April 25, 2005
What explains the meltdown at the polls?

As I've documented on many occasions there was an unprecedented meltdown at King County polling places last November: hundreds of unverified provisional ballots that went through the Accuvotes; hundreds of absentee voters who showed up at the polls and should have been given provisional ballots but were given regular ballots (think: possibility to vote twice!); various other procedures for ballot security and accounting that were not followed: voters who weren't asked to sign in, ballot accountability worksheets that were not filled in correctly if at all, etc.

The question is why? In Dean Logan's standard town hall talk, he says words to the effect that "we had record-breaking volumes in every aspect of the election". In fact, that is not true. There were record breaking in many aspects, including new registrations absentee voting, provisonal ballots cast and total turnout, the total number of people who voted at the polls actually decreased from 2000 to 2004. This table compares polling place ballots cast in the 2000 and 2004

Ballot Type
2000
2004
Polling Place Ballots
384,946
306,171
Valid Provisional Ballots
13,307
28,014
Invalid Provisional
3,775
4,332
Total Polling Place
402,028
338,517
Fudging for the number of provisionals that came in from other counties (about 1,000 both years) doesn't change the conclusion -- polling place voting was down about 15% from what it was 4 years ago. If it wasn't an increase in volume, it's fair to assume that the quality of the training was worse this time.

Here's an example of this. Poll workers received only a couple of hours of training. How was that time spent? Some of it was taken away from the real issues of procedures for ballot security and accounting to ... instruction in using "People First Language Guidelines".

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 25, 2005 01:02 PM | Email This

Comments
1. "What is MoveOn.org?" -- and I'll keep going with 'Fraud' for $1000, Alex...."

Posted by: Lew on April 25, 2005 01:05 PM
2. Daily Double!!!

Posted by: Danny on April 25, 2005 01:27 PM
3. Stefan,

Melt down? You are too polite. It is FRAUD plain and simple. The election was stolen. No other way to say it.

Posted by: VCRW on April 25, 2005 01:31 PM
4. The people first thing: I can't believe they waste time printing up lists like that~.
What a relief to know that while the poll workers couldn't do their primary job, they sure knew what to call people!

Posted by: Michele on April 25, 2005 01:46 PM
5. Y-A-W-N !!

Posted by: Nelson on April 25, 2005 01:48 PM
6. QUICK! Some liberal send the "People First Language Guidelines" to Howard Dean!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/24/AR2005042401160.html

Posted by: Scott C on April 25, 2005 02:03 PM
7. This is truly sickening. Why would they waste their precious couple of hours of training on this? Oh, silly me, we need to be "politically correct" before we are able to do our job. If people don't have the common sense to treat everyone with respect, they have no business in a job that requires public contact.

Posted by: zug on April 25, 2005 02:43 PM
8. This is the same class of logic that runs our public schools...how to feel good about failing in your primary task, rather than address the failure.

How many of those 'people first' categories wouldn't want effective government that actually performs well, rather than wasting their children and grandchildren's inheritance?

Another example of voting for creating institutions out of people and policies that would enslave you.

Posted by: scott158 on April 25, 2005 02:50 PM
9. "People First" means, "oh, you want to vote twice? Will that help your self esteme if you can vote twice? Well, here, take this fistful of provisional ballots and vote as many times as you want. We put people first here in King County. As long as you fit into one of our victim group categories, that is."

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 25, 2005 02:55 PM
10. I think you have it all wrong.
The People First instructions were for the trainers, and how to treat the elections workers

Posted by: Jim L on April 25, 2005 03:00 PM
11. It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of flat out LIARS these guys are. The Shark is the best, catches them every time.

Posted by: schu on April 25, 2005 03:04 PM
12. "People First Language Guidelines" Sheesh. Another example of how liberal political correctness regulates so many aspects of today's culture.

I thought the Democrats were saying that only little old ladies worked the polls and we should be more tolerant of their mistakes. Since when do little old tadies start using disrespectful language towards voters? I've never encountered anything more than a few simple instructions to sign here, etc. from very polite, friendly people.

As with everything else though, Democrats are worried about the possibility that someone or something might slip through the cracks, thus the justification for giant new buildings dedicated to churning out language guidelines managing elections, etc. and a whole new statist infrastructure to manage every little aspect of our lives. From water barrels on our property, to how we speak, and whether or not we have the right to refuse service to someone we find offensive, etc. it just never ends.

