The King County Council is discussing the proposal for electing the county's Elections Auditor, this Monday, August 21 at 10am. Please come testify to the Council in support of this proposal.
Here's another example of the astonishing behavior of the most recent appointed elections director that illustrates why it's better to have an Auditor who is accountable to the voters instead of accountable only to a political machine that is addicted to illegal votes. Recall the incident when I worked as a poll judge last November and explained to an ineligible voter that he wasn't eligible to cast a provisional ballot (he told me he had moved to town 26 days before the election) I didn't prevent him from voting, I merely showed him an official document that stated the 30 day residency requirement and pointed out the consequences for voting when you know you are not eligible. He made the correct call not to vote. The Democrat poll inspector, Nancy Shelton, went ballistic and tried to both discipline me (for upholding my oath) and tried to get the ineligible voter to cast a provisional ballot anyway. Alan Younker, who was also working as a judge in the same polling place, witnessed the whole thing and agrees with my account. He shares his recent correspondence about the incident with Larry Phillips and Dean Logan (while Logan was still in charge at K.C. Elections) The essence is this quote from Logan's reply:
Amazing. So Dean Logan (= Ron Sims) believes that even voters who inform you they are ineligible should be encouraged to contaminate the ballot box with an illegal vote, which, as we've seen, could be tabulated. The voter in question, by the way, really didn't register in time for the election, as I confirmed from registration records.
The Council hearing is Monday, August 21 and 10am in the Council chambers, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Ave., 10th floor
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 19, 2006 01:36 PM | Email ThisDo you have ANY evidence, substantiated in any legal forum, to validate that slanderous claim? (We all know what happens on those rare occasions when Soundpolitics' claims go to court, now don't we?) Here's the reality: this is one of the most highly educated and wealthiest electorates in the history of the world. It routinely rejects conservative candidates and ideas, by vast margins. No amount of whining about "illegal votes" will change that, even if Soundpolitics could actually produce evidence to prove that a single liberal candidate received a single illegal vote. An elected auditor will win election from the same voters who just returned Mr. Sims to his office. The only thing having the auditor elected will do is to create an office with a direct conflict of interest: an elected official who sets the elections rules. If you really worried about "...a political machine that is addicted to illegal votes," you'd oppose creating exactly this conflict.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on August 19, 2006 02:06 PMStop the coruption up there - make the election director accountable to the voters not the executive.
Posted by: sgmmac on August 19, 2006 03:01 PMPosted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 19, 2006 03:23 PM
true, dysentery is harsher than voting fraud, but hey--it's all the same to the voter in the end; sad--that election officials do not take their jobs seriously; and the public does not care--until sewage bubbles up---
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 19, 2006 10:54 PMi'm also sure you would rant against bad surgeons leaving 'things' in patients, yet you would take the "wait & see" comparable (everything's relative) approach to voting & elections officials who handle our precious right; forget comparisons here--fix our WA back yard before we compare the green shades elsewhere;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 19, 2006 11:37 PMAnd if you know anything about the illegal fatal pends ballots that were intially set aside and later counted when fraud-assocated ACORN came along and demanded they be counted, you know that Huennekens later admitted "We shouldn't have counted those."
That's but ONE example of the wrongdoing going on down at KCE. Posted by: Michele on August 20, 2006 12:16 AM
Everyone knows that in this democrat-heavy county when you factor out all the known dead votes, illegally counted fatal pends, felons, hundreds of illegal provisionals, double-voting, votes with no voters, and put back in almost 100 ballots that never got counted from Rossi-heavy areas, anyone can do the math and figure out that the result was badly tainted. Posted by: Michele on August 20, 2006 12:22 AM
The voters of KC vote YES to an elected Auditor.
On the ballot:
Dean Logan (D)
*Deana sLogan (R)
* Deana sLogan is the best AUDITOR in the country, but to the voter it appears there was a typo and it is to late to change the voters pamplet. Voters pick the first one, because of the (D), we are back to square one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy
Posted by: Giffy on August 20, 2006 09:28 AM
giffy, you may be making the case in your own mind, but you've said nothing to cause me to stand down from the insistance that we clean up KC elections.
