...anyway, yeah. Did I tell anyone that I haven't shaved since election day? It's a demonstration of how ridiculous it is that it can take this long to find out the results of an election. Well, to make the results official, anyway. We've already found out, twice.

He has one framework for analyzing what's going on...who does it help, and who does it hurt? I suppose that's the sign of a democRAT; they don't seem to be able to think in any other terms, and they assume the same of others. At least Logan is starting to admit this looks bad.

As predicted...arguments of all types come to the surface when one's candidate lead is threatened!

The Ds did it throughout the machine recount -- and the Rs responsed by claims of intended fraud! The Ds evened sued! Why? Because they were morally right? NO! It was the way to get their gal elected.

Now that the Rs feel threatened -- out come the threats of lawsuits to protect their guy! It's not about right/wrong --- counting every vote -- following rules -- it's about getting our guy elected!

It's embarassing to be a democrat given all this.

It's embarassing to be a republican given all this.

Wouldn't it be great (of course not to the readers of this board who feel Rossi's victory is being stolen, nor to the "horse's" board who feels Gregoire's victory will be stolen) if both sides VOLUNTARILY decided to agree that the process has become ridiculous and agree on a mutually acceptable (read: "no more lawsuits") way to determine once and for all within the law?

NO...of course not. Because it's not about all that. It's about GET MY GUY/GAL in the office.

SUE! Lawyers get ready! Forget the voters -- make the rules now to make sure my guy(gal) ends up in the seat (and make it look like he [she] got more "legal" votes while your at it). And we'll define "legal" votes so that MY candidate gets more of them! Rules? They exist for me to bend to my candidate's advantage -- of course!

This makes the eventual victor totally illegitimate -- regardless of who occupies the seat.

It's all about following the rules, AS THEY EXISTED BEFORE THE ELECTION STARTED. Rule: you have to register to vote in the election. Rule: to be registered, you have sign a registration document and submit it by the pre-election deadline. Rule: If you vote absentee or provisional, you have to sign the documents as instructed. Rule: If your ballot is unsigned, or the signature doesn't match the one you previously submitted, the ballot is not counted (this is called fraud prevention). Rule: If you are notified that your ballot has been disallowed, you have until a specified date to remedy the situation. If you fail to do so, your ballot is not counted.

These are the RULES. They are not complicated. I have voted at the polls, and also by absentee, in four different states and three countries over the years, and never have I found it difficult to comply with the RULES. All I ask is that my vote not be nullified by someone who failed to follow the rules. We have deadlines for a reason; we have signature matching for a reason; we have chain-of-custody rules for a reason. They are all designed to reduce the human factor and ensure that the election is fair and honest. If someone fails to follow the rules, even if their "intent" is not malicious, their vote should not be counted. When we start granting exceptions to individual violations of the rules based on perceived "voter intent," we lose the protection the rules were designed to afford.

End of civics lesson....

If it turns out 400-some voters followed all the rules and King County messed up scanning their signatures, or notifying them that there was an issue with their signatures, or notifying them that their ballots had been disallowed, would you support counting those votes?

I also am hesitant to endorse divining of "voter intent"; but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

And hear, hear to Tom -- as a democrat who voted for Rossi, I find both parties' behavior a joke. Both parties would have made the opposite arguments had their positions been reversed, which tells you they're only interesting in winning, not being fair.

If my party found 8 random piles of ballots that could have helped our candidate, I would expect that someone should lose their job for costing us those votes. I don't think it ever would have occurred to me that these random votes could just be belatedly added to our figures. Very bizarre.

The very fact that these new ones, ("...Still to be decided was the fate of 22 other newly discovered ballots. They were found in several polling places in the side bins of plastic bases..."San Jose Mercury News) these were numbered machines that had been taken apart and signed off as EMPTY by two individuals from different parties - so, in each of those cases - either two people signed off in err and had in fact lied - since the machines must NOT have been as they swore they had been - or someone else is lieing, after the fact.

By the way, the "influential" Seattle PI has an average circulation of about 290,000--which is well below several popular cat magazines.

The Post-Intelligencer's circulation is actually
about 160,000 (not 290,000). Sorry for the tallying error.

While we are busily fighting the battle of the ballots, I think we should all take a moment to remember those who sacrified during the Battle of The Bulge. Today is the 60th anniversary thereof. Were it not for such men, we would likely not be having this argument.

Take read:

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Bulge/

I just thought it would help keep things in perspective.

There continues to be "we're right, you're wrong" and "we are moral, you are cheaters" from both sides.

Guess it's a symptom of our republic form of government (and lousy voting systems).

Run off from now on...please!

When you reach puberty, you may understand that Republicans aren't for "more independence" and that they haven't been for twenty-five years at least.

You would expect that someone would lose their job...I'm not sure what good that would do, but I'm sure that the Republican party would put you in charge of all firings when you turn eighteen, just to help you feel important. The Republicans sure need somebody like you to enforce employee discipline. Did you notice that Donald Rumsfeld and Tom Delay still have their jobs? I'm sure you'd take care of that problem.

