The second edition of John Fund's Stealing Elections. Chapter ten is titled: "Florida with Rain: Seattle Chaos", and describes one or two little problems we had here in 2004. The chapter has a hero; he's the founder of Sound Politics.
And, no, you can't borrow my copy — unless you happen to be Stefan Sharkansky. I need it for a review, which I will post here.
I just received my copy from Amazon. I don't know whether it is available in local bookstores.
Posted by Jim Miller at September 19, 2008 03:29 PM | Email ThisASTONISHING: Rep. Rangel Calls Palin 'Disabled'
Just off the News!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 19, 2008 05:13 PMElection fraud (and broken machines, software, and procedures) worries me.
My guess is we will have no idea what the voters said they wanted--the Chicago muscle will make sure the right answers are reported.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon on September 19, 2008 06:46 PMA Rossi victory would be that much sweeter because defeating not only Gregoire but overcoming the corruption in the elections that is hung around the necks of the Democrat Party. There is not a lick of difference progressive wing of the Democrat Party that are community organizers under the banner of ACORN who promote voter fraud in King County from the Marxists who voted in Chavez.
Posted by: KS on September 19, 2008 09:55 PMA Rossi victory would be that much sweeter because defeating not only Gregoire but overcoming the corruption in the elections that is hung around the necks of the Democrat Party. There is not a lick of difference between the progressive wing of the Democrat Party that are community organizers under the banner of ACORN who promote voter fraud in King County from the Marxists who voted in Chavez.
Posted by: KS on September 19, 2008 09:56 PMA Rossi victory would be that much sweeter because defeating not only Gregoire but overcoming the corruption in the elections that is hung around the necks of the Democrat Party. There is not a lick of difference between the progressive wing of the Democrat Party that are community organizers under the banner of ACORN who promote voter fraud in King County from the Marxists who voted in Chavez.
Posted by: KS on September 19, 2008 09:56 PMWith the financial markets in meltdown and the NW MLS saying that the median price of homes in King County are down from 11% August 2008 over 2007, these idiots are jacking up property assessments by huge percentages.
I think it's time for a new cause to be picked up by Sound Politics. The fraudulent elections system in King County has been a good one. Perhaps now it's time to start pushing for a property tax revolt.
Posted by: BananaLand on September 19, 2008 11:09 PMThat tells me that the R's value the ability to CHEAT as much as the D's.
Show me how I am wrong.
Anybody?
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 20, 2008 07:50 AMThat tells me that the R's value the ability to CHEAT as much as the D's.
Show me how I am wrong.
Uhh, are you sure you want to make it that easy?
It's only even really possible to cheat in such a way in very populous counties, and republicans are totally out of power in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties, and have been for a long time.
Second, do you have even one instance where an R in Washington state won after ballots were "found" that puts them over the top? Do you have any R's in Washington EVER winning by razor thin, contested margins even?
Because if you do, I don't know about them.
Posted by: Cliff on September 20, 2008 09:25 AMOver at BW, I wrote that there is as much as a 50% chance that Obama will steal the Presidential election by undetected voter fraud from his ACORN comrades, who - if caught in the acit, deserve to rot in jail. Not mention the possibility of a repeat of 2004 here, which might actually be a little lower.
That would poison our election system and is a scary proposition but one that is very real all because people are too lazy and possibly corrupt to do anything about it.
I have read where the SOS office has removed over 400,000 names from the voter rolls. However , I have also read that there have been record numbers of new voter registrations. How do we know if they have even been reviewed, verified or just taken for granted like they were in 2004 ? Sam Reed - I will not vote for him this time - he is part of the problem - I don't trust him after 2004. It seems to me if King County is allowed to be the last county to report their election results, that is another open invitation to voter fraud as I don't trust King County Records and Elections either.
Could the Secretary of State's office require that King County when to post their final totals or withhold other counties final totals until after King County has posted theirs ?
Posted by: KS on September 20, 2008 09:59 AMVoting kiosks, brought to you by the ACORN gang which Obama endowed with $800,000 this election cycle so that all the pobrecitos (including the dead, the mobile voters who register in eight counties, non-citizens and fictitious folks) will have 'access to voting'. And programmed, no doubt, by the jerks who've hacked Governor Palin's and Bill O'Reilly's computers and spread private information all over east Hell. If you think the 2004 election was mismanaged in King County, try implementing these 'voting kiosks', and enjoy the 28 million extra-vote Democratic landslide.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 20, 2008 10:00 AMIn God we trust, all others deserve intense scrutiny. Certain blunders and malfeasances do happen by hand craftsmanship, but to really screw things up takes a computer. King County succeeded in electing Governor Gregoire by failing to follow its own rules for ballot logistics, and bending over backward to 'honor' anything that looked like a ballot, no matter how lacking in the required attributes. Stefan Sharkansky posted photos of some of those travesties - which were solemnly counted.
