This ballot was very obviously not signed by the voter to whom it was issued. Nevertheless, it was tabulated and the nominal voter (not the signer) was credited.
Why should any of us worry when thousands of voters receive multiple ballots and when illegal postal endorsements permit ballots to be forwarded all over the place when we have signature verification?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 16, 2005 01:13 AM | Email ThisI will not vote if mail is my only choice. What's the point?
If we boycotted the vote, would that do any good?
Heck, we keep losing anyway! (one way or another...)
Posted by: Elmo on September 16, 2005 01:35 AMDo you have Amy Richardson's envelope?
It appears that Richardson and Long share a residence. It would be interesting to see who's signature is on Richardson's actual envelope.
Begs the question; Did signature verification even take place in 2004 election?
This is clear evidence that it didn't or at least the employee processing this batch did not perform the task. How many other batches were processed by the same employee.
Here is a way to check quality control. During the primary election a performance test should be done. In conjunction with the SOS there should be 100 simulated envelopes returned to King County with matching dummy registrations on file. None of the envelopes would contain real ballots. The signatures wouldn't even be close to matching the issued name on the envelope or the signature of the dummy registration in the computer. Then you see how many of the 100 following the election were credited or rejected.
Before any county in Washington can go to all mail ballot elections they must all pass this test by catching 100% of the bogus signature ballots. That is the only way we can be sure that the loophole for this type of fraud is closed. Not only that but put all the counties on notice after their initial performance test that there will be random checks to make sure they are processing the ballots correctly.
I will be happy to work in the Super Secret Vote Security Office at the SOS. Give me a call Sam, I have plenty more sensible ideas to make sure counties are doing their job. I will even make up neat report cards for every county following each election with grades for different aspects of election security.
Then we can publish them so each office and their auditor can be held accountable!
Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
What an excellent idea. This type of quality control is something that corporate America often uses in an effort to make certain systems are working as designed. You would judge the result by how many of these phoney sig ballots were actually opened....and there would be no harm. Perfect.
Of course as Joe knows, KingCo will never ever do this. They want to masquerade as competent ad infinitum.
Dean Logan probably subscribes to the adage that if we don't prove how incompetent we are...maybe no one will notice?!! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 16, 2005 03:13 AM
Libs always believe they are honest and have integrity it is only the Republicans that are evil and corrupt the system. There by looser controls on Democratic precincts is permissible. We only need to watch those evil Republicans. I know Headless belives this from the way comments are written. Posted by: David Anfinrud on September 16, 2005 07:02 AM
That is a really good idea! Posted by: cc on September 16, 2005 07:37 AM
Stefan...a memory is bouncing around, something about KC elections workers being so busy last November checking signatures, that there was no time to credit voters, reconcile numbers, or to perform other manditory election functions?? No wonder they stalled so long prior to allowing you access to their "transparent" public records. Many thanks, and keep up the good work!
Posted by: dl on September 16, 2005 08:28 AMThe fraud taking place and being enabled by King County officials is shocking.
I have NO faith any longer in State-wide elections.
I have NO faith in the Secretary of State to protect the integrity of the electorial process.
I have No faith in King County elections.
Government derives its powers from the legitimate delegation of power by the people.
Elected official are in for a rude surprise when the people refuse to delegate their powers and take them back. I am not sure how this peaceful revolution will take place, but I for one will work for change and do no longer trust state wide elections where King County can sway the results.
Posted by: Bob on September 16, 2005 09:05 AMIf a bank teller double pays the bank knows it that very day. The inventory rules are the same for ballots and none of these election officers are so obtuse that they don't know how to count ballots printed minus ballots distributed. Sending two ballots to one person would be easy.
Bottom line: with voting by mail there is no way to know who really returned those ballots.
Signature checking is a joke. They don't even identify that the name signed isn't the right name. The checkers are not handwriting analysts, the work is tedious, and workers appear to be on automatic pilot, anyway.
The money would be better spent keeping the voter rolls clean- as required by law-, updating the dead, the address changes and contacting those mystery households that have, say, john jones and john j jones to see if this is a father-son or the same person.
None of this will be done- voting by mail is a farce. An easy way to steal an election from the inside.
The reason is that anyone who wants to commit fraud today can do it by voting absentee. All-mail voting just forces honest people to vote by mail; crooks can do it already.
So if you are worried about vote fraud, don't waste your time fighting all-mail voting. And don't waste your time tightening the ID procedures for in-person voting. Instead, tighten the biggest security hole that exists today, the one that this voter (whether intentionally or not) violated.
But... I don't think signatures are checked 100% of the time on checks or credit card receipts, either. And it must be expensive to check them on ballots, especially if you include the costs of following up on questionable (not obviously wrong) matches. I'm not sure what the right answer is -- I do value the increased participation of honest voters that comes with mail voting.
Posted by: Bruce on September 16, 2005 09:32 AMPosted by: pudge on September 16, 2005 09:35 AM
Dare we hope for better this time around?
Posted by: dl on September 16, 2005 10:52 AMstill sounds like humans eyeball the signatures for verification; don't computers match some scan on, say, 3-5 points of the image? i guess trained and experienced people used to match fingerprints manually long ago, but i'm surprised technology hasn't found this process yet;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 16, 2005 11:07 AMTed - You are correct as long as Amy did not also vote the ballot mailed to her.
Posted by: Regret on September 16, 2005 11:32 AMI guess it all boils down what your definition of "is" is. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 16, 2005 02:04 PM
If Ron Sims had any management sense (and any sense of honesty) he would have invested in technology that could scan signatures on a 5 point basis for matches. He would have invested in an election software program that could integrate all ballot transactions instantly so there could be a constant updated total of absentee ballots sent, received, verified and processed. Along with poll ballot verification, tabulation after a crosscheck with the voter database. etc....
The county could have saved millions of dollars.... and their reputation..
Posted by: Deborah on September 16, 2005 05:03 PMI should be shocked. I want to be shocked. But for some unexplainable reason, I feel no shock. You could prove Elvis, Tupac and Jimmy Hoffa were are still alive, living together in a Fremont apartment, and all voted six times, and still, I would feel no shock.
That is what KC Rec. and Elections has done to me.
Posted by: T.J. on September 16, 2005 05:13 PMYou know and I know that Sims & the current crop of Democrats of the County Council say count every vote because their belief is every illegal vote is potentially a vote for them. This isn't America - it's more like Cuba or Stalingrad, thanks these leaders from Hell...
Posted by: KS on September 16, 2005 07:59 PMThe database says that Amy is NOT credited with voting.
Just guessing, I would say that she lost her absentee ballot and returned the one she did have. Her actions might be excuseable.
KCE's are not.
Posted by: Dishman on September 16, 2005 11:15 PMAnother "shining example" of Reed's expertise in the elections process!
He has been pumping the "all absentee balloting" as productive, efficient and necessary.
I guess he forgot to tell us that it would be a magnet for voter fraud.
How in the world did I ever vote for that guy?
Posted by: jaybo on September 17, 2005 08:07 AMI too will not ever vote for him again !
Posted by: KS on September 17, 2005 10:51 AMWe can win this one. David Irons and I WILL turn this around and make our Elections department one of the best in the country. No matter what it takes, up to and including starting from scratch if that is what is needed, we will get that job done, you have my word on that. We will have the votes to make it happen at the council level, and David is as committed as I am to cleaning up this cesspool.