Some commenters at a recent post on HJR 4204 are jumping to the unnecessary conclusion that because later ballots are putting the measure over the top that the fix must be on. Not exactly.
The "rejected" margin in the race was never all that impressive on Election night. It's also clear from media reports and from seeing the TV ads and direct mail from the "yes" campaign that they put on quite a push toward the end of the voting season. The results, particularly in the absence of any sort of "no" campaign, are reflecting that outside of King County as well.
We got a raw deal in 2004, when the Governor's race was close enough for the chicanery of the King County Elections Office to even finally raise the ire of Sam Reed. This isn't 2004, however.
Be grumpy about 4204 if it passes if you want, though a number of Republicans won't lost much sleep. But don't embarrass your fellow conservatives by running to the nearest grassy knoll when you don't like the results of a campaign that appears to have accomplished its goals, which is being reflected in our tedious way of counting ballots in a largely mail-in election.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 12, 2007 10:19 AM | Email ThisAs for our conclusions, as much as many of us appreciate your faith in King County's elections office, that faith is not shared by many. The idea that these people can make votes appear out of thin air for anything is not far-fetched.
Your advise notwithstanding, history does have a way of repeating itself.
Posted by: Hinton on November 12, 2007 10:33 AMDems did it in 2000 with Gore/Florida and many other times.
Reps did it in 2004 with Gregoire/Rossi and many other times.
It's called "sore losing" on either/both sides.
Hopefully, Eric's plea falls on good ears and reasonable people on both sides will accept the result, whatever it is and move on. That, itself, would be a huge step forward.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 12, 2007 10:45 AMTrue....but that could apply to all cases. Crying fire works when done selectively and with proof....
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 12, 2007 11:23 AMIt was ruled that 3000 ballots _ruled_by_the_judge_as_illegal_ couldn't be discarded because there was no real evidence of who the illegal votes were cast _for_.
Which translates to: Illegal voting is fine, because the fundamental property of "Secret Ballots" means you will never "catch" anyone unless they actually confess. "I was just trying to make sure my vote counted!" was also deemed a perfectly valid response to filing both an absentee ballot and three provisional ballots. (Which were later determined to have all been counted.)
Posted by: Al on November 12, 2007 11:31 AMLastly, it's always very disconcerting to see King County count their votes with full knowledge of the vote totals from all other counties. Vote totals from other counties should be restricted in some manner until certification, because without knowledge, King County would have little incentive to scour the buildings and count unauthenticated provisionals, as they did in 2004, and might again if 4204 ends up being that close.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 12, 2007 11:59 AM
However, I think 4202 will be thrown out as unconstitutional. I didn't understand 4204 as it was written when I voted, so the activist Supreme Court will toss it out, right?
We need the "unreasonable" people you refer to, because they are a catalyst for change.
Posted by: pudge on November 12, 2007 12:15 PMIf they were restricted to only running bond measures during the general election in November, then I would be all for it. Activists can put on an election in April, then ~1000 people turn out and my taxes go up. THAT shouldn't be allowed. Only hold elections in November when the general populace is paying attention.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on November 12, 2007 12:33 PMYou will pay more and get less. What a deal.
Posted by: Sick of High Taxes on November 12, 2007 12:40 PM1) a die-hard republican stating Gore really won in 2000
2) a die-hard democrat stating Rossi really won in 2004
Alas, will never happen...those unreasonables will keep us focused on the issues...not
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 12, 2007 12:51 PMIf the "fix" is on as you claim then it's on in Snohomish County too since, as I detailed in the original post in question, voters in that county broke in favor of 4204 as well after the early mail-in ballots. That and the fact it's passing in Jefferson, San Juan, Thurston, Whatcom, and Whitman counties (plus 50/50 in Asotin and Spokane) indicates it's not just an aberration, especially since Whatcom, Asotin, Spokane, and Snohomish all approved 960.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 12, 2007 12:55 PMThen, we have to figure out with the late arriving exactly what they mean. In the old days, early results favor the libs (i.e. Seattle), whereas the late arriving favor the Rs (didn't Gorton fit that scenario).
Now, you seem to say it favors those who want to tax to the max which normally is the libs. That is a significant change in the way we do business.
