From Dean Logan's deposition, p. 224 - 225:
Q: Have you ever said that state-wide, you know, I think that perhaps we'll never know the answer to that because of it being as close as it is?Logan then goes on to defend his performance in the recounts. But if the system was only designed for mandates and not for razor-thin margins, then why would the system include recounts, which are only useful for correcting errors in a razor-thin margin?THE WITNESS: I believe that's at least close to direct quote to my response to that question being asked on the television program, yes.
Q (By Mr. Maguire) Do you believe that today to be true?
THE WITNESS: I believe in the context of that -- that I can only speak from what I observed and administered here in King County, and also from a belief that the election system by its design was not designed to contemplate razor thin election results. It is contemplated based on mandates.
Of course the system is designed to contemplate razor-thin margins. I think what Dean Logan means is that the King County Elections office is so half-assed that it can only report a legitimate result in the case of a mandate but not when the vote is at all close.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 04, 2005 02:03 PM | Email ThisIts depressing. I think I'll go bowling.
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 4, 2005 02:27 PMFicudiary duties by Logan, NOT.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 4, 2005 02:29 PMHowever, the whole concept of recounting was a red herring for the part of the system that is broken; the accounting and canvassing of ballots. If you don't have an accurate universe of ballots to begin with, you can count them as many times as you want but they will never give an accurate result.
The real problems with this election were in the canvassing of ballots and the poor accounting for the canvassing which KCREALS either failed to detect, or specifically neglected when confronted with obvious errors.
It's also a red herring for King County to be impressed with a margin of error with respect to the outcome in King County. If in the hypothetical, the true margin of victory is less than the number of errors in any county or in all counties combined, it is impossible to know the outcome of the election. King County's accounting errors are not righted by the errors of other counties'.
Our law is poorly written, and the Democrats want us to accept the results within our poorly written law because they stand to benefit.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 4, 2005 02:45 PMReal election reform requires a choice: either the system should be designed to contemplate a razor-thin margin, in which case the regulations and processes must be strict and intelligently designed to assure that all votes counted are legitimate, or the system should be designed NOT to contemplate a razor thin margin, in which case "winning" by a razor-thin margin could not be allowed - any winning margin less than the margin of error would have to trigger a run-off election between the top two candidates.
That's what the ruling democrats would do they cared to determine who "the people" really voted for. If they don't care, or if they want to assure the future ability to manipulate results, then they would leave things as they are, or pass half-baked reforms that stop short of publically making and expressing the above choice.
Posted by: srogers on May 4, 2005 02:52 PMBesides, it was the most accurate election ever in the whole universe. Right?
Posted by: Michele on May 4, 2005 02:59 PMBut it's good you losers keep focused on what happened last year, it keeps you from trying to push through your nutty right-wing ideas like corporate giveaways, more tax breaks for the rich, or jailing rape victims because they need an abortion.
Posted by: name on May 4, 2005 03:06 PMto a Dem, "recount" means add to the pile, and count again at same time. Unauditable.!
Posted by: righton on May 4, 2005 03:17 PMThus the ballots with missing sigs were recanvassed and added in, but the unverified provisional mistakes were ignored.
The problem with counting a "mandate" instead of actual ballots as the law requires is that it becomes a question of whose mandate is being counted. Clearly in KC, the mandate being counted was that of the democrats in charge of the election.
An election is supposed to count actual ballots of legitimate voters, which translates to a mandate of the people. That's what citizens expect, a process to register legitimate voters only, and count legitimate votes. KC doesn't seem to even understand the goal, much less how to attain it.(or maybe they have a different goal?)
Posted by: Margaret on May 4, 2005 03:42 PMHow should I know the horse is dead - because YOU say so? Sorry, the horse is very much alive and kicking in Judge Bridge's court.