Hand-counting of paper ballots can be verified by procedures employing rigorous handling and independent observation of process. Cyber-counting of anonymous strings of digital bits is impossible to verify, cannot be independently checked, and is subject to invisible subterfuge.
Cyber-security breezed right by the Bank of America when some goon faked a check with my account number and was paid $25,000 by the Bank with nary a murmer - the reimbursement from the Bank was so quick and casual that it was plain that such chicanery is a routine part of their business, and they made no effort to track down the culprit. And cyber-voting is supposed to be 'secure'? What hogwash.
Maybe YOU place trust in your computer technology for much higher risks, but I don't.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 20, 2008 10:45 AMDon't want to get into a pissing match with you on this, but you contradicted yourself in the above statement by obviously placing trust in BofA...if they're not computerized, I don't know who is. But, your points are well taken; I just think we need to remove the 'subjective' human element as much as possible thru proper design.
Posted by: Duffman on September 20, 2008 10:52 AMI'm glad you noticed that BofA actually made good on the loss caused by their lack of security. You may also notice that I'm FORCED to place trust in BofA, since there's no other option for banking than computerized banks. Nothing better points out the reason for lack of trust than that transaction. The restitution at least made me whole.
However, when all those anonymous bit-strings come up with a false election 'winner', there's NOBODY who can make restitution. The mismanaged Republican challenge to Gregoire's strained 'victory' was sneered away by the judge, declaring that unless all the fake voters were identified with evidence, the challenge was to be dismissed despite the excess of votes over voters. It's bad enough to be forced into a 'trust' relationship with a bank, but it's far worse to be forced into a 'trust' relationship with dubious electronic voting technology by a government dominated in King County by an overwhelming single-party cabal.
At least in 2004, a sharp observer was able to point out the flaws in the paper-ballot system since there was enough evidence to see. If the local news media had made an honest investigation using its supoena powers, the County insiders could, and should, have been exposed in their malfeasance and the election overturned and properly re-run. It was only through the unexpected and unlikely activity of one independent observer who had the expertise, the means and the time available that the evidence of the flawed process was exposed at all.
Computerized voting however 'secure' is far less likely to allow such independent checks, and should be rejected as a means of determining who's elected.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 20, 2008 11:27 AMPrior to Judge Bridges' ruling, this blog told us, over and over and over and over again, that the evidence presented to that court would suffice to overturn the election. After every claim made was utterly eviscerated -- even contradicted -- by that very same evidence, we were then told of new evidence, of some undefined 'distributed voter fraud,' and that this shiny new evidence, unfound in months of legal discovery by a multi-million-dollar team of experts (who Rossi had picked, BTW), would prove what the earlier evidence had not.
Since Judge Bridges had dismissed the case with prejudice, it can never be re-filed, and so any 'new evidence' will never, ever be vetted in any court. How wonderfully convenient for the finders! They can make any claim they want, knowing the humiliation they suffered in Chelan County will not happen again. They play their cynical, manipulative games, while the rest of us get on with life. At least the aptly-named Mr. Fund gets to bankroll his elite, East Coast lifestyle with the result. What have the rest of you to show for it?
Posted by: tensor on September 20, 2008 11:39 AMNot true. That evidence was incomplete at the time and was not able to make the complete case at that time.
"by that very same evidence, we were then told of new evidence, of some undefined 'distributed voter fraud,' and that this shiny new evidence, unfound in months of legal discovery by a multi-million-dollar team of experts (who Rossi had picked, BTW), would prove what the earlier evidence had not."
That strategy was a major blunder by the Republicans. This evidence would have only supported the smoking gun evidence. All they needed to do to overturn the election would be to gather at least 150 signed affidavits from felons stating that they had voted for Gregoire. The Democrats successfully did this for 5 affidavits and had 5 of Rossi's votes removed from the count. Hence, the judge rendered the correct verdict and the Republicans deserved to lose.
