As mentioned by some commenters in previous posts, recount numbers continue to trickle in. In addition to yesterday's reports from Mason and Garfield, Skamania and Wahkiakum have reported today. Rossi ended yesterday +45. His lead has now grown to +46. As one of our more excitable Democrat readers put it in his comment last night: "Can anyone spell the word t-r-e-n-d?"
UPDATE: Jefferson, Pacific and Pend Oreille have reported, with a net +3 gain for Rossi (total lead = +45). The tabulation error relative to the machine recount, which some had predicted to be 0.5%, currently stands at less than 0.06%.
UPDATE (4:45pm): Grays Harbor, Lincoln and Ferry have now reported. Net +1 gain for Rossi (total lead = +43). So far 10 counties have reported, representing 131,000 registered voters (3.7% of the state). Out of the counties that have reported: 156 more votes have been counted than in the machine recount, but only 12 more than in the first count. The reporting counties gave the following leads to Dino Rossi in the respective counts:
First count: 0.6770%
Machine Recount: 0.6680%
Manual Recount: 0.6686%
I'm still working on that spreadsheet.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 09, 2004 12:06 PM | Email ThisI can't believe I voted for Barbara Madsen and she is one of the ones voting for the felons....
Posted by: lee on December 9, 2004 12:53 PMIf not, then and only then is the registration verified for the person casting the provisional ballot.
All of the proper voting requirements remain in force in order for a correctly cast ballot to be converted into a legal vote. Remember, a ballot does not equal a vote. It does, though, go through the same process as a caterpillar goes through before becoming a butterfly - a healthy process before conversion into something to behold before the light of day.
when you have bozo the clown running the ship
you wont get vance to spell it out.he simply
doesnt have the guts to do it.
where's mark hulst when you need him
Posted by: phil spackman on December 9, 2004 01:08 PMBefore today it was all sort of academic to me and had a sense that manual recounting couldn't be as accurate, but today I totally get it. I didn't anything where anybody was doing anything shady, but I saw the dozens of little steps involved where people could make mistakes or where a comment, glance or nod could nudge ever so slightly one way or another. Singularly not a big issue, but in the razor thin margin it's just all so critical.
I spotted as an observer a potential mistake a counter almost made (actually a potential positive to Rossi) and reported it to the head observer who talked to the elections official and she did a fair job at reinforcing with everybody a particular little process.
But, let's face it. In a mechanical count a professional staff person takes a stack of cards, puts them in a machine that counts them and spits out a total. In a manual recount that stack gets split between two people sorted around several different ways, counted, passed again, recounted, and they hand write totals on a worksheet that gets copied over to an official tally sheet that then officials copy again to a central sheet. No way that can be more accurate. It has to be orders of magnitude less accurate.
In fact, I think the chance of a vote getting tallied for the opposite candidate was the most likely error possible.
While I was there I saw a team put one ballot into an envelope for the canvassing board as a dispute, but it had already been spotted in previous counts.
I'm going to try and go back tomorrow, but I have accumulated some interesting notes and am chalking up this experience as a testament to our will as citizens to aspire to do the right thing in the face of a mathematical abberation.
I have little doubt whatever the outcome that this process will not be the final resolution and now need to bone up on what comes next.
As I left at about 11:30 I heard that Gregoire has picked up one vote after about 8 or 10 precincts had been counted.
Posted by: Matt on December 9, 2004 01:21 PMPacific County also reported in -- no net changes. 10,621 punchcard ballots and not a single hanging or dimpled chad. Of course, Gregoire had a slight margin there, so it is good all of their chads stayed intact.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 9, 2004 02:23 PMThe most positive news from Jefferson County is that they counted 18,772 ballots in the original count, 18,772 ballots in the machine recount, and 18,772 ballots in the manual recount.
King County does not have such good ballot control -- 898,238 on the original count, 898,574 on the machine recount, and who knows what on the manual recount?
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 9, 2004 02:36 PMThey have seized on a statement Reed made that seems to imply that he in contradicting himself and that there could be grounds for recanvassing ballots, especially in King County.
