1. Why is KC the only county in WA that has an appointed offical in charge of elections and not an ELECTED auditor?? Totally ridiculous!

Posted by: Susu on May 15, 2006 09:56 AM

2. pardon my french, but what a douchebag

deanron saying people want consistency in way all counties should have same type of voting, which he claims is mail in.

i think we all in last election DIDNT say it was consistency across the state, but rather accuracy and intergrity in KC>..

Posted by: righton on May 15, 2006 10:08 AM

3. ugh.... just turned on ch. 22. Why is it that Deanron is always studdering like a nervous school girl. not confident in his abilities, I imagine.

Posted by: eRiC on May 15, 2006 10:08 AM

4. Transparent?? After stiffing Stefan's requests for information for months, and essentially forcing the threat of lawsuits before actually handing over public information??

It's easy to see that with the viciously biased Seattle papers providing cover for Elections Department malfeasance, Dean Logan & Co. feel their misdeeds are screened from public notice.

See today's P-I article on blogs, fawning lavishly over numerous lefty models and barely mentioning the rest of the political spectrum. Also excluded from the article are the essential services the non-lefty blogs provide, by furnishing information which the MSM screens out of its 'balanced' news presentations.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on May 15, 2006 10:09 AM

5. deanie now saying they will use computer, automated signature checking...

if signature rejected by computer, human will review.
he thus implied if computer accepts the signature, no human will ever double check...

hmmm... all voters w/ hispanic last name never get double checked?? (pretty easy to program some loopholes into his system)

Posted by: righton on May 15, 2006 10:20 AM

6. Horse hoey....now wants $$ to "propagandize" their work....convince us they are doing a good job..

Nobody funding any audits, spreadhseets, math proficiency....

Posted by: righton on May 15, 2006 10:25 AM

7. Transparent? Let's consider a humorous analogy, and consider elections in King County as "Deanron's" car. We will shift the roles--Deanron is the KC citizen, we are the manager of the window shop.
Deanron calls in as a hapless car owner, wanting to get his cracked window replaced. We, the proud owner of the King County window shop, first deny that there are ANY cracks in the window to begin with. Then, Deanron'll be stonewalled for months while we futz around trying to locate (or shape, or something) the window we think you need. When we locate a window, or part of the window, we'll send it to you grudgingly (late, and with the nudge of a possible lawsuit).
Then, when we install the window, you will realize that it's only 98% transparent, and we will trumpet that our business "fosters the highest level of public trust and confidence." And THEN we decide that we'd rather just mail out windows rather than have you come in and pick one up, since that allows EVERYBODY to get a window.

Does Deanron really believe what he is saying? Who is feeding him this information?

Posted by: pseudotsuga on May 15, 2006 10:28 AM

8. yipes, Jane Hague, what a waste of oxygen...

She did nothing but buy his crap. Trying to paint "adding" some in person vote centers as helping those who somehow like to vote in person.....

We want in person NOT cuz we hate mailboxes, but cuz we hate organized voter fraud that is enhanced by dean's system

Posted by: righton on May 15, 2006 10:48 AM

9. "..will be conducted in a transparent manner that fosters the highest level of public trust and confidence." "...be a model jurisdiction for transparency and accuracy."

Isn't that kind of admitting that currently KCE is NOT being run that way????

Is it too much to ask Dean Logan to run KCE that way NOW, so as to create more confidence from the rest of us in the all-mail balloting their trying to smoosh everyone into??

Posted by: Michele on May 15, 2006 10:54 AM

10. The only thing transparent is the space between Deanron's ears.

Posted by: JCM on May 15, 2006 10:54 AM

11. their s/b "they're"

Posted by: Michele on May 15, 2006 10:55 AM

12. Using signatures, even using computerized checking/ matching of signatures, is not a valid form of authentication. It would be valid if the signatures were written on a screen with an electronic pen where the computer could digitize key points of the signature, the speed of the pen stroke, etc. but comparing signatures scanned in from paper by computer or by human is fraught with problems. There's nothing to prevent anyone from tracing a signature to fool a machine if sigantures are matched in this way.

Ever wonder why Visa and Mastercard require that little security number on the back of your credit card now? Ever wonder why you need to have the correct address, telephone number and name on a credit card now? Ever wonder why know they often even ask for the 800 number on the back of the card? Ever wonder why you have to present ID with your credit card now at many retail locations? All of the above are because signatures are not a very secure method for protecting a credit card.

What makes anyone believe that they'll be useful in protecting ballots?

Logan is a fraud. The system is flawed and needs real reform, mail balloting will only make it worse.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 15, 2006 07:34 PM

13. //Ever wonder why Visa and Mastercard require that little security number on the back of your credit card now?//

The number is required because there were enough services that would accept "bare" credit cards without requiring a name or other associated information, and the number of issued credit cards was sufficiently large, that someone could simply take the first four digits of a valid credit card, plus eleven random digits and a checksum, and have a good shot at coming up with a valid card number. Some crooks simply fed a bunch of random credit card numbers into the signup screens of various login services and made note of which ones went through.

As for requiring ID in retail locations, I've almost never encountered that. On the other hand, retail locations are supposed to have clerks who watch to ensure that you're actually signing your name rather than tracing a signature.

Posted by: supercat on May 15, 2006 09:48 PM

14. Sounds similar to the utterances of Queen G. remarking on the election which she "won".

Posted by: Snuffy on May 17, 2006 07:55 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?