Today's headline in the Seattle Post-"Intelligence"r about the astonishing admissions of official errors, rule violations and outright fraud in King County Elections: "Pierce had vote foul-up, too".
Why is it that every time the P-I writes a story about King County Elections, it omits the most damaging revelations, minimizes the impact of the wrongdoing and changes the subject by pointing out the lesser errors in other counties? The P-I is almost as eager to expose King County corruption as is that blog with the veterinary proctology fetish.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 23, 2005 10:33 AM | Email ThisWhen will you realize that there is no case and this is just a great, big YAWN and a waste of everyone's time and money?
Posted by: Nelson on April 23, 2005 11:02 AMRight On, and others have commented with similar sentiments in the last few posts about the election.
The bottom line is that the Democrats are in a tough position. If they admit that there were flaws with the execution and accounting of the election, then they have to start acknowledging that maybe the Governor that we have is not what the voters intended. And, they have to start discussing meaningful independent investigation of what happened and meaningful reform for the future.
It's much easier for them to just deny and ignore everything. Hence ridiculous comments from Nelson that are so obviously untrue, and the Horses Ass pretending that nothing new regarding the election has come out in the past few days.
This is all part of the liberal psychology and it's also what makes them believe that Marxism, socialism, etc. are desireable even though they've been proven over and over again as failed ideas that are incompatible with human nature.
To quote a great lyricist, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 23, 2005 11:50 AMHe usually says something along the lines of "nearly" or "almost"--implying that fewer than 660 were unlawfully put into the machines.
This time, he wrote: "...close to 660 provisional ballots were tabulated without undergoing the required verification."
Logan's own worksheet, which he released on March 11, showed 664 were identified as having been unlawfully inserted into the ballot boxes.
If Denny Terrace is any indication (and apparently the deposition of Logan shows that it is), that 664 was too low. The reconciliation summary showed only 25, when there were actually 32 at Denny Terrace.
Maybe someone should give Gregory Roberts a personal copy of the deposition and help him find the most recent number that Logan's gang admits.
Then, program his word processor to insert "no less than" in place of his "nearly" or "close to" or "almost" preferred words.
Posted by: Micajah on April 23, 2005 11:57 AMThe fact that there is no story here completely explains why Logan and Sims have been so upfront about no accountability of blank ballots and the hundreds (dare I say thousands) of votes incorrectly accounted.
Absolutely no story here.
Actually, to me, the biggest story is how the WashReps were so asleep at the wheel while all this was happening. As I said before, this is a great website and will serve as a reminder what happens when Republicans are stupid.
dB
Posted by: dB on April 23, 2005 12:03 PM--> I assume that's a rhetorical question!
Posted by: Baynative on April 23, 2005 12:16 PMAll that was in these - were cheerful stories of Democrat watered down election reform bills.....Ugh!
NOTHING About the deposition findings reported yesterday!!
Umm...Hello? MSM? This is actual *NEWS* here.....
This news greatly effects the people of the state of Washington! Are you all having a roundtable meeting right now - trying to figure out how to spin it before you print it? Don't bother....just report the facts....
Have you forgotten how to report the facts?
I'm starting to believe that our 3 main newspapers are indeed connected in some way. They seem to coordinate their local news reports.. If they wish a story to be overlooked - they give it to the PI to print with a liberal spin...If they want the story to have impact - the Times will run it on their front page or a large story in their Local News section...The KC Journal is just bi-polar....and runs the story scraps as they feel on a particular day...
Here's a hint...We don't need our local news to first come over the AP wire to write about it! Local Journalists..what a concept!
Posted by: Deborah on April 23, 2005 12:35 PMMight I recommend some lessons from collusion theory to fine-tune your hypothesis? Some bright economists (including Seattle native and Nobel Prize laureate George Stigler) have looked at this in a different context, and I think there's a parallel.
Suppose you're the WSDOT (OK, take a shot of vodka and remember, it's just a hypothetical). And suppose you're going to build a new road (I mentioned this was hypothetical, right?) And there are only three contractors in the area who could do the job. All three bids come in significantly higher than you thought, based on their known expenses and required profit margin. Did Asphalt 'R' Us call Roadworld and did they strike a secret deal? Did Roadworld call Anderson's Gravel Hauling & Windshield Repair? Was there collusion? Could it be proven in court?