However, if you take Reed's remarks in context, it is clear that he is referring to systematic errors in the counting process, not in the canvassing process. Reed has maintained before and through the entire election that recount is a narrower definition than recanvass.
And the bottom line is that the case IS going to court for exactly this reason, and the Republicans, with the aid of Bush vs. Gore 2000 have a much stronger case. In essence the Democrats are asking the court to go against that decision. If it was then appealed to the US Supreme Court, they would most likely generate the same opinion.
As the trickle numbers show, the only hope for Gregoire is a judicial win, which will be viewed as illegitimate by at least half the state.
What's fantastic is that she really bet the farm on this hand recount. If she loses, her political career is definitely finished.
Question for a lawyer out there: Could the WA Supreme Ct's decision be apppealed to the US Supreme Ct? In Bush v. Gore, there was a federal question (presidential election). In this case, its a state matter. Off the top of my head, I'm having trouble thinking about how I would argue that the US Supreme Ct has jurisdiction and should accept a writ of certiari.
Posted by: srogers on December 9, 2004 03:46 PMTo me that point would be a slam dunk if Rossi prevails yet again. And it was a powerful statement that still resonates with me.
Posted by: Matt on December 9, 2004 03:56 PMOther than King, what are the key counties to watch for? The Gregoire campaign mentioned Adams and Franklin that they were considering funding for a partial recount if it had come to that. But are there any others?
I don't think the Supreme Court would take this case if it came to that. After Bush v. Gore, the Supremes don't want a reputation of salvaging Republican campaigns. They refused to intervene in the Torricelli/Lautenberg case in New Jersey when the Republicans had a good argument.
Posted by: Terry Mueller on December 9, 2004 04:18 PMThe deputy auditor then questioned why they would want pictures of it because "chads fall off and there are going to be some laying around, it could be from previous elections". The deputy auditor then informed the Rossi observer he could no longer take pictures. What are they afraid of?
Posted by: Rossi Observer on December 9, 2004 04:58 PMwhat recourse would we have, if our state govt is doing something we believe is unconstitutional...afterall, all states must follow the constitution, right?
It seems going to the Fed. court would be especially important in this case....
Posted by: Lee on December 9, 2004 06:52 PMBeware the Ides of King County. The smallest of machine error will wipe Rossi out. Christine doing well in Dino counties- only question is how he will do in King. 900,000 ballots, breaking for Gregoire. How much change to wipe out a 60 vote lead? You do the math.
Run Rossi for mayor of Sammish.....or send him to DC to buy armored Humvees for defense. Shame on Rumsfeldt, shame.
Posted by: ed on December 9, 2004 06:54 PMWe need only beware the Rats in King County trying to pull some shenanigans. Oh, and if you think those 700+ ballots that were counted for the first time during the first "recount" are guaranteed to hold up in court, think again. You do that math. And, oh yeah, go Rossi!
Posted by: Sj on December 9, 2004 08:15 PMhttp://nugeclips.blogspot.com/2004/12/canvassing-board-will-consider-two.html#comments
- in Whitman County
Posted by: Nuge on December 9, 2004 08:22 PMIn fact, the difference is *so* small, that if you do the math, Rossi is doing 5 times better than he would be expected to! Landslide, baby!
Posted by: Timothy on December 9, 2004 08:31 PMOn that note new spreadsheet will be coming at The Flag of the World before the evening is over.
Posted by: Timothy on December 9, 2004 08:45 PMOn that note, a new spreadsheet will be coming at The Flag of the World before the evening is over.
Posted by: Timothy on December 9, 2004 08:45 PMwe're not in a dictatorship in Washington, now are we?
the Democrat party got friendly judges to change the way ballots are treated in this particular area for this particular election, for one particular race....
hmmmmm......that doesn't sound too peachy to me..
but hey, the Democrat party might just get away with it.....we got Maria Cantwell to prove that.....
Posted by: lee on December 9, 2004 10:29 PM