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 20, 2006 11:12 AMYour statistics are bogus - Giffy. Why have you not provided any substantive evidence ? because you are making it up - to support your socialist comrades at KCE. Paddy wack - your thread sounds like George Soros talking points. You are both enemies of freedom with your assinine positions that you have chosen to take.
Posted by: KS on August 20, 2006 01:49 PMAh yes, the highest possible argument from a modern conservative: name-calling. Not merely ad hominem, but silly as well. Thanks for the compliment.
Actually, our courts have these things called rules of evidence, and it is indeed possible, in some cases, to prove that a felon voted for a certain candidate. (It was really tough to prove that male felons voted in masse for a female prosecutor, because that did not happen.)
"What I think I have demonstrated, through volumes of photographs and other documentary evidence..."
Any word on those felony prosecutions against persons who testified otherwise?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on August 20, 2006 05:11 PM"Actually, our courts have these things called rules of evidence, and it is indeed possible, in some cases, to prove that a felon voted for a certain candidate. (It was really tough to prove that male felons voted in masse for a female prosecutor, because that did not happen.)"
What do you do when an agency such as KCE is knowingly withholding this type of evidence ? Has there been a federal investigation (which there really needs to be) that is what would be required to obtain evidence that has been withheld or probably by now destroyed ? No, but really it is too late now.
An elected auditor might be the answer. A successful recall campaign of Ron Sims would more likely be the solution.
Posted by: KS on August 20, 2006 05:28 PMTypical for the criminal loving, terrorist enabling, appeasement and surrender liberal crowd; take the word of a felon as gospel truth.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 20, 2006 05:59 PMI thought the point of the court was, unless the felon swore under oath how they voted, there was no way to know how they voted. How does Paddy Mac know for absolutely certain that it didn't happen? Does he have signed affidavits for all of them? Technically, maybe he's right, they didn't vote for the female, but maybe they voted for the Democrat regardless of the gender....
The point Paddy Mac can't grasp is that more than a fifteen hundred illegal ballots made it into the ballot box and once in there, our processes (and current court rulings) require them to be counted. This disenfranchises everyone that casts a legal ballot.
Our processes must reduce the amount of detectable illegal ballots from even entering the system.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 20, 2006 06:40 PMActually, I was referring to the independent, corroborating evidence, presented in court. This included large financial contributions to Mr. Rossi's party, and proof that the felon voted in November 2004. None of that required us to believe the felon.
However, proponents of a fraud called 'proportional reduction' did ask us to believe (along with many other unproven assertions) that every felon who claimed to reside in King County actually did so, with no independent confirmation for this.
"Typical for the criminal loving, terrorist enabling, appeasement and surrender liberal crowd; take the word of a felon as gospel truth."
This statement therefore refers to the proponents of proprtional reduction.
You mean vast margins, like the Governors' race?
I love this smug, self-satisfied attitude. Keep it up. I can only hope the rest of the liberal electorate feels the same way.
Posted by: Shaun on August 20, 2006 07:35 PM1. Your side loves to quote the four felons who claim to have voted, and voted for Rossi. That's your "proof" that the felon vote went overwhemingly to Rossi. Felons are as a general rule dishonest, but you chose to believe them. If you want more nuance on this issue, go to law school like I did (and unlike your heroine, Darcy, I actually graduated. Seattle U School of Law).
2. What does the fact that someone donated to the Republican party have to do with anything? Felons are allowed to donate to political parties. Shall we list the felons that donated to, and served in the Clinton administration? Heck, a convicted felon, and accused rapist, was POTUS from 1993 to 2001. Donation of money to a party may be a fact, but I doubt that it had any weight in the judge's decision.
I suppose that you would like to restrict one's expression of free speech if it suits your political goals of a socialist regime. What's next, denial of 2nd amendment rights to take my gun away so you can break into my home with little risk to yourself?
3. Had I been the judge, I too would have rejected the "proportional reduction" argument advanced by the R's. They made an intersting point, but it didn't rise to the level required by a court, i.e., facts.