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 25, 2005 03:05 PM
13. At the risk of being redundant I have to once again say that IMHO the King County Democrat Machine was operating without ‘adult supervision’ and in implementing the standard Democrat modus operandi they did not make sure that ‘plausible deniability’ of criminality was maintained. They are sweating it out right now and operating under such pressure that nothing they say at this point would surprise me. Sucks to be Dean, chuckle chuckle

Posted by: JDH on April 25, 2005 03:08 PM
14. for "adult supervision", they would need to outsource from an already taxed budget. "in house" is not a possibility.

Posted by: scott158 on April 25, 2005 03:20 PM
15. Actually, one would expect the number of rejected provisional ballots to remain constant from one general election to the next. It is interesting that 20%+/- of provisionals were rejected in 2000, but only 12% were rejected in 2004. What gives?

Posted by: MIMike on April 25, 2005 04:05 PM
16. Hey Nelson, it's called narcolepsy. See a doctor.

Posted by: Hoystory on April 25, 2005 04:16 PM
17. Good point MIMike,

A 110% increase in valid provisionals compared with a 15% increase in invalid provisionals. Seems like they weren't checked as thoroughly as in the past.

Posted by: Larry on April 25, 2005 04:20 PM
18. You mean they are supposed to verify them BEFORE they count them? Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

Posted by: Marc on April 25, 2005 04:25 PM
19. From 2000 to 2004, 'valid' provisionals more than doubled, while the polling place count dropped by 20 percent. Are we seeing swarms of migratory voters successfully using fake IDs?

This is too much like Milwaukee.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 25, 2005 04:39 PM
20. Insufficiently Sensitive: re: "swarms of migratory voters..."

Don't forget that in Ukraine's first election last year, there were verified reports of people in buses or vans going from polling place to polling place and voting. Apparently, this is a well-known tactic in some circles.

Posted by: Mac on April 25, 2005 05:35 PM
21. and the dems are big fans of mass transit...

can it be mere coincidence or is there some dark secret????


Enq minds want to know.

Posted by: scott158 on April 25, 2005 09:52 PM
22. "What explains the meltdown at the polls?"

Well...First of all.....
It wasn't just a meltdown at the polls! The so-called meltdown evidently occurred in just about every aspect of the November election.
So far - discoveries and admissions of error have shown chaos in the ballot accounting - for every type of voting ballot (ie; poll, absentee, provisional)...and...
Chaos in the printing, mailing, receiving and counting of absentee ballots
Chaos in the distribution, logging, returning, processing, counting of provisional ballots.
Chaos in the maintenance of poll books,logging, data, audits..
Chaos in ballot security, blank ballots, provisional ballots, absentee ballots, ballots left in machines...blank ballots sent home with Democrat poll inspectors with no accounting of those ballots..
Chaos in voter eligibility - felons voted, non-citizens voted, non-residents voted....dead people voted..
Chaos in the vote counts, additonal ballots found in unusual places with each count and recount....
Chaos in signature verification on voter registration and absentee ballots that didn't match.

It just goes on and on and on...
This much chaos had to be controlled. The very fact that there were this many diverse problems in the election.. says to me - it was not random.
If there were a few mistakes - perhaps snowballing from one area - I could believe they were initiated from a random problem. But this many errors - made primarily by a certain party (Democrats)- just does not allow for a random theory! Unless the snowball was directed from the very top...but then it would have been controlled...which removes the randomness...

I know we have a poster here who explains this theory so much better than I do!

Using the bank as an example (snicker) of this kind of chaos..
It would be like - allowing people to cash checks without ID,and making those checks on a printer for them to cash, and allowing tellers to take their cash in the till home for the weekend - with no idea how much money they had, and allowing the management to simply initial the boxes of money that were brought back in the following Monday by the tellers - without counting, and noticing that some cash was actually left in the tills over the weekend instead of going home or being locked up and no one has a way to know how much money - or actual cash on hand that branch has at the end of the day - so the supervisor plays with some numbers on the night cash report and initials it when he has it looking balanced - but he really has no idea what the final cash totals are...

Posted by: Deborah on April 26, 2005 12:35 AM
23. Meltdown? Simple. Protective lead surrounding legitimate votes and voters' identities was removed to make flak jackets for King County elections soldiers.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 26, 2005 03:03 AM
24. Right, on, Deborah! I just hope Judge Bridges sees it that way.

Posted by: Saltherring on April 26, 2005 06:14 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?