Posted by: swatter on November 12, 2007 01:27 PM
Reps did it in 2004 with Gregoire/Rossi and many other times
Of course, the difference is, in Florida, that Gore was never ahead in any count, period. There were no magically "found" ballots. There was no evidence of felons voting, or dead people voting, there was no proof of more illegal votes then voters, etc.
Gore's only real case was that some voters were too stupid to vote correctly, and that we should figure out out they "intended" to vote.
If you don't understand the difference between the two, go back to Jr. High, because I think most Jr. Highers would understand if it was explained to them.
Anyhow, I agree with Eric's post. Unless we have more evidence, we shouldn't throw out any unfounded accusations.
Posted by: cliff on November 12, 2007 01:27 PMWould you like a Link Exchange with 'The Internet Radio Network'? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 50 of America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio!!
http://netradionetwork.com
It's a false analogy. The situations are totally different, as I've stipulated above.
That said, this hardcore Republican will say that John Thune legitimately lost his 2002 run against Tim Johnson, which he lost by 500 something votes. There was some hanky-panky going on in terms of how the Dems conducted their GOTV campaign, clearly violating some minor but not unimportant regulations, but it A. Wouldn't be sufficient to overturn an election, and B. He probably would have lost anyway had they not violated the rules, abit maybe by a few hundred less.
Harry Reid also probably legitimately won his 1998 race against John Ensign (who went on to win in 2000 much like Thune did in SD) by some 428 votes.
Posted by: cliff on November 12, 2007 01:33 PMOf course, it could be suspected that they don't want to manage to count in a timely manner, but either way it's time for something (although I have no idea what) to be done.
Time limits? Count and report in x number of hours/days or they don't count at all
Privatize with time limits?
Monetary punishment?
Play into their slowness and not release ANY results from around the state until they do?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 12, 2007 01:51 PMLooking at the SnohoCo. data as it is released my head is a scratching at the swings approaching statistical margins of possibly (or credibility). Long before the Shark got the jump on the 2004 KCE outright election stealing I had an email conversation with then SnohoCo. Auditor Bob Terwilliger. He was so angrily defensive about my question I scratched my head about the thin skin over a simple question of more votes than voters in some precincts. Because of his thin skin I wound up here reading SP and firmly believe in the inerrant desire to swing the close elections for the right team. Before that I drank the "They are Fair and Honest when it comes to voting no matter who They Are" kool-aid.
Until I get to vote at the polls again, a re-registration of citizens, the dramatic redevelopment of voting methods and individuals that perpetrate crimes from the likes of Sam Reed to Garth Fell are in jail it is hard to believe in the results. Sure they are legal results but tight race outcomes will never be believable. Dems wrote the book on this period end of story and continue to add chapter after chapter across this country. Wait Wait-and Repubs proof read and edit every chapter!!
At some point we got to take back these offices institute minimal variables on ballot issuance, serious tracking of them and then minimal variable in gathering and counting them. Registrars need to be brought back and I am sorry haul your butt to the poles with your passport photo id or haul it to the absentee center 3 weeks before the election because of the upcoming cruise the first week of November. Oh ya and only the military gets to vote from far away on local races. Ya move to Texas for the winter well then vote there. Or if you are in the US Public Health Administration or live on Whidbey Island and at Joel Connelly's desk at the PI you don't get to vote twice.
Now if you want to jihad me or fatawah or what ever go ahead, ignore this at your peril, someday those that tell us all is fine with King's Crosses behind their back will screw up one of these so obviously that will be a fun day, whew (ask my old high school English teacher that rigged the Homecoming King election results what happened).
It does not have to come to this but this kind of crappola kool-aid all is well posts like this ignores the seeds of what is in all our heads.
4204 may be passing cleanly but there is no way to ever know that with CREDIBILITY or if the hand picked Aaron Reardon cover man is going to win Sheriff to know that with CREDIBILITY because of what THEY did in the past and may or may not be doing now and WE have yet to do.
KCE, Sam Reed, Carol Diepenbrock et al. cut it out. I am tired of not being able to confront my abusers.
BTW that English teacher she meant well but we meant what we voted and she sure found that out. (no no not by violence as simple minded arguements against posts like this are made on).
Posted by: Col. Hogan on November 12, 2007 02:23 PMLet's all hope that I-25 passing will bring some certainty to the process.
