The following photographs illustrate the rules the King County Canvassing Board uses to determine "voter intent" on the ballots that it examines.
| Last Thursday's rule: when a voter fills in both ovals, X's them both out and creates a new filled oval next to the NO, it is a NO vote |  |
| Yesterday's rule: when a voter fills in both ovals, X's them both out and creates a new filled oval next to the NO, it is an overvote. |  |
| New rule tomorrow | |
The fickle finger of fate in the bottom photo belongs to King County Councilman Dow Constantine. (Happy Birthday, Dow!).
More illustrations of "voter intent", here
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 16, 2005 11:42 AM | Email ThisIf the voter muffs it...don't count it. From my experience at polling places, workers are more than willing to exchange a muffed ballot for a new one, there is no need for this manipulation of votes by the canvasing board.
Posted by: dl on November 16, 2005 12:01 PMKeep it objective, not subjective: if the machine can't read it, IT IS NOT A VOTE!!!
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on November 16, 2005 12:10 PMany confusion on 912 was a "no" vote.
any confusion on a Sims/Irons vote is obviously intended for Sims.
just like in the governor's race a vote for Rossi was either intended to be a gregoire vote or intended to be not counted or lost.
Posted by: Andy on November 16, 2005 12:11 PMWhen you have people who are willing to work outside the defined rules AND LAWS, inventing rules on the fly, what do you get but inconsistent processes, the insertion of personal preference, and with it, bias and corruption of the result.
Way to go Dean Logan!!!
Posted by: Mike on November 16, 2005 12:25 PMOr am I just being cynical ? Posted by: Alasdair on November 16, 2005 12:38 PM
In last week's Tacoma News Tribune, there was a graphic representation of the state showing those counties that went voted for and against 912. As may have guessed, nearly all the counties that voted for 912 were not in the grouping of where we would expect to find big givernment, big unions, big business and big law firms.
I-912 was defeated by greedy special interest groups, and our state government was the biggest special interest group involved. Throw in big law firms, and 912 didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Posted by: Libertarian on November 16, 2005 01:13 PM
Fraud is generally considered to be an action that is either intended to deceive or otherwise gain advantage using some sort of deliberate means. I don't see anything here that conclusively evidences either of the above. Posted by: Dr. E on November 16, 2005 02:03 PM
That's a bit of a cynical evaluation, don't you think? There is virtually no basis for comparing a relatively free and open democracy (as most here would probably argue the US is) with a closed dictatorship like the Soviet Union under Stalin. Even considering voting irregularities that occur in the best of circumstances (voter error, inaccuracies in counting/machine error, etc.), trying to equate American elections with the shan elections held under many a Soviet administration is, in my view, a red herring at best.
Posted by: Dr. E on November 16, 2005 03:13 PMI encourage you to listen to the hours of canvassing board tapes from the 2004 recount to understand the frame work for the obvious conclusion those "Photographs" illustrate.
Posted by: Jim L on November 16, 2005 03:57 PM
Actually, it would be far more logical to listen to canvassing board tapes from this session, don't you think?
Posted by: Dr. E on November 16, 2005 04:18 PM1) deliberate manipulation of voting;
or
2) many Democratic voters can't figure out how to work a ballot.
Of course, were I a vote counter, I'd plead the 2nd example as being the case.
Posted by: pseudotsuga on November 16, 2005 05:04 PM
One would think the Canvassing board would have the courage to adopt a solid set of rules which outline the thirty or so variations of an over vote, under vote or no vote and stick to them.
I don't care if the Magna Carta is written or a plaster cast of Sasquatch's foot is attached to the ballot so long as they are counted the same way the next time a similar occurance happens.
This rock, paper, scissors approach by Mr. Logan and company has really got to end.
Posted by: Reporterward on November 16, 2005 05:40 PM
Yes, but well earned.
Diebold.
Posted by: Organization Man on November 16, 2005 08:18 PMTHIS STUFF IS A NO BRAINER FOR BUILDING READERSHIP!!!!!!
Posted by: Joe on November 16, 2005 09:16 PMO.K. I'm O.K. wityh election tampering. But when the winds blow from one dirrection, there is a reason for that. Of course it could be 'random,' but in this State, all evidence points to a certain Party putting in place a system by which those with a proclivity to cast extra-legal ballots and then encourages those with such..... and then puts people in place and then champions lax standards.... and circumvents controls.... there is at the very minimum an appearence of an effort ot foster a climate that allows election rigging which is fraud. Enough said!!! Posted by: JDH on November 16, 2005 09:37 PM
Section 5 would seem to cover those cases where the voter, instead of filling in ovals, chose to circle their selection or underline the name, etc. but did so consistently for each ballot item. Section 2 seems to specifically cover just those cases where a voter decided to make a correction, and seems to be very specific about how corrections are to be made; either follow the instructions for correcting a vote, or provide written instructions on how the ballot should be interpreted.
By my reading of the WAC, the examples that Stefan has provided do not appear to meet the requirements of section 2 of the WAC, unless the voter provided written instructions for interpreting their markings. In addition, the language of section 5 should not apply unless the entire ballot was marked the same way, with all ovals filled in and then X'd out, plus an extra mark by one of the possible selections. Therefore neither of these vote should have been counted (divined?) unless one of the caveats above applied.
It's clear what the "INTENT" was- for Govt to make sure that 912 was defeated!!!! Regardless of voter intent!
Posted by: scotto51 on November 17, 2005 10:04 AMIf their are standards for determining a vote and the canvassing board ammends those standards during a count then yes there could be a charge of Fraud. The reason why it CAN be considered fraud is that, it would call into question cherry picking votes.
"Boy it sure seems like they meant to vote against I-912, well let me help them out here!"
It seems to me that a voter that does not follow the strict rules of voting, does not care whether their vote is counted therefore we should not go into the game of mind reading.
If you have a mail-in ballot, you have plenty of time (unless you are overseas military) to figure out what hole needs to be punched or what circle needs to be filled in. If you make a mistake on the ballot then it is upon the voter to contact the county elections department and find out how to get a new ballot.
If you are at the polls and make a mistake, it is upon the voter to request a new ballot from the polling officials. This
Again, it is upon the voter to make their intentions clear by following the rules. We should never consider intentions only strict votes that meet the legal critera of a vote.
Posted by: Capt Skeezix on November 23, 2005 11:46 AMI noticed by state law each county canvassing board has a manual. Does a party observer have a right to a copy of that manual in order to familiarize oneself with the proper procedures?
Is there anyone giving we observers training in detecting election fraud techniques by county staff? Because that is what my gut instinct tells me would be the most helpful.
I just happened onto the Observer's Guide on the state's election division website tonight. The trainer, nor the auditor mentioned this resource to us. Hopefully the guide will not be as confusing as was my training, but it probably would be wise if I don't hold my breath. Posted by: Emahlah on November 24, 2005 04:26 AM