"At least the aptly-named Mr. Fund gets to bankroll his elite, East Coast lifestyle with the result. What have the rest of you to show for it?"
Why don't you read the book and see what he said instead of spewing your venomous bile ? You evidently don't care if there is voter fraud or not and why should you - progressive moonbats like yourself only believe that the end justifies the means.
Posted by: KS on September 20, 2008 12:18 PMShow me one thing he did to improve the integrity of the vote counting.
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 20, 2008 01:28 PM1. Ironclad ID
2. WA is particularly odd in that they allow mail votes to be MAILED on election day with postmark as proof. The consequence is that our results are delayed by days and weeks. OTHER states that have mail make the last postmark date about a week BEFORE election day. We need to change.
3. It should be the law of the state that no one reports results until ALL results are in, until ALL counties are tallied and finalized. NO counties should be allowed to voice their own results. Every county should be required to turn their results over to the Sect of State and only that office should release any results, and then only when they have the FINAL tally. We put up with an infernally long campaign season, we can wait a few more hours to have results we can trust.
4. National election polls should close by time zone. No more of this nonsense where polls close in at a dozen different times in a dozen different states. AND again, no states release vote totals until all have closed and tallied. I would go so far as to suggest that NO results be released at all on election day. We in the west are ALWAYS disenfranchised by predicitons and the "calling" of races in eastern states: it discourages voters supporting the losing party and makes them less likely to vote.
5. Absolutely no media be allowed at polls, not within 50', not within 150', not within BLOCKS. Exit polls should be stopped, by law if necessary.
When our country was founded these were not issues simply because of the "technology" of the time: no phones, no TV, no radio. EACH polling place had to put their heinies and election results on horseback to get them to the state capital. Newspapers were not daily and again depended upon info via horseback. There is something to be said for that vacuum of information created by the confines of time.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 20, 2008 02:51 PMPrior to the ruling, SoundPolitics repeatedly claimed that evidence given in the trial demonstrated the invalidity of the election. (E.g. http://soundpolitics.com/archives/004563.html, among many others.) Only after Judge Bridges rejected absolutely every claim made by the plaintiffs did SoundPolitics start pushing your tale of incomplete evidence.
All they needed to do to overturn the election would be to gather at least 150 signed affidavits from felons stating that they had voted for Gregoire.
The court also heard corroborating evidence, such as large campaign contributions to the GOP from at least one of the five felons. (No one could have foreseen a downside to taking money from crooks!)
Do you really believe that 150 felons voted for a prosecutor?
(Note: Four of the five voted for Rossi. One voted for the Libertarian Party's candidate, Bennett.)
Why don't you read the book and see what he said instead of spewing your venomous bile ? You evidently don't care if there is voter fraud or not and why should you - progressive moonbats like yourself only believe that the end justifies the means.
I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal for many years, and I read Mr. Fund's work, which routinely contradicted the paper's news section. (My favorite was his whining essay, "WHO Cried Foul", which castigated the World Health Organization for interdicting Toronto during the SARS scare. That day's edition of the Journal contained not one, not two, but three stories on SARS, every one of which had material contradicting his essay.)
As for not caring about fraud, no one has shown any evidence of it. I do care that felons voted for Rossi in precincts where the vast majority of legitimate voters went for Gregoire, which happened because Republican Secretary of State Ralph Munro had failed to compile a statewide database of ineligible voters. Speaking of fraud, the plaintiffs claimed these felons actually voted for Gregoire. Why didn't YOU get upset about any of this? Or do you not mind such frauds, if it gets you what you want?
Posted by: tensor on September 21, 2008 11:51 AMIf they had a case, then the word "inept" does not even begin to describe how the Republican legal team handled it. While Judge Bridges soundly rejected all of their claims, and derided their most complex argument as a "fallacy", they actually scored less than zero. The Democrats used the opportunity to prove, in court, that felons had voted for Rossi. As the case was dismissed with prejudice, and not appealed, felonious support for Rossi will forever remain as legal fact in this state. Heckuva job, guys!
Mr. Rossi decided to pursue this suit, and he presumably had some say in picking the legal team. Now, less than fifty days before the next election, a national right-wing propagandist has published a book, describing Mr. Rossi's managerial incompetence. The WSRP and Mr. Rossi's campaign can have, gratis, my discrediting of Mr. Fund, given in the above comment; they will need it far more than I.
Posted by: tensor on September 21, 2008 08:23 PM