4. "Typical for the criminal loving, terrorist enabling, appeasement and surrender liberal crowd; take the word of a felon as gospel truth." I made the comment, so only I can say who it refers to, Paddy Hack. And it's not the the R's in the court case - who, by the way are not felons, a fact lost on you, unless you believe that all R's are felons, which you evidently do - but to the D's who crow about the four felons swearing under oath that they voted for Rossi. How precious, felons under oath.
Your party just doesn't get it. The D's want to "negotiate" with terrorists, i.e., savages that want to kill us and eliminate our country and culture.
The D's want to pull the troops from Iraq and let the savages declare victory.
The D's want to end surveillance of phone calls between a terrorist overseas and one in the States. Let's see if I understand this correctly, we can listen to Mohammad and Abdulla talking in Britian and Pakistan, we can kill them in Pakistan and arrest them in the UK, but if Mohammad is in New Jersey we can't listen to them? Right. Ever wonder why your party is thought of as weak on terror?
Your pathetic, weak, response helps me understand why your party, under the leadership, of Bill Clinton, bought Viagra for child molesters; Without medical help, all your arguments are flaccid.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 20, 2006 09:06 PMYah, well they liked Dino in '04 and Rob McKenna for AG. When you get done worshipping your intellect and money, maybe you can tell us why these smart, moneyed folk liked them, contrary to your statement?? (and why most of them don't believe X-tine really won??) Posted by: Michele on August 20, 2006 09:09 PM
KS, I did not provide any statistics, if memory serves, that were intended to be accurate. All I said was that we lack the information to say KCE is bad, good or what ever. WE need info on other Counties. Now I think we should still make things better, but to say KCE is horrible, or that Dems have done a bad job is faulty. SO would be the opposite by the way.
Well unfortunately I will not see you all today. I was going to walk down from work and watch the COW today, but unfortunately I am at home with an injured back. Damn faulty genes. :) I will watch you all on TV though.
And why is it that polls keep showing that they don't think Gregoire won? Could it be because they saw all the same stuff we did and can do the math in their heads what the outcome would have been without all the funny business down at KCE? Most likely. I heard at least one liberal admit that Senn was a horrible candidate. Posted by: Michele on August 21, 2006 08:18 AM
As for polls on the election. I have not seen a recent one, but I do know that Gregoire is currently over 50% approval. Also the fact that Rossi was ahead in the first count explains a lot of that. Though in our system its the last, manual count that matters. Don't like it, change the law.
How sad for you, as well as the rest of us who have to live with the corruption. People of various parties, including Green party and others like Stefan try to change it, but Larry Phillips and Ron Sims will hear none of it.I've called my councilperson, but nothing changes. So don't tell others they haven't tried to change it. Everybody knows the stench down at KCE and the dysfunction. Even Dean Logan knew it. which is why he's gone. He couldn't and wouldn't fix the problems. Posted by: Michele on August 21, 2006 10:06 AM
BTW, in the future all counties should report at the same time so that King doesn't know how many votes to add.
Posted by: GOPolitics on August 21, 2006 11:00 AMBoo Hoo Ronny !!!!!
Posted by: Chris on August 21, 2006 11:12 AMI think Ronny wrote Dwight's letter
Posted by: Chris on August 21, 2006 11:29 AM
Patterson just figured out that she can't get fired, she gets to stay until we elect someone else.
Here's Paddy Mac, commenting on the 2000 & 2004 US Presidential Elections:
"Here's the reality: this is one of the most highly educated and wealthiest electorates in the history of the world. It routinely rejects liberal candidates and ideas, by vast margins. No amount of whining about "illegal votes" will change that, even if MoveOn.org, George Soros, John Kerry, and Al Gore could actually produce evidence to prove that a single conservative candidate received a single illegal vote in Florida or Ohio."
Posted by: Larry on August 21, 2006 11:57 AMI thought you stayed home!!! You are the last speaker aren't you.