Basically, everyone knows the numbers involved; there is absolutely no need to collude *explicitly*. Whoever doesn't get this project will likely get the next one; there's just not enough competition with only three firms and no acceptable substitute goods for the free market to work really efficiently in this case.
The same is true of these Old Media birdcage liners... or so they think. Their monopoly is over, but they haven't fully adjusted to that yet.
Posted by: TB on April 23, 2005 01:36 PMGreat job!
I have a question that's been troubling me.
When Her Fullness is removed from office, shouldn't anything she's signed or decided on be 'unofficial' and require reconsideration by Governor Rossi?
How could those agreements be valid if she wasn't?
Keep up the great job! Eastern Washington can't wait for a re-vote!
Don in Yakima
Posted by: Don in Yakima on April 23, 2005 01:49 PMIt's roughly the same as when the gov leaves the state and the lt. gov is pro tem. That's why the gov doesn't want to leave the state when there's an important vote coming up and the lt. gov is from the other party.
Posted by: scott158 on April 23, 2005 01:56 PMAnother interesting question to ponder is with all these tax increases (that she promised weren't coming) if a new election is ordered do the Dems make her step aside for a different candidate who could play the "I didn't raise taxes" card?
Posted by: Dave on April 23, 2005 02:01 PMThe P-I reported about the additional problems surfacing in King Co., but sadly reports of problems there are not new. I hadn't seen reported anywhere that Pierce Co., which went for Rossi, had problems with provisional ballots.
Posted by: Brian on April 23, 2005 02:10 PMThe folks of Washington owe people like Stefan, Micajah and others a debt of gratitude beyond comprehension. Thank you.
That said
Db---it still remains clear that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY needs to be held accountable for all the monkey business. Nice try if you are trying to deflect attention away from that...but NO SALE!
Incompetence, cheating and lying=======
Washington Democratic Party
They tried to STEAL this election.
I have refrained from those types of statements in the past. Now it is clear.
The battle has just begun folks. I'm sure just the tip of the iceberg has been uncovered. As we peal back more layers of this HUGE TURD, we will find plenty more illegal registrations, forged ballots, stuffed ballots etc. etc.
WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 23, 2005 02:14 PM---
That's exactly why the current legislation is ramming everything down our throats in record time. Debate...forget it, Common sense...sorry, lost that at the last election, Reasonable law making...what's that...accountability...hey, we own the state...Gregoire will sign anything, if not, her Pomeranian can fake the signature already...
If they would be so sure that everything has been done correctly and the election would stand...why not take some time. But the way they are dealing with the electorate right now is making more and more people upset (ok, no the PI readers...but the rest of the state). So let's make laws as longs we they still can...
And with Rossi new Governor, he has a tough time to undo things...hostile Senate and hostile House...The Dems are currently doing a scorched earth method.
JMHO
Posted by: FG on April 23, 2005 02:27 PMThank goodness.
Posted by: Andy on April 23, 2005 03:36 PMThank you,
HAL
ps, Democrat Ochlocracy is appropriate.
Posted by: Splatter on April 23, 2005 03:42 PMNo, I am not trying to deflect attention.
I am trying to put the focus where it rightly should be. The focus should not be on Rossi or the last election. The focus should be on the steps that need to be taken to make sure this never happens again.
This is only one election, but I suspect that the dems have been cheating so long that they got sloppy. Now, what I would expect from the republican leadership is a plan to make sure that cheating is caught at the time that it takes place.
No more loose ballots ... No more under-trained personel at the polls. I respect the volunteers that work the polls, but be honest, do you really think that they know the system well enough to catch cheaters? No way!
The plan for fair and honest elections needs to be complete soon and implemented within the next few months. Training takes time. System analysis takes time. Now is the time to take care for the next election.
Let the courts take care of the last election. Investigate what was done and then train people to make sure they know the types of things to look for.
Sending someone to jail or over-turning an election does not solve any long term problem. It only makes the other side more careful about not getting caught next time.
dB
Posted by: dB on April 23, 2005 04:37 PM1 Where/when did the judge indicate he would not allow a simple show of illegal votes greater than the difference between candidates to set aside this election as allowed in the RCWs?
2 Where does he state it must be proven the illegal votes went to gregoire?
3 Where does he (or the RCWs for that matter) state that illegal votes counted, not being from "misconduct of the candidates and not knowing the intent of the voter" be allowed to be counted as legitimate?
Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 23, 2005 04:44 PMShark got their tounges?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 23, 2005 06:04 PM----
I, frankly, think require proof on a per-vote basis would de facto change the law to "Only votes cast by people convicted of vote fraud count as illegal," which would be nuts. A couple of cases of fingerprint-free illegitimate absentee votes fed through the machine would fail the strict interpretation unless there was an (also illegal) videotape of _who_ those ballots were for.
IOW, if the strict interpretation is the way things are going to be, then that removes the last remaining barrier to a free-for-all in the ballot fraud department. He with the most ink wins. With 1000 voterless ballots, it might not be a big issue. But picture a million voterless ballots with exactly the same circumstances. You can't _KNOW_ that all 1 million were cast for party A _or_ B. You won't have anyone stepping forward and saying "Hey, I did it." To _prove_ it you'll need more than testimony of the person behind it even - because proving motivation is difficult.
Posted by: Al on April 23, 2005 06:31 PMObviously Nelson is engaging in satire and hyperbole again. No one could really be that misinformed.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If "there is no case" as N----- claims, why is the Democrat party spending upwards of $2M on a case that isn't anything. If the Dems TRULY believed that why wouldn't they just sit back and do absolutely nothing?
Posted by: Tucker on April 23, 2005 07:01 PMFirst of all, there's a difference between being looney/clueless/liberal and being stupid. There's bound to be a sickening dread that creeps into their thoughts in the wee hours that they can't quite shake, no matter how well they can whistle past the graveyard.
Second, the left is the "somebody must do something" party. Whether genetic or learned, the urge to "do something" is endemic in the very sinew of their collective being. So, since there's perceived threat from being perplexed in their support of the pretender to the throne, they fall back on litigation, which is mother's milk to them. Endless and groundless argumentation are foundational to their definitional characteristics.
Admonitions about not "building your house upon the sand" fall on deaf ears. It is a curse when the foolish think themselves wise.
Which is why we must be supportive of Rossi and others like Irons that will help stand in the gap.
Posted by: scott158 on April 23, 2005 07:31 PMThere is a case all right. The Dems have cheated & lied & tried to cover-up. It will backfire on them unless they can prove "EVERYBODY DOES IT"!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 23, 2005 08:30 PMI thought the same thing during the Monorail Recall campaign when the opposition said things like "if this is really what Seattle wants, why are you afraid of having another election?" The prevailing belief being there could be only a downside. But then when I-83 got trounced (sorry Stefen), one realized there was a huge upside - the opposition was neutered.
I think there should be another election. If they run a decent election this time they have nothing to fear and everything to gain. Why not? No money? No confidence? After that, if Rossi or Gregoire wins, so be it.
4)"King County processed 31,000 provisional ballots in the election. In Pierce County, the total was 11,000."
Is this the correct number? Roberts doesn't say where this number is from.
5) "The Republicans are lodging claims of foul-ups in handling ballots and of illegal votes by disenfranchised felons in hopes that Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges will toss out Gregoire's victory."
Is Roberts creating a straw man here, or is he simplifying the case so that even Evergreen students and Seattle Community college students can understand it?
I thought that there was a bit more to it that just disenfranchised felons...didn't you?
6) "In pretrial rulings, Bridges has said the GOP must show that Gregoire owes her win to illegal votes -- not just that the total of illegal votes exceeded her margin. Citing past court decisions, he also said that if there's no evidence of wrongdoing by the candidates and no way to know for whom a voter cast a ballot, that vote must be considered legitimate."
Is this accurate, or is this merely a repeated (parroted) talking point? If it is accurate, then will Sharkansy's tremendous efforts to actually understand this election and its results come to naught?
And the last one..
7) "So the Republicans are pinning their hopes on an argument that the court should deduct improper votes from the totals of each candidate in proportion to the overall vote each candidate received in the affected precincts. Bridges has not decided if he'll consider that argument."
Straw man? Or is Roberts correct?
And now for something completely different:
A working definition of satire, for the gormless:
Satire = Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Note how effective satire requires an understanding of irony and sarcasm, which both require knowledge of truth rather wishful thinking to be effective. And a caustic wit without any wit indicates a lack-wit.