Posted by: SeattleSE on November 12, 2007 02:26 PMIn Bush/Gore the state was not allowed to count ballots that it wanted to, despite the fact that states are in charge of their elections. Of course the majority of the US Supreme Court rules, but the state supreme court, nearly half the US Supreme Court, and most constitutional scholars (a class you are of course welcome to disparage) disagreed.
In Gregoire/Rossi state law was followed, which requires a high standard of proof to invalidate ballots. You can claim that fraud was proven, but no court and few legal experts agree.
Posted by: Bruce on November 12, 2007 03:01 PMInstead of saying In Bush/Gore the state was not allowed to count ballots that it wanted to, you should be saying In Bush/Gore the state was not allowed to count the ballots in some counties one way and in other counties a completely different way ...
The point is, at no time did Gore lead. Not after the original count. Not after the mandated machine recount. Not even after the SCOTUS rulings and the Miami Herald and New York Times counts.
Can't say the same for Rossi now, can we?
Posted by: jimg on November 12, 2007 03:55 PMThe results of the poll showed 4204 losing by a 10 percent margin.
I naively gave up on working further on the grass-roots NO campaign.
Polls are an insidious form of voter subversion with no public oversight.
Can anyone remember who conducted that supposed poll????
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 12, 2007 03:58 PMIt's the same..both sides worked through the courts to the end result.
Partisanship knows no bounds.
Sad, actually...
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 12, 2007 04:17 PMI don't think you are making a very good point, but since I am not sure what the point is, I don't know.
Posted by: pudge on November 12, 2007 04:39 PMif King County's approval drops from 58% to 56% - it loses by about the same margin.
Posted by: Eunice Burns on November 12, 2007 04:41 PMFair question. My point is folks on either side view data through a very partisan lens.
Listening to both sides, they may not be exactly equivalent in terms of what happened, but they are in fact very similar in terms of what took place (through the courts, etc.).
The point is that even though both lost, as determined through the courts, both sides maintain that the actual result was the opposite of what the courts decided. They refused to accept the end result....because their side didn't prevail.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 12, 2007 04:51 PMNo one is organized on the other side to compile the opposite list, although it should be easy to get hold of. Maybe this is where the power of the internet and email will really be felt.
Posted by: janet s on November 12, 2007 06:35 PMEither you are intentionally misleading people, or aren't very smart. Your entire post is one long A. Misstatement, B. Straw man.
In Bush/Gore the state was not allowed to count ballots that it wanted to, despite the fact that states are in charge of their elections.
No, that's incorrect. The votes had been counted, and recounted, and then were being recounted again (sound familiar?), but this time under different standards, standards which varied from county to county.
The holding in Bush v. Gore wasn't that they couldn't count every vote, nor that they couldn't set a standard by which to count votes, it was that they could not set standards arbitrarily, varying from county to county, and in some cases, minute to minute, person to person, to recount votes under a different standard then they were counted the first two times, in a manor not set forward by law.
Of course the majority of the US Supreme Court rules, but the state supreme court, nearly half the US Supreme Court, and most constitutional scholars (a class you are of course welcome to disparage) disagreed.
Again, you are both wrong and misleading.
This was not a 5-4 decision, it was a 7-2 decision. It was 5-4 if Florida could continue to count beyond the safe-harbor deadline of December 12th as explained in the Constitution. Two of the seven that agreed with what I explained in my last paragraph said that they could continue counting provided they set a uniform standard, while others went by the strict text of the Constitution and decided to stick with the safe harbor date.
A lot of people disagreed with the underline logic of Bush v. Gore, including a lot of conservatives, not for it's outcome, but for it's reasoning. Equal Protection is a very slippery doctrine that can indeed be molded to fit a lot of situations.
However, the thing you are conveniently forgetting is that the Florida Supreme Court had already unilaterally overturned several state laws to get to the result that the Supreme Court overturned, and after they had been smacked down by the Supreme Court of doing so twice. The biggest judicial malpractice that occurred was when the Florida Supreme Court invalidated Florida's counting deadlines for no reason, and required only certain counties to recount with no clear standard. It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to invalidate the Florida Supreme Court's ruling based only on the issue you claim to cherish, states rights to set their own election laws, and a lot of conservative scholars and commentators, such as a lot of the people in National Review, suggested the court would have been better for doing just that.
