Precinct FED 30-3301, or simply Precinct 3301, is located in Federal Way in south King County off I-5. I've never been there and I don't know much about it except that it helps illustrate why this election, in Dino Rossi's words, is a "total mess" and needs to be nullified.
Now that King County has released the precinct canvass for the manual recount, we can see how Precinct 3301 voted in each of the three counts
| Count | Gregoire | Rossi | Bennett | Write-in | Undervote | Overvote | Total |
| Initial | 191 | 142 | 14 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 355 |
| Machine | 191 | 143 | 14 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 356 |
| Manual | 191 | 141 | 13 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 352 |
In fact, it wasn't as simple as merely adding 59 ballots, they actually added a net total of 325 ballots to some precincts and removed a net total of 266 ballots from other precincts.
Precinct 3301 is one of the precincts that lost ballots. How can this happen? It's not that marks were interpreted differently. It's that pieces of paper disappeared in one count, or only existed in somebody's imagination in an earlier count. We're assured that in every case the diligent election workers tallied and retallied and checked each others numbers and that their ballot counts were perfect! Every time they changed they were perfect! The process is perfect, except for those four annoying pieces of paper that somehow disappeared from Precinct 3301 during the manual recount, and the other 262 pieces of paper that somehow disappeared from all those other precincts, and the 325 other pieces of paper that magically materialized somewhere else.
We know a little bit about what happened in the machine recount. A new ABSENTEE ballot for Dino Rossi somehow materialized in this precinct. But we don't yet know what kinds of ballots were lost in the "more accurate" manual recount, because the precinct canvass for the manual recount doesn't include that information.
But fortunately, this time we now also know how many voters voted in Precinct 3301. The King County voter file tells us that 354 citizens voted in Precinct 3301 -- 252 Absentee, 85 Polling Place and 17 Provisional. 354 voters cast valid ballots, of which only 352 can be located.
Precinct 3301 isn't the only precinct that has more voters than ballots, it only came up on the top of my list because it lost the most ballots in the manual recount. In fact, 684 out of 2,616 precincts have more voters than ballots, for a total of 1,512 ballotless voters. Were these ballots simply lost? Did the elections office (contrary to instructions) release a file that reflects changes in voters' addresses and precincts that have occurred in the weeks since the election? Or what? We may never know.
And that's just one more example of why this election is a "total mess" and why we need to set it aside and move on to a revote.
UPDATE: I thought to cross-reference the Dec. 29 voter file against the Nov. 1 voter file to see if any voters have changed precincts. Some have. One more strike against KC Elections. I specifically asked for the voter list to describe the voters as of the day of the election. Inter-precinct migration explains only 1 of the Precinct 3301's 2 ballotless voters. There are still at least 353 voters who cast ballots in Precinct 3301 on the day of the election, but only 352 of these ballots were counted. I'll work on a comprehensive analysis of all precincts.
UPDATE 2: It now appears that the voters who changed precincts were provisioinal voters who corrected their precincts at the polls on election day and there were only about 40 of them. The basic conclusion stands: in certain precincts there are roughly 1,500 more voters than counted ballots, and therefore in other precincts there must also be about 5,000 more ballots =than there are known voters.