Now, do YOU have anything intelligent to say? I have argued in this space for well regulated abortion rights (for I believe that if others do not believe the same way I do, I should try to pursuade them, not lobby for laws to force them to think my way, which is the modus operandi for socia1ist democrats), and I have argued for tax cuts for EVERYBODY (but the rich pay more, so an equal tax cut results in greater savings for them). I have no idea what you really mean or even whether you know what you mean with the democrat code word "corporate giveaway." Try using your own language and ideas rather than repeating your puppeteer's language and ideas, and then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Posted by: srogers on May 4, 2005 04:00 PMThe ballots that had been improperly set aside could be (and were) individually examined just as they should have been in the first place. As with most absentee ballots, the majority were valid, a decent chunk were invalid, and the valid ballots were counted.
There was *nothing* that could have been done with the provisionals after the errors regarding them were discovered. Nothing. You can't pull those ballots out -- they're intermingled with all the others. This is the same in *every* county in the state that had improperly accepted provisionals. Did any of the *other* counties go back and fix *their* provisionals? No, they haven't -- because it's impossible.
To suggest that fixing something that CAN be fixed while failing to fix something that CANNOT be fixed amounts to ignoring "evidence that could favor the republican" is absurd. It's just fixing what can (and should) be fixed, while not fixing something that's *impossible* to fix the moment that an improper provisional ballot enters the machine.
I would lay a bet, though it could never be proven, that if Rossi had come out ahead on the third recount, there would have been a forth count and there would have been more votes found. If the forth didn't do it, then a fifth and a sixth... whatever it takes to steal, I mean win an election. Anybody out there have any faith in King County? Anybody doubt any of the previous elections, especially the close ones???? I'm full of doubt right now. Something smells awefully fishy and we're not at the Pike Place Market.
Posted by: Tom on May 4, 2005 04:48 PMThere were many absentees that were properly set aside because there was not sufficient information on file to know whether they were valid. Only after King County realized it needed more votes for Gregoire were those votes entered back into the process, the voters contacted, and the relevant information gathered - if and only if they were Democrats, of course. This amounted to a recanvass, and not a recount. The rules were changed in the middle of the process. This is unfair and a violation of equal protection laws.
And there was something that could have been done about the unverified provisionals in the ballot boxes - their existence could have been reported to the canvassing board and to the public. When Huennekens and Logan conspired to keep them secret, they cooked their own goose.
Are you Huh? - Huh? likes asterisks too.
Posted by: Larry on May 4, 2005 05:00 PMIf you've got evidence that poll workers intentionally set aside Republican absentee ballots, bring it forward. That would be an outrage and would, even in relatively small quantities (say 129 or so) be an obvious ground for overturning the election. Funny, but the only place I've ever heard that is from you. Strange, since it would require some doing to get that done -- and I would hope that there are protections built into the system so that it can't happen (for example, poll workers examining absentee ballots see the recorded signature of the voter on their screens, but do not have any access to information regarding party affiliation).
I think you've got it wrong on how the ballots were re-processed too. The way it was fixed wasn't that the voters were contacted -- they already had signatures on file, which had not been examined due to a computer glitch. They just re-examined the ballots, this time with the proper signature comparison files to look at.
And I certainly don't recall Rossi or the Republicans ever saying what you're saying about how the absentee ballots were somehow cherry-picked to benefit Gregoire. If you've got evidence, bring it forward. Especially since it would take a massive conspiracy to set it up as a fraud -- you'd have to have had Phillips involved, computer people with the county, poll workers, etc. Again, unless you're secretly omniscient, I think if you're going to make charges like that you've got to come up with evidence.
Nice idea for an "equal protection violation" you've got there. So if my vote isn't properly counted, and that's discovered before certification of an election, which of the following sounds like more of an equal protection violation?
1. My vote is counted because the signature matches what's on file (it's a valid ballot, and wasn't counted earlier because of a mistake)
2. My vote is not counted -- it's ignored, despite the fact that it's a valid ballot -- because fixing a mistake that denies people their vote is somehow wrong
Well, we know what the Washington Supreme Court thought of the Republicans' arguments on the improperly-processed absentee ballots. After a week before having ruled 9-0 for Rossi in the other case, they ruled 9-0 against him on that one. Yeah, a really partisan group that Supreme Court -- they were conspiring with King County to give the election to Gregoire all along, weren't they? Yeah, Sanders in particular is a real Gregoire fan. Ha ha.