And now it's time for BBC4 to explode...
scout158,
Let's not forget the left's number one favorite..:
*the party of Victimhood*...
I'm wondering how they will present themselves as the *victim* when all is aired about their fraud?
The left is famous for their victim status....
Some examples:
He didn't mean to kill that woman..but he's had such a hard life.....
I wasn't really stealing that steak...I was just hungry....I lost my job because I failed the company drug test....It's so unfair!
I can see Logan and Sims...."It wasn't OUR fault that there were so many problems with the election...Why, we've been trying to clean it up! If it weren't for partisan bickering - we would have found it eventually....So see? It was the Republicans fault!"
Call her what you will, but you will be calling her long distance from Olympia after the court case.
The trolls are running scared.
Posted by: otto on April 23, 2005 10:18 PMThe statute quite rightly leaves a very heavy burden of proof on the challenger. He must prove that a particular vote was in fact illegal. Then he must prove for whom that vote was cast. Then he must prove the net, as described above. You can't do that. Why do you think your lawyers have put so much time and effort into proportional analysis? Because they know they can't meet the burden of proof required by the statute. If they could, they wouldn't even introduce the issue of proportional analysis and gum up the court record with it. So, like good lawyers everywhere, they are hoping to change the rules. But they are bucking up against a statute, so they know they're screwed.
So mistakes were made. So what. The public scrutiny will result in changes in procedures to reduce the probability of error in the future (you'll never eliminate it)and that's good. But if you think the mere fact of errors will convince even a Republican judge in a Republican county to bounce a sitting governor out of office, well, then you're all of your meds. Believing that we can't tell who won this election isn't enough. YOU have to prove that illegal votes for Gregoire netted against illegal votes for Rossi changed the outcome of the election. Until then, I know who won this election, and she's sitting the governor's office signing much needed legislation, even as I type.
Posted by: docbenton on April 23, 2005 10:36 PMdocbenton,
Wouldn't that just be the pitts if it were true?
Dang!
Now go back and do your homework.....
There will be a test on Monday!
Posted by: Deborah on April 24, 2005 12:00 AMAlso the court hasn’t ruled yet on whether proportionality will be used. If the democrats weren’t concerned the court was going to use it then they wouldn’t be in republican counties trying to find errors to offset the mess in KC.
The bottom line is everyone should be concerned about the problems with the way KC conducted this election. If your not you’re a partisan hack and your opinion has no value.
Dang! I guess it is true! Would you like to take the test?
You went to a Seattle Public school didn't you?
You have failed the test! But I'll give you one more chance.
There is one word in that statute that makes all the difference....(Here's a hint)
I'm going to let you sleep on that....since it appears you are not on your game.....
Posted by: Deborah on April 24, 2005 12:33 AMI agree with Deborah. Why would the dumbocraps try to find alternative methods? I think the repub lawyers should mention this to the judge. Must be they are afraid...very afraid...
So lets look at this from another angle. If you first start that the RCWs (too numerable to mention here) were broken BEFORE the election ever took place in NOvember 2004, and then the RCWs that were broken immediately after the election, you see wrongs occurring. Next with Micajah determining that some documents were missing in the 35 page fax that Stefan posted, is another clue. See where I am going Doc? Any judge worth his weight in his black robe will also look at the errors leading up to the challenge posting. If he doesn't, I will be thoroughly disappointed.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 24, 2005 12:41 AMIf all you can say, after three counts, admitted "discrepancies, irregularities, and mistakes" is the BURDEN OF PROOF has not been meet, then we know where you come from. The BURDEN OF PROOF needs to be on the DemocRATs, Queen G, Sims, Logan and the whole KC crew. They need to PROVE TO ME there was not fraud/errors, the outcome wouldn't change and MY ONE VOTE COUNTED. Not one 999th of a vote, ONE FULL VOTE . Prove it to me, PROVE IT TO ME!
Can you?
Yes, I have researched the legal statutes for contesting an election. Even reviewed some specifics at your recommendation. Your opinions still appear to be wishful thinking Doc. All evidence and legal positions appear to favor the contestant including the evidence.
By the way, it's good to have you back. You're far more intelligent in debate than your relatives. You really should use your influence to limit the damage they are doing. They really do make the democrats in general look like idiots.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 24, 2005 02:22 AMAhhhhhhh, whatsup doc? You silly wabbit.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 24, 2005 05:09 AMJudge Bridges would not have allowed the case to proceed if there were no way for the Republicans to prove their case. And Judge Bridges would not have allowed the case to proceed if their were no remedy that he could apply if the Republicans do prove their case.
