It would be very interesting if there's any evidence that they knew ahead of time that their procedure would not prevent double-voting.

King County Elections is a GOVERNMENT entity, so it should be operating in a transparent fashion lest the citizenry lose confidence in it.

So what is the point of crediting after certification ? It is clear that this process is integral in detection of voter fraud. Sounds like the standard CYA approach taken by the election officials. At last check, voting twice is element of voter fraud.

Why do the supposed reporters let these officials get away with nonsensical statements like the ones above ? 1) Because they only care about the story but not about the issue or 2) they are spineless or both.

I wonder if the procedure they followed in 2000 to process absentee ballots is the same as the procedure they used in 2004.

Didn't they get a new computer system?

In my county, the process is as follows:

1) The ballot envelopes are scanned by a "wand" to capture the bar code info and then upload it into the database. This scanning is done as soon as practical after the mail is received, so as to create a record of receipt for each ballot envelope. The envelopes are left in the tray in exactly the same order in which their bar codes were scanned.

2) The signatures on the envelopes in each batch (essentially, one mail tray) are then compared to the digital images of the voters' signatures. Four signature images at a time are retrieved in exactly the same order in which the bar codes were scanned and uploaded for that batch. The batch is retrieved by typing the name of the voter whose envelope is the first one in the tray. The computer warns "AV Ballot Already Received." The written instructions tell the workers to click OK or press Enter and move on to the signature verification step for that batch of envelopes. (They aren't apparently using the software as designed, since it clearly has the ability to tell them that the bar code for that first voter's envelope was just scanned and uploaded into the database -- hence the warning message. The warning message only appears that one time, and is expressly ignored.)

3) Then at the next stage of processing, the envelopes are sorted by precinct -- and finally after this step the envelopes are opened.

4) Nowhere in their written instructions is there any hint of a step which involves checking to see if a previous ballot from any voter has been received. Only if the first envelope in a batch happened to be the second ballot submitted by a voter whose previous ballot was also the first one in another tray might the worker be tipped off to a problem. Such a double-voter would have a ballot in two different batches, and so there's a chance that the software would retrieve or offer to retrieve a batch other than the one being processed for signature verification at that point. Maybe then the worker would ask someone for help, since the batch number on the tray in process wouldn't be the batch number on the monitor -- and only the first envelope in that batch would contain a voter's name which matches any of the envelopes in the tray being processed. I know it sounds outlandish to say that they aren't checking for double votes, but it's not in their written instructions.

King County's 2000 procedure is described as involving a sorting of envelopes by precinct before scanning the bar codes.

Did they do it that way in 2004?

I really think you need to get a copy of the written instructions followed by King County and read them -- with a view to finding any hint that they use their software to detect the presence of a second or zillionth ballot submitted by the same voter.

I'm sure they think they do, but what do their written instructions actually show?

Indeed. It's in my public disclosure request of Feb. 22

He has not come out to refute any of what Stefan has reported in the last week or so regarding "crediting" which contradicts everything he said in his posts about the Big Binder, nor has he come out and admitted he was wrong.

He says he's a man of his word, kinda like Dean Logan.

We're still waiting for full disclosure from both.

What Is Voter Fraud? Voter fraud is any action which causes the tally of the vote to deviate from the results intended by participating, registered voters. These actions can materialize in many forms, including in the design and manufacture of voting machines. Actions that constitute voter fraud can be arranged into four categories:
1. Preventing registered voters from voting
2. Corruptly registering voters who are ineligible to vote
3. Misrepresenting oneself as a registered voter under a name different from one's own.
4. Corrupt the voting act. This can include paying, intimidating, or tricking the voter to cast a certain vote or casting multiple ballots, or by rigging the voting machines themselves.

the 153,000 tabulated on Election Day

This report adds about 84,000 tabulated ballots

it is expected that another 75,000 ballots

That's an interesting pace discrepancy, especially noting that election day counting could not begin until the polls closed.

Does King County have an electronic copy of the books at the precinct for crediting votes? If it does, then counting absentee ballots could begin immediately. If it doesn't, then the absentee ballots can't even start being counted until the precinct poll books have been returned... unless King County forgot a step.

Then each has to have the signature of the voter verified against a digitized facsimile maintained in a special computer file, and the voter credited so that no one can vote twice.
Please note, it doesn't say they're actually checked against the precinct poll books. It may mean that it only prevents people from voting twice via absentee ballot.

If they did the process correctly, they should have found (on election day) some number of absentee ballots cast by people who also voted in the polls. Those envelopes should still be sitting somewhere with their ballots inside.

On the other hand, considering the degree of competence shown, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out they were the 730 (or however many) "mystery" ballots found for the hand recount.