Posted by: Bluebeard on May 4, 2005 05:31 PMI never implied that "poll workers intentionally set aside Republican absentee ballots". I'm not sure where you got that idea.
King County had a number of absentees that could not be compared because there were no signatures on file. KC tried to contact these voters multiple times and was unsuccessful. Those ballots were rightfully set aside and not counted. KC had done its due diligence.
When KC needed more votes for Gregoire, they entered ALL of these ballots back into the process. They didn't have to screen them according to whom the votes were for, because KC traditionally votes 60-40 Democrat. By entering all the ballots back into the process, they were guaranteeing more votes for Gregoire. This is why it was a recanvass, not a recount. They changed the rules that they had established earlier in order to benefit Gregoire. Easy cheesy.
But don't trust me, it'll all come out in court.
Posted by: Larry on May 4, 2005 05:43 PMYou're confusing things. There were attempts by Democrats (and Republicans) to contact folks whose absentee ballots had been rejected on the basis of a signature mismatch, so that those folks could come in and provide affidavits showing that their ballots were valid. Although a lot of Republicans are upset because the Democrats got a better jump on that process than they did and may have gotten more absentee ballots approved that way, I've never heard anyone say that it was illegal for political parties to do that to maximize their votes.
But that's separate from the ballots that the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that KC could re-examine. These were ballots where the signature had not been properly checked -- when the poll workers looked at the ballots, the system said that there was no signature on file, and they didn't check further as they should have (or there was a computer glitch, I can't remember which). As I recall, that error was corrected by having the poll workers go back and compare the signatures on the ballot envelopes with the proper signatures that were already on file. Nothing to do with voters coming in to present affidavits on their ballots' legitimacy.
Larry,
You're dead wrong.
"In a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that 735 disputed ballots in King County may be reviewed by the county canvassing board and counted if they're valid."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/204969_governor23.html
But because the ballots could only be counted "if they're valid" based on the normal review that had never happened, only 566 were actually counted.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/205149_governor24.html
So, Larry, that's my evidence. What's yours?
Oh and by the way, I got the idea that you were saying that poll workers had intentionally avoided Republican ballots from this: "Only after King County realized it needed more votes for Gregoire were those votes entered back into the process, the voters contacted, and the relevant information gathered - if and only if they were Democrats, of course."
But that's not how it happened with the improperly processed absentee ballots, is it? No, it isn't.
Posted by: Bluebeard on May 4, 2005 06:12 PMMy last statement was 'But don't trust me, it'll all come out in court.' How much of your valuable life did you just waste in order to prove that you don't trust me?
We're not going to change each other's mind. The funny thing is that you're still trying.
Posted by: Larry on May 4, 2005 07:48 PMon what day did they stop finding ballots and seal the box and then count, recount? I think they are still finding ballots, so the answer is "not yet"
Posted by: righton on May 4, 2005 09:20 PMThis is in violation of current State Laws concerning privacy of voters. One of the "fixes" in the new and improved voter laws just passed is to not allow this. But obviously all it takes is a judge to say "do it any way".
From the same article: '"We are calling the folks whose ballots were rejected and then we're going to their homes trying to help them to get their votes to count:, Berendt said."
Ryan Bianchi, communications assistant for the Gregoire Campaign, said the canvassers knock on doors and ask if the person is a Gregoire voter. "If they say no, we just tell them to have a nice day", he said. If they say yes, then they continue with the process.'
Granted, these are not public employees, but it flys in the face of the intent of the ruling (to get ALL unverified provisional ballots a chance to be counted) as well as the Gregoire Campaign mantra: "We must count every vote!" The quote is from Ms Gregoire herself, that I saw many times on TV.
Posted by: Robert-in-Tacoma on May 4, 2005 09:27 PMCall US Atty. John McKay at 206-553-7970 and demand a Federal investigation if you haven't done so already. That is what really needs to occur to clean up this stench once and for all.
The perpetrators of the stench must also be thrown out of office - by the voters.
Do enough voters really care or are they content with the mediocrity they keep electing ? (sad commentary). Discover U should offer a course on politics 101 aka politics for dummies and market it well so that the sheeple that elect these shills into office come in droves...
Posted by: KS on May 4, 2005 10:36 PM