So docbenton is not only stating that WE don't know the law - he is also stating that Judge Bridges doesn't know the law.
And, of course, that assertion is absolutely wrong.
Posted by: Larry on April 24, 2005 09:05 AMSplatter -- all anybody has to say after three recounts, ultimately won by Gregoire, is PROVE IT IN COURT UNDER THE LAW, Rossi. No one has to prove it to you. Obviously, your vote did count. Without you, Rossi would have lost by 130.
Mr. Cynical. Even you, in your heart of hearts, knows that no one stuffed the ballot boxes here. What might have happened doesn't count, when it didn't happen.
Puddybuddy -- regardless of the errors found in administration or procedure, you still have to meet the burden of proof on the illegal votes. You can't do it. "We can't tell who won" isn't the legal standard. Sorry to inform you, but you are going to be very disappointed. Best prepare yourself now.
My take on this whole situation, isn't the margin of victory, or who got which votes. The fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of votes without voters, and KC elections division stating under oath that they didnt have audits in place to protect the legitimate votes, and let the EXTRA votes be counted.
That is what the judge should consider. Not what the WAC's say. I think this court case will set a new precedent, or it would have been thrown out long ago.
Posted by: Chris on April 24, 2005 10:49 AMMy query would point more in the direction of the motivation of someone who would (repeatedly) come to this site and obdurately express a viewpoint that doesn't work.
Yes, doc, we get your point! you don't think the Republicans have enough evidence to convince a judge to rule in their favor.
To that, I say, "We shall see!"
The fact that you have not added anything to your arguments (or the general discourse) since your first post here begs the question; Why do you persist? Are you slow? Are you mental? Do you just enjoy being wrong?
When we prevail are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue?
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 24, 2005 01:17 PMJust wait until you see the comparison of the deposition statements with prior Logan?Huennekens statements and their ACTIONS compared with their own policies and procedures AND THE LAW!!
When the Republicans prevail in COurt, the LEFTISTS will go absolutely nuts!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 24, 2005 02:59 PMThe problem actually lies with the Democrats - who are running out of ways to keep the election results valid...
If I were keeping score - I'd say the Republicans evidence against the election results have more than nullified the Democrats arguments in favor of the outcome....
The November election's validity has basically unraveled over the past few months....and nothing can put it back together...
Posted by: Deborah on April 24, 2005 04:43 PMThat is so correct, because the courts is the only way outside of WA state, the democrats get anything passed. Not in Congress or the Senate, they just obfuscate.
To Doc Benton. Your argumentative skills are not bad, but there is an argument flaw. We have no idea what the Judge will use as his decision method. But as a previous poster said, if he didn't there was merit, he would have dismissed the case long time ago. This was the dumbo spin first leaked out in January. Now that we are getting close, the left is splitting hairs on what "appears" means.
1. Give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect - "This appears to be a very difficult problem"; "They appeared like people who had not eaten or slept for a long time"
- look , seem
2. Come into sight or view - "He suddenly appeared on the web"; "A new star named Stefan appeared on the horizon"
3. Be issued or published - "Did my latest blog retort appear yet?"
- come out
4. Seem to be true, probable, or apparent
"It appears that existing govenor in Wahsington State is very bad"
- seem
5. Come into being or existence, or appear on the scene
"Someone with the help of Ron Sims, et. al. Christine Gregoire became govenor"
- come along
6. Appear as a character on stage or appear in a play, etc.
"She appeared as govenor on the Olympia stage"
7. Present oneself formally, as before a (judicial) authority
"Dean Logan had to appear in court last month"; "He appeared to correctly answer several charges of theft of an election"
NUFF SAID!!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 24, 2005 10:02 PMI'm rolling!! I was going to do the same thing with that word last night...heh
No...I should say "it *appears* that I am rolling on the floor laughing...." :)
snicker....(that was an *apparent* snicker by the way...)
Posted by: Deborah on April 25, 2005 12:44 AMAs usual . . . wrong, but nice try. You and I both know you know better.
Good effort, but it didn't work.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 25, 2005 01:14 AMCheers.