If nothing else, the Florida Supreme Court ignored the Supreme Court, again, having already been warned, and forced the court into making a rushed decision. That might not excuse the court from what I'll admit is a questionable ruling, but it at least gives it a lot of context. If it wasn't for the Florida Supreme Court's reckless disregard for the laws as written by the Florida Legislature, the situation would never have occurred.
Oh, and BTW, "Constitutional Scholars" don't just include liberal law professors from Harvard and Columbia, even though they'd like you to think so.
In Gregoire/Rossi state law was followed, which requires a high standard of proof to invalidate ballots. You can claim that fraud was proven, but no court and few legal experts agree.
Again, you argument is a straw man. You are correct that we did not prove fraud. We DID however, prove that there were more illegal votes then the margin of victory, over 10X the number, actually. If that sits fine with you, great. But I'm guessing if the situation were reversed, you'd be throwing the biggest b!tch fit in the world. And rightfully so.
And you are also assuming that the evidence at trial is all that has become available since. That's obviously not true if you read this site. I think Stephan has proven, at best, that there was gross incompetence and lying by county officials at several points throughout the process.
Posted by: cliff on November 12, 2007 06:58 PMIt's the old "I'm right, your wrong" -- regardless of the facts or the court results.
Sad...
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 12, 2007 07:11 PMSo I really am confused why anyone voted on it, and would like to have the same Supreme Court look at it on it's merit.
I am sure they would be as fair and balanced on this decision as they were on the I747 ruling, and a few before that.
Posted by: GS on November 12, 2007 08:26 PMIncreased cost of a good do not translate automatically into increase prices. If the landlord can increase the rent when a cost, such as taxes goes up - the landlord should have raised the rent sooner to capture extra profit.
I'd have thought you might have understood this.
Who's stupid?
Posted by: BA on November 12, 2007 09:10 PMWhen supply is reduced, price tends to go up. Therefore, when property taxes go up, rental rates tend to go up.
TANSTAAFL. Tax incrases tend to hurt the poor more than the rich, because they slow economic growth. Liberals tend to hurt the very people they say they are trying to help.
Been a while since Econ 101, eh?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 13, 2007 03:15 AMI'll stay with my first point, a direct increase in the cost of a product does not translate lockstep into an increase in the price of a product.
Posted by: BA on November 13, 2007 08:25 AMBill,
Can you read? Because I cited nothing but facts.
If you want me to concede that Gregoire "won" in the sense that she's the Governor, well DUH. But you simply cannot say that Bush/Gore and Gregoire/Rossi are factually the same, because they are totally different from a factual standpoint.
Rose colored glasses aside, if you don't realize the very real potential for fraud in this election or those that will follow you are kidding yourself. Mail in ballots are ideal for fraudulent outcomes and any faith in KC elections and is total denial.
Posted by: pbs7mm on November 13, 2007 09:30 AMYes I can read. Guess you have to have things spelled out.
Your facts are all there to justify the court's opinions that you support. His facts are all there to justify the court's opinions that he supports.
That is the SAME thing. They have different facts behind them...but neither of you are willing to accept the court's rulings on the facts. And who cares abhout who had more votes before or after...it matters not one iota. What only matters is the end results.
You can argue that the way and situation leading up to the court's decision were different -- but, read this carefully: IT DOESN'T MATTER -- IT'S THE SAME THING. The Courts ruled based upon all facts presented before/after.
You HATE the court's ruling with Rossi. He HATES the courts' rulings with Gore.
The specifics of the case are IRRELEVANT. The Court's rulings are all that matter and your like for one and dislike for the other are OBVIOUS and PARTISAN.
Geez...hope you get it this time.
Both of you have AGAIN proved my point. The more you argue about this, the more obvious it is.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 13, 2007 10:01 AMGee, it did for me, but maybe that's because we only own one rental property. Property taxes went up last year, and we raised rent accordingly. A friend who rents also saw her rent go up, so I'm not the only landlord who did this. As to costs staying in step with prices, I have noticed the grocery store prices certainly do fluctuate with gas prices.
Posted by: Peggy U on November 13, 2007 10:14 AMHere is a concept from the graduate level Seattle Taxes curriculum.
