May 26, 2005
Real journalists dropped the ball
This morning's reports by both Greg Roberts of the P-I and David Postman of the Times missed what is, in my opinion, the single most important bit of new information that has come out in the trial.
I'm referring to Nicole Way's response to one of Judge Bridges' questions about the Mail Ballot Report. I mentioned this in a post yesterday, but I'm repeating it because it is significant for a number of reasons:
Bridges: Had you prepared mail ballot reports before this general election last fall?
Bridges: Did you use the same method to do that?
Way: Before we had a report that said how many ballots had been issued and how many voters had been credited with voting and then we compared that to how many ballots we tabulated and the handcount of the ballots that we did not count and we had a daily count of how many ballots we received. So we compared it with a number of different reports that we had reports that we verified our numbers against.
The reasons this is so important are:
1) It demolishes the Democrats' spin that Way
"did not know for certain that the number in the report was inaccurate until March"
Of course she did not know for certain
that it was an inaccurate number, but only because she had no idea what the number should have been. What is important here is that she knew she was not using the only valid method for reconciliation -- using an independent count of the number of ballots received. Her response to the judge proved that she knew what the proper method was and that it was an achievable method and that she knew she was not using a valid method.
2) It undermines Dean Logan's claims that the number of absentee ballots received was always misreported.
3) It indicates that Judge Bridges is keenly interested in the details of the case and is aware of the significance of the falsified Mail Ballot Report.
I suspect that Judge Bridges will mention the Mail Ballot Report in his ruling and how election officials, at the very least, knew they were remiss by failing to uphold laws and established procedures for ensuring the integrity of the election.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 26, 2005
12:22 PM | Email This
"Nothing to see here keep walking" - Times & PI
All falling down like a burning house of cards, it'll be funny watching Goldy's face when the tyrant is de-throned.
I think one other point that is valid is the fact that KC implemented new computer software before the election. It appears from the testimony and facts that this system was not fully validated. I work in the software development business. It is unfathomable to me that one would implement a new system and not fully test it prior to an important election. I don't care how good a new version of software is, unless test cases have been run through the system and the system fully tested and validated, the old software should have been used. Someone should request through the FOIA (or the state/county equivalent) information on KC's softare validation process. Who signed off on the system? Did they properly test the system? If they did, then Way's testimony is inaccurrate. If they didn't, then there are potentially a lot more problems than just the specific absentee ballot report.
3. Statistics, sufficiently tortured, will confess to anything.
They missed this because as I have said time and again, Democrats are masters of evasion. They don't want to acknowledge the problems with their philosophy, so they convenietly evade any reality that does not suit them.
But reality does not go away. Way knew she was doing something different, and she knew the implications of what she was doing. This is why we have a justice system.
5. There was a time, back before every thing was 'relative' and concepts such as 'situational ethics' that, generally speaking, reporters reported. Today that is not the case, in fact not only do not read the national news magazines I have cancelled the subscriptions that I maintained for years to car & Driver, Field & Stream, Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times etc due to the fact that they had become nothing but mouthpieces for companies that bought advertising from the magazine. One could not trust a word they said, nor could you purchase a product based upon their ‘evaluation.’ Growing up in the 60's I trusted almost all of what I read, and cannot remember ever being ‘dry shaved’ by an author. Today there is NOTHING that I read that I believe until I have seen corroborating evidence.
6. When did the other counties using this system install them? And what were their implementation and testing protocols? It would be interesting to compare.
Great point Stephan. My hubby is a lawyer. Way was following a lawyer's advice with that answer.
Someone needs to make the distinction here between having the wrong number (ie arriving at the number in a wrong, misleading, false way), and having the wrong number (ie amount). Nicole didn't "know" the amount was wrong until March, because she had no positive proof until then. But she new when the report was written that the number on the line labeled "ballots recieved" (or whatever designation they gave it) was wrong when you consider that she knew the formula for figuring out that number should have been Ballots received = ballots counted as they were received in the mail room. Since she didn't have that number, she used a different formula, Ballots received = ballots tabulated + ballots rejected. She hoped that by coincidence the amounts of both numbers would be the same, and she discovered in March they weren't. But she knew all along she had the wrong formula in place, and therefore the wrong number.
"Statistics, sufficiently tortured, will confess to anything."
I'm waiting for a Horsey cartoon on that.
"There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain
"Did you know that 47% of all statistics are false?" -- David Lowery
What a concept!
11. the computer system was tested but some people, specifically nicole way, not and was not forced to take training. all the other dims counties have had the system for a while and have found ways to come up with the correct numbers
What I find interesting is three fold. All this is coming out three weeks before the primary. Second, Mr. Logan now is trying to show the public that he is "cleaning house." Thirdly, where is Sam Reed, the legislature and the rest of the "election reformers" on all of this?
Why aren't the FEDS investigating all of this?
13. I suppose Norm is so busy chasing car thiefs he doesn't have the time for this one????