October 07, 2005
It's in the P-I

Today's P-I editorial -- "Elections: Still finding votes"

When it was reported that King County elections officials had discovered 18 uncounted ballots in the sheriff's race, one wag e-mailed us: "Let me guess; they were all for Christine Gregoire."
Teehee. But seriously, as I noted here earlier, I also found several dozen uncounted ballots from the November 2004 election -- on September 8, 2005. Who knows how many uncounted ballots from last month's primary are still waiting to be found.

The P-I editorial board has been pretty forgiving of King County Elections. Today's editorial is harsher than most, concluding:

Granting that a perfect election may be a technical impossibility, King County has a long way to go before challenging that hypothesis.

Be sure to take the poll: "Do you trust King County elections officials to accurately tally election returns?"

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 07, 2005 11:31 AM | Email This
Comments
1. King County's latest failure to reconcile the numbers of ballots and voters allowed them to "certify" election results without counting the votes on all the ballots. (Who knows, in the absence of an accurate reconciliation, whether they also counted votes on some ballots more than once?)

When, if ever, will the legislature mandate a reconciliation prior to certifying the election results, rather than 30 days after certification?

Posted by: Micajah on October 7, 2005 11:40 AM
2. A snooty lady was asked if she would perform an indecent act for a million dollars. She replied-"For that kind of money- of course."

The man then asked her if should would perform the same act for $1.00.

She sneezed at the prospect. "What do you think I am?"

The gentlemen answered, "We've already established that, now we are simply working out the price."
-------------------
How much can KC get away with before voters burn the elections office to the ground?

Posted by: Andy on October 7, 2005 12:09 PM
3. Here we go again. In an off year election with low voter turnout and the high scrutiny for obvious reasons, 18 misplaced ballots is 18 too many. Will Ron Simms try to tell me they have an accuracy rate that my bank would be proud of? If my bank did I would pull my money out so fast it would make their heads spin. I think the citizens of KC need to demand Simms to fire Dean Logan and than elect his butt out of office. Stand up people and hold them accountable.

Posted by: Dave on October 7, 2005 12:24 PM
4. It's still a very simple equation....
If Don Ron Sims King wins===Logan keeps his job.
If Don Ron Sims King loses==Logan loses his job.
If David Irons wins=========Logan loses his job.
Dean Logan is in charge of counting the ballots.
In a close election, does Logan have a serious conflict??? YUP!
A seperately elected Auditor doesn't have that problem however...they are accountable to the voters not the crooks....err, I mean KingCo Executive!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 7, 2005 12:26 PM
5. From the looks of it over at the PI poll, three quarterss of respondents say "NOPE, I sure don't trust those KCE people to count the votes correctly." They are right not to trust them.

Posted by: Misty on October 7, 2005 01:17 PM
6. Right now the PI poll is running 79% *NO* !

People DO NOT trust King County elections!

Posted by: Deborah on October 7, 2005 02:40 PM
7. Anyone ever notice that if you take the words "ELECTION - RESULTS" and mix the letters around it spells "LIES - LETS RECOUNT"?

It just screams King County doesn't it?

Posted by: Jay on October 7, 2005 04:29 PM
8. King County elections CAN be trusted, in a state wide election, if they (KC) are required to certify before the rest of the counties in the state. That way, KC will not have knowledge of the spread and how many votes they must gin up in order to tip the election to their democratic candidate.

As far as local elections are concerned, forget it, I'd rather trust a hornet!

Posted by: Fed Up on October 7, 2005 07:24 PM
9. I think maybe the question in the poll should be how many peole are happy with the fact that KC elections are a sham.
It seems futile to vote in this county, but I will.
The results may be significant either way because people will not stay with a county that obviously does not have any desire to be represenative of all its residents. Not when the county is also so very happy to put a huge burden on select residents in order to cash in for their own advantage. As in CAO, down zoning, tent city etc.

Posted by: cindy on October 7, 2005 07:50 PM
10. Dump Don Ron Sims King in November ! Elect David Irons !

Don't believe for a minute this garbage about a budget surplus, because as soon as they find it - his administration will spend it - there's many things, like Sound Transit Light Rail, the CAO, housing for the homeless and other scum sucking programs that suck the life energy out of the people !

Posted by: KS on October 7, 2005 10:56 PM
11. actually, i took this opportunity (in the spirit of KC voting) to vote TWICE on the PI poll. Tee hee!

The funny part isn't the number of people who voted no, the funny part is the number of people who voted at all. The PI is repudly becoming irrelevant at all.

Posted by: dano on October 8, 2005 11:14 AM
12. King County should be forced to publish their target accuracy rating for elections. That's the start of of giving them some real accountability.

Afterall, all measurement tools have an accuracy rating. Eg, "this scale is accurate to .1%", "this ruler is accurate to 1 mm". Elections are just another measurement.

Sounds like KC is very happy with .2% error rate. So publish it. Admit it.
And then when we have another election decided by a .001% delta - don't bother with a recount. Just flip a coin. It will be just as accurate, but much cheaper for the tax payers.

Posted by: Mike S. on October 8, 2005 12:00 PM
13. Fed Up has a very good point. Require King County to certify before any one else. Maybe, just maybe, the rest of the state might trust the outcome.

And definately no more vote-by-mail. I've seen first hand this last primary just how messed up that is.

Posted by: cc on October 8, 2005 12:38 PM
14. The only way we will ever trust King County's output is to require them to certify first - but never last. Do you think Sam Reed would ever do that ? Hell no - because he's a PC WUSS

Posted by: KS on October 8, 2005 07:38 PM
15. Not idle words.
The "culture" of the KC Elections Administration has not improved; to the contrary. Beware.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on October 10, 2005 12:10 AM
16. How insane. Still screwing up elections. Dufuses (dufi?) still in their jobs. This is like the guy who repeatedly leaves keys in car running at the ATM and then keeps wondering why his cars are stolen over and over again. Can it get any sillier? Yes--just watch the sleepy voting populace at the next election!

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on October 10, 2005 05:59 AM
17. Good point Jimmie!!

Posted by: Laurie on October 10, 2005 08:49 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?