Sound Politics: Mail Ballot Horror Show (III)

May 15, 2006

Mail Ballot Horror Show (III)

Here's a mail ballot which was counted in 2004, but for which the audit trail shows no record that it was ever returned. The voter was not credited. I found several other ballots like this. These would explain some, but not all, of the infamous discrepancy between votes and voters.

As far as I can tell, these were all valid ballots. The mysteries are why they have no record in the audit trail, and why nobody acted on the mismatch between the online ballot count and the number of ballots. An accounting system that doesn't raise red flags when unidentified ballots are injected into the pool is as worthless as an accounting system that doesn't raise red flags when ballots are overlooked (as happened in 2004 and apparently also in September 2005).

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 15, 2006 08:36 AM | Email This

Comments

1. According to Paddy Crap, "Judge Bridges explicitly stated that the plaintiffs had not introduced any of evidence of fraud. He also stated that they had not produced evidence sufficient to justify his negating the election. He explained the errors made in King County as innocent of criminal intent. He described the plaintffs' logic as a fallacy. He completely and unequivocally rejected every claim that they made. And yet, SoundPolitics and its commenters still pretend that he said something else. Perhaps the Cult of Rossi's Victory should apply to the I.R.S. for status as a religion, since their beliefs have nothing to do with fact." Paddy Mac on April 28, 2006 11:00 PM.

While these are FACTUALLY inaccurate characterizations of Bridges’ ruling, they represent the case in total of those who wish to close the book so everyone can ignore the obvious – the 2004 vote was rife with fraud and criminal malfeasance.

Therefore, according to Paddy Crap’s abridged (no pun intended) reading of Bridges ruling, continuous and unremitting discoveries of evidence of obvious fraud in the 2004 election can't exist unless conjured by cultic faith. The discovery of such evidence can only have resulted from acts of psychic channeling on Sharkansky’s part where the doubters must either engage in "similar occult practices" to refute them or alternatively broadly apply the limited results of Bridges admittedly partial ruling based on restricted facts.

THE FABLED INCANTATIONS OF A MODERN DAY FAITH HEALER UNCOVERED
Local liberal Democrats must dispute the results of Grand Puba Sharkansky’s supernatural performances of counting and summing columns of numbers in King County voters records, or repeat the same old non-sequitur that Bridges said there was no fraud; that’s it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Only a liberal would suggest that it is an act of religious faith to count numbers and report the results.

Paddy Crap: "Nope . . . no fraud here Norm . . . onle a few hundred dead people's votes . . . move on, move on . . . . there's nothing to see here people, just some deliberatly false King County Elections reports . . move on."

Gotta love it.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 15, 2006 10:45 AM

2. These were probably the ballots that unscrupulous county workers were filling out on their lunch breaks and throwing on the pile to be counted.

Dean Logan runs a partisan machine. He's not in the business of managing an election, he's in the business of granting election outcomes.

When in doubt, they counted it, regardless of any authentication.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 15, 2006 10:55 AM

3. The "absentee ballot transactions" record seems to show that she was sent 4 absentee ballots in October 2004: on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 14th. (There's a strange entry on the 2nd, indicating that the date mailed for that ballot was the 14th. How could the "date mailed" be 12 days in the future?)

It also appears that they were all given the same envelope number, 753488 (if that's what the numbers on the envelope and in the far left column of the data mean).

Is that what those entries mean?

If so, that seems really strange -- 4 ballots out, at least one returned, but no record of returning any of them or including any in the vote tabulation.

I guess there's no practical way of finding out what happened to the other three ballots sent out in October 2004.

Also, it looks as though she was not sent any absentee ballot in 2005. Did you edit out entries that would have shown the dates mailed, or has Logan's gang stopped entering that info?

Posted by: Micajah on May 15, 2006 05:49 PM

4. ACK!
Make it stop!

Posted by: Deborah on May 15, 2006 10:46 PM