Posted by: Chris on August 21, 2006 12:00 PMIsn't that the problem with all politicians? No matter how poorly they perform, we are limited in how to get rid of them.
If this were an elected position, this person would be forced to answer for their actions and not be allowed to hide behind the executive or the council. This is what Phillips "doesn't get" (his words).
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 21, 2006 12:19 PMThis is so distorted I can't even comprehend it!
Posted by: Fred on August 21, 2006 02:47 PMWelcome to the 21st Century - this ain't your daddy's Democratic Party!
A terrorist has more right to privacy than the Speaker of the US House of Representatives?
Of course - because the Speaker is a Republican, and the terrorist is a Democrat!!
Posted by: Larry on August 21, 2006 02:55 PMelected official: always some hope at de-electing if not competent;
appointed official: "good home training"--i.e. accountability untrainable;
Moving 1.1 million pieces of paper around will create errors. A real electronic voting system (i.e. NOT Diebold), run on open-source software, and open to inspection at all times, might make for an improvement. We have an international banking system which can handle huge amounts of money in real time, all of the time, much of it electronically. We should at least try to do the same with votes every year.
My comment about King County's electorate merely indicated that we have the resources to determine whether or not "...a political machine that is addicted to illegal votes" runs things here, and to stop it if it did. Soundpolitics has repeatedly claimed, without one single piece of supporting evidence, that illegal votes in King County wrongly decided statewide races. When we liberals here in King County decide how to fix our elections system, why should we pay any attention whatsoever to persons who (a) hurl silly personal insults at us when we point out that they (b) claim to believe things for which no evidence exists? Elections are serious business, and our actions concerning them should not rely on people who sound delusional.
Finally, I cannot resist: in the original "Star Wars" movie, the character of Obi-Wan laments his failure to teach young Skywalker the proper ways of the Force. The commenter who swiped that name here gets it all wrong too, e.g. incorrectly identifying me as a member of a political party, among other errors.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on August 21, 2006 07:42 PMThat surprises exactly none of us whack-job. There appear to be worlds that you do not understand, your delusional sounds notwithstanding.
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 21, 2006 08:27 PMwho? "Bumper Car Bridges?" Oh--THAT role model...
"...King County's problems were not unique..."
so--let's throw our hands up and trust the status quo-
any initiatives out there for term limits on other elected positions like Mr Home Training's?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 21, 2006 08:56 PMPerhaps an elected auditor won't make things better, but she might. Perhaps the voters in KC are so mad at the mistakes of the 2004 election that they'll elect, gasp, a Republican. I don't know if the auditor would be a partisan position, but it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the current system doesn't work. At least an elected official would not be a lackey of King Ron. If King Ron is against the idea of an elected official then I am for it, regardless of the merits.
You state, "Soundpolitics has repeatedly claimed, without one single piece of supporting evidence, that illegal votes in King County wrongly decided statewide races." Since we have ballots that can't be tracked to an individual (fortunately), we can't be sure who won the 2004 governors race. Rossi led after the initial count and first re-count. Gregoire won only after ballots were found several times, and voter's intent divined, e.g., a write-in vote for "Chris Rossi" was divined to be a vote for Gregoire, You shouldn't wonder why many people don't think Gregoire was honestly elected.
Can you honestly say that the voter who wrote-in "Chris Rossi" intended to vote for CG? (I personally would have found the voter's intent was indeterminate.) If you can, then I'll quit wasting my time responding to you, and you'll expose yourself as a partisan hack. If you agree with me that the voter's intent cannot be determined then maybe we can have an honest debate of ideas and issues. BTW, there are two entries for "Chris Rossi" in WA listed in anywho.com. If one searches for "C Rossi" there are 16 entries. So perhaps someone wrote in their own name, or the name of a friend. Who knows, and that's the point.
You said that my sin was in, "...incorrectly identifying me as a member of a political party." I re-read my post, and only with this comment, "Your party just doesn't get it. The D's..." did I associate you with a party. OK, I'm not a member of the Republican Party, and I'll take you at your word that you're not a member of the Democratic Party. You do say, "...we liberals..." so you may not be a member of a political party. Most liberals side with the Democrats. If you consider yourself a member of the Green Party, or another, then I apologize to you and the Democratic Party.