I listened to rantmeister extraordinaire Mike Siegel this morning, talking about the ballots - he concedes they should be counted. Sam Reed doesn't seem to have a problem with them. I suppose you would fire them too. I can hardly wait until you're old enough to be in charge!

Enjoy losing.

On another matter - Any MILITARY persons whose vote was not counted, please email chrisvance@WSRP.org. The need specifics. TY

It's "Republicans" not "Repugs." It's THEIR board here, after all.

They are always shrill, but not to be misunderestimated.

You may be right about Siegel. I was flipping the station everytime he started plugging "The General" and maybe missed something.

What's up with the military voter request? In Florida 2000 there was a dispute over overseas military ballots. Anyone overseas isn't reading soundpolitics, I'm afraid, and anyone here isn't likely to have had a similar problem. Grasping at straws to see if you get lucky to get a problem military ballot for PR purposes, or is there some reason to suspect a problem?

I'm not foul mouthed. I did try to type the word socia1ist, and the board thought it was dirty because it contains the name of a prescription drug.

Of course, I'm not sure I know what a seven year old considers "foul mouthed" - I can only apply adult standards.

Thanks for the observation, though.

"If it turns out 400-some voters followed all the rules and King County messed up scanning their signatures, or notifying them that there was an issue with their signatures, or notifying them that their ballots had been disallowed, would you support counting those votes?"

If all of the above were true - i.e., if the voters had done everything they were supposed to - AND if a clear chain of custody can be shown for the ballots in question, then yes, I would support canvassing those ballots and counting the ones that turn out to be valid.

Of course, that flies in the face of the State Supreme Court's declaration that a "recount" is limited to a "retabulation" of ballots previously accepted as valid - which would seem to exclude even ballots which were excluded through no fault of the voters. That would be unfortunate, but is a flaw in Washington's voting laws that the Court itself has said is outside its authority and must be remedied by the Legislature.

The rules are set up to prevent fraud and abuse, and sometimes their strictness results in seemingly unjust outcomes. Unfortunately, any attempt to amend them on the fly (even in the name of "justice") runs the risk of rendering them ineffective for their primary purpose (i.e., preventing fraud). This tension has always existed in our legal system.

In the meantime, there are easy ways to work around this-- spell "socialist" with a 1 instead of an l "socia1ist" or put a hyphen in there "social-ist"

Thanks for the explanation. I mainly thought it was funny. That makes sense.

And thank you for tolerating us Democrats who visit on ocassion.

Sorry, lady, not the case. Check the IP logged with this post and it show sup in Kyrgyzstan, where statues of Lenin are all over the place. You should come on over and see what a wonderful job he did with the place.

I guess I'm not technically military after getting out after my 5 years were up in the Marines and working as a civilian contractor for the Air Force now, but it would probably be close enough.

Cool. Do you hail from Washington?

I don't really get what Lenin has to do with anything, but whatever. Any statues of Stalin? I would imagine he was much more influential in the country's history.

Democrats demand yet a fourth counting of the ballots AND start finding 'previously uncounted' ballots...

And you think Republicans are getting shrill?

spell "socia1ist" with a 1 instead of an l "socia1ist" or put a hyphen in there "social-ist"

Or just use the synonym "liberal democrat," which has the exact same meaning.

I really think we need a run-off election just to keep all the fun going for another month or so. Barring that, maybe Dino and Christine could agree to a co-goverancy...each gets to be in charge for six months at a time.

On election day two poll place workers (One R, One D. Or is there an L too?) have to sign off an affadavit "I've searched machine #123 and there are NO BALLOTS in the main bin, in the side provisionals pocket or in the top".

Doesn't that mean that there MUST have been a crime committed involving these 22 ballots?

Either:
A) The poll workers were criminally negligent in issuing a false statement under oath.

or
B) Someone committed election fraud.

The one thing known for sure is it isn't 'C) Nothing illegal happened.'

Right? So what's the machine number and who certified it?

What exactly do you mean by "all the substance of talk radio?"

I would estimate that probably 70-80% of what is on here is more or less factual, which means it has, at most, 20-30% of the substance of talk radio.

Most affidavits have language to the effect that the statements are sworn to the best of the signer's knowledge. If it were an honest (competent or incompetent) oversight, then no crime was commited by signing to the best of that person's knowledge.

Does that mean you believe that talk radio is between 233% and 400% more or less factual?

Have you been taking math lessons from a horse?

Well, if this is 70-80% factual, then 20-30% is NOT factual.

That 20-30% is the substance of talk radio - that is, NOT factual. Extrapolating the relatively clear implications of my post would lead one to the correct conclusion that talk radio is 100% NOT factual. No fuzzy math here.

I was complimenting your site, perhaps not in a way that you appreciate, but in a way that is sincere.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule that votes not counted the first 2 times cannot be added to
the hand recount pile, and that there can be no more re-canvassing? Why weren't the 574 pseudo-votes tossed? Am I missing something?

The Supremes said: the process starts with the county canvassing boards opening the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted...and ballots are to be retabulated only if they have been previously counted or tallied.

It doesn't indicate to me that the counties have discretion.

There may be an equal protection argument or something, but the order indicates that if they were in the sealed containers, they are left out.