were other reasons and he didn't have any.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 25, 2005 07:22 PMKen Muller! I've missed you!
Posted by: Deborah on February 25, 2005 07:42 PMSo you are saying that Sims is like Saddam? Saddam didn't have WMD's and Sims doesn't have a "Big Binder"?
If you are trying to defend Ronnie you might want to try another example.
Posted by: Jay on February 25, 2005 08:14 PMIt's the Micajah Spinzone.
Posted by: martin ringhofer on February 25, 2005 08:53 PMYour sycophants here seem to think you kicked my ass on Carlson today, so since I'm such a pushover, what say the next time, you agree to go head-to-head, huh? Eyman's not afraid to take me on, and he's much dumber than you. So come on Stefan, debate me... all the other kids are doin' it.
That said, thanks for backing me up on the binder today... admitting that it exists, that it contains what I said it contained, and that my description of the polling place reconciliation process was pretty much accurate. Oh... and thanks for saying I'm sweet.
Posted by: David Goldstein on February 25, 2005 09:50 PMDebates are silly things,this is not a game to win. Just reconcile the 1800 more votes than voters and put an end to this whole subject. Well maybe then you would need to explain the felons voting, the P.O. boxes, and the unconfirmed provisional ballots. Truth is a good bickering match is your best bet. Maybe you can muddy the water and engage in some high quality sophistry.
Posted by: Verne on February 25, 2005 11:36 PMShouldn't the contents really be what the debate is about? If those contents exist, how hard would it be for Dean Logan to hold it over his head and say "Here it is". If they really can't show it to anyone, perhaps because they need to scrub sensitive personal information from it, why can't they say that? If they need time to copy the contents to make them available, why can't they say that? From what I've seen, there has not been an formal acknowledgement from KC Elections that this thing really exists, or what it's contents could possibly be.
Goldy is the one who first made mention of it, and swore that even though he hadn't see it, it contained all the answers to the questions of reconciliation. So why is it that when that assertion is questioned, the burden of proof somehow falls to Stefan to prove that Big Binder either doesn't exist, or does not contain what Goldy claims it does? Shouldn't Goldy be the one filling FOIA requests with KC Elections to back up his claims?
Posted by: Jason on February 26, 2005 12:02 AMThe binder does not contain private citizens information to be blacked out, and should be made available in its complete form immediately for anyone who wants to view it. Anything less should be considered a violation of PDA/FOIA.
Posted by: Joe on February 26, 2005 01:24 AMHow can the information be changed after the election reconciliation on election night?
I don't live in Seattle, so I've never seen the ballots that go into the machine. I was assuming that the ballots are unidentifiable because the provisionals become that way after going into the machine.
I just don't see how the information on names, etc, can change by no name ballots.
Posted by: sgmmac on February 26, 2005 06:57 AMMaybe they are reshuffling again? It seems like a reversal of the vote counting process where KingCo waited to see how many votes they needed before they reported.
Posted by: Baynative on February 26, 2005 07:53 AMJust give us the unadulterated facts.
goldy has proven that he is behaving in a reactive role, countering and rationalizing against each revelation as it comes to light - attempting to shape "truth" to his objectives rather than taking the truth to where it leads us.
Perhaps he could offer up some interesting ad hominems disguised as homilies as he does on the aptly titled Horsesass site.....
My concern was and still is about the ALTERING of SOURCE DATA or the reconciliation forms with the intent on trying to minimize the 1800 discrepancy rather than the reconciliation be a compilation of SOURCE DATA!!!
Remember Logan speculated that many voters may have voted without signing the pollbook. When poll workers reconciled they should have manually counted and reported signatures in the pollbook. Pollworkers would have signed attesting to those totals. My question is where there any ALTERATIONS to pollworkers recorded numbers??
Those poll books SHOULD NOT have been altered in any way. In a desire to counter Stefan, has data been altered?? Who had access to those pollbooks and when???
Logan should have immediately come out with the BIG BINDER and explained it months ago. His secretive scheme has rightly drawn negative to him. Inexcusable conduct. Every Washington citizen has a right to know as Logan's "work" may have changed the will of the people.
Depose Logan, Huennekens and their entire staff if need be. The truth will come out...we may not like the outcome but this Logan "secrecy" and excuses that it is "too complicated" for us morons to understand is disgusting. At this point, Stefan and GOldy know more about reconciliations than Logan.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 26, 2005 09:28 AMSo the one reasonable explanation is explicitly ruled out on the list of possible sources of error.
Posted by: Al on February 26, 2005 10:27 AMIt reminded me of a Paul Barendt performance in a radio debate, filibustering to deprive his opponent of air time.
Mr. Goldstein should have rehearsed a concise description of the process, detailing what data is recorded, what checks are in place and why the process should work - and why it didn't. That could have been done in ten minutes instead of the twenty he occupied.
Now he produces this howler from above: "That said, thanks for backing me up on the binder today... admitting that it exists, that it contains what I said it contained, and that my description of the polling place reconciliation process was pretty much accurate."
No wonder he wants a debate. He thinks he's made points with the howler. But what's the evidence? NEITHER HE NOR STEFAN HAS SEEN THE SILLY BINDER, yet he claims Stefan agrees with him about the contents. In court, this is hearsay and counts for nothing - if such a binder is actually produced and put in evidence.
Stefan's meticulous examination of the actual data is far more useful to those of us than the lofty sentiments expressed by Goldstein, Dean Logan et al.
And King County's refusal to produce the binder is pretty good evidence that it's a damaging document to the monocultural department that supposedly runs 99.98% accurate elections.
But on this particular subject, we all tend to agree as do 57% of those polled in this state, that the election was not "RIGHT".
It is up to KC to provide "public" documents to the Public in a timeley manner. But in this case, it "appears" as though they are hiding something. Most posters here at SP believe they are stonewalling for a reason. There is no reason NOT to present these documents. Unless there is something they dont want someone else to "PROVE". It is KC responsibilty to Prove it DID IT RIGHT as they claim.
Feel free to post all you want, just leave the personal references out. We don't post like those at Horsesass.org, we use a bit more tact and mutual respect for those whose opinions differ....
Posted by: Chris on February 26, 2005 08:49 PMI could wish that folks delivering their lordly opinions about the posts herein would show some evidence of personal reflection, or analysis, or specific items they find differences with.
Otherwise those lordly opinions sound more like rote bumber-sticker slogans, copied from someone else.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 27, 2005 12:34 PMWe just want King County to acknowledge and answer our questions. Is that not okay? We're a democracy, and we pay their bills. Shouldn't they respond to their constituents? Aren't you in favor of transparent government?
Posted by: Larry on February 28, 2005 07:28 AM