My recollection of the Star Wars series is that Obi-Wan instructed Luke Skywalker enough in the ways of the Force to enable him to destroy the first Death Star in Episode IV. Hardly the "failure" that you cite. Perhaps you did get that fax from Howard Dean with the word "failure" sprinkled throughout. Perhaps "failure" should describe your attempt to make a point.
In "Episode V" Luke was training under Yoda. Luke left Dagobah before his training was complete. He confronted Darth Vader and lost the light saber duel. Yoda lamented the fact that he left before his training was complete.
Do you disagree with my analysis of "Star Wars?"
Finally, I cannot resist: The nickname Obi-Wan was given to me by co-workers and family because I mentor junior employees at work, and my family relies on me to fix their computer problems. I didn't "swipe" that name.
Paddy Mac, What this debate is really about is restoring credibility to the system as Sec. Reed clearly stated.
What are you afraid of.................honesty and accountability?
Posted by: jaybo on August 22, 2006 08:52 AMPaddy Mac, What this debate is really about is restoring credibility to the system as Sec. Reed clearly stated.
What are you afraid of.................honesty and accountability?
Posted by: jaybo on August 22, 2006 08:53 AM"What are you afraid of.................honesty and accountability?"
Secretary Reed should argue with more facts and less emotion; he might then have a better chance of persuading King County's electorate.
I have no opinion on creating another elective office, but no one has given me any compelling evidence to do so. Why do you impute fear to my neutral opinion?
Please note also that no one here has presented any evidence to support the claim that a "...a political machine that is addicted to illegal votes" runs any part of King County's government. I find it most instructive that Obi-Wan claims nothing more than a vote was wrongly credited. That's a very, very long way from proving any intentional wrongdoing -- let alone that such actions, if they happened, changed the result of the election. (And we remember how ALL of the evidence went in Judge Bridges' courtroom, do we not?)
Claiming that Rossi led during the early part of the counting is like noting that the Mariners led during the first eight innings, then blaiming their loss on "corrupt" umpires. It might make a fan feel better, but it proves nothing. When we make policy here in King County, we should do it based on the facts, not unsubstantiated claims. Any claimants with Soundpolitics' track record should feel lucky upon receiving any attention at all, not attack the few persons who still listen.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on August 22, 2006 09:47 PMBut then you knew that. You revel in the fact that the Dhimmicrats got away with it. You rightly point out the incompetence of the Republicans legal defense - they screwed the pooch, but you extrapolate that into some sort of affirmation of the efficacy of KC elections.
I disagree. I think that they are a mess. I think that tax to the max is trying to set himself up as some sort of half-a$$ed "Boss Daley" with a stranglehold on elections, and my viewpoint is widely held. The fact that max doggedly refuses to cooperate with the majority in making the changes that would restore public confidence in KC elections says much about him & his motives.
I also know that you don't care, and that pleases me. My POV, if put into practice, threatens no one but those who would cheat and subvert the system. Yours perpetuates illegitimate fraud with a snide wink. We'll see whose POV prevails.
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 22, 2006 10:41 PMAs I've said already, we who run King County do not have any obligation to consider all points of view. If Lori Sotello demands that we disenfranchise all of those Belltown residents who registered illegally in Forks, we will ignore her. If Chris Vance demands that we account for the illegal votes which cost Mr. Rossi the Governorship, we will ignore him. If Interested Observer requires safeguards against counting ballots eight times in King County, we will ignore him. Why? Because none of those things happened.
Formulating good public policy is tough enough already, without having to consider fictional cases, like "...a political machine that is addicted to illegal votes." When geographers discuss how best to map the world, they do not consider opinions from anyone who believes that the world is flat.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on August 23, 2006 11:12 PMThe peasants can now be dispersed - we have spoken....
And Paddy Mac still has no clue why the current crop of "we who run King County" aren't trusted.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 24, 2006 01:36 PM