I live alone in my own home. My neighbors live in a rental with 5 to 7 residents, plus their boyfriends and girlfriends.
The rental house pays the EXACT same tax rate as I do. A childless, work at home.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 13, 2007 02:11 PMI hear you, and I'll throw out this question, "Why isn't there a "Residence Tax" instead of a property tax for things like school levies?"
It's not property that uses services - it's people. If a person is living in the county and using the services, why isn't King County sending them a tax bill directly, sort of like the monthly utility bills?
Posted by: Smoley on November 13, 2007 03:23 PMIt's the tyranny of the simple majority over the super majority!
Posted by: AD on November 13, 2007 05:10 PMAll: 4204 now leads by more than 7000 votes.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on November 13, 2007 05:33 PM
This is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. Of course they are not the same thing. They are totally different factual situations, ruling on totally different facts, with totally different judges, totally different lawyers, etc.
You aren't seriously saying that every court ruling is equally valid are you? If that's the truth, was Dread Scott equally as valid as Brown v. Board?
As I've already stated, a better example to the Bush/Gore situation is Thune/Johnson in South Dakota, and Reid/Ensign in Nevada. The facts of those cases were a lot closer to the facts of Florida then Gregoire/Rossi. I accept those defeats.
You HATE the court's ruling with Rossi. He HATES the courts' rulings with Gore.
The specifics of the case are IRRELEVANT. The Court's rulings are all that matter and your like for one and dislike for the other are OBVIOUS and PARTISAN.
Umm, no, that's actually not obvious at all. Saying the facts of the cases is irrelevant is mindbendgingly stupid. Not all cases are equally well decided, and merely saying "ah, but you're a partisan" doesn't knock down any argument they might have, it's called an ad-hominem attack. You could have learned that much in Debate 101, Logic 101, etc.
If you can show how the facts are exactly the same, just the parties are reversed, or even that they are very close, but the parties are reversed, then you might have a point. But other then the fact that they were both close elections, there is no similarities to Bush/Gore and Gregoire/Rossi.
That said, I DON'T DISAGREE, necessarily, with Judge Bridges ruling. At the very least, the statute gives rise to a reading that no matter how many illegal votes existed, unless you have proven who they voted for, you can't have a new vote. I don't think that's what the legislature intended, but it's worded in such a way that his reading isn't idiotic. I don't accuse him of bad faith. I also admit we didn't prove fraud, although we did prove, and the judge said we proved, that we had more illegal votes then voters.
Since then, we've found a lot more evidence that may give rise to fraud, but it's a bit late now. The evidence, at best, says that there were a lot more illegal votes then voters, and gross incompetence in King County to the point where we can't trust the process. There is no such evidence in Gore/Bush. There only arguments was that we might have counted wrong the first two times we counted (again, I'm consistent, I think the first count of ballots when the closeness of the election is uncertain is more accurate then later counts that are not double-blind.), and that some people might have been confused because the ballot was weird, so...we should guess who they voted for (essentially).
Anyhow, you are falling in to the typical liberal trap of equating the messenger with the message, not recognizing that they are different things. It's straight out of Marx. Marx didn't even really bother to refute a lot of his critics, he basically just said "Yah, that's what they WANT you to think, because they are the same rich bourgeoisie people I'm warning you about, they are just in it for themselves." The left doesn't seem to have fallen all that far from the tree all to often in this respect. That isn't to say you can't question someone's motives for doing something, it merely means you cannot merely dismiss the arguments.
Geez...hope you get it this time.
Both of you have AGAIN proved my point. The more you argue about this, the more obvious it is.
If your point is that the facts of the cases are extremely similar, and thus people are obviously being partisan if they say Rossi probably won and Gore probably lost, then your point is idiotic and obviously untrue, as I've explained in several ways above.
If I were only thinking in partisan terms, I would say that I thought John Thune won his election in 2002. I don't, I think he legitimately lost. Had he tried 3 recounts using differing standards (the one thing Gore/Bush and Gregoire/Rossi have in common, and I opposed it both times), I'd say he's trying to steal the election. Same goes for Reid/Ensign in Nevada.
To quote Alan Dershowitz, "There is nothing so bigoted as treating things that are different as if they are the same."
Posted by: cliff on November 13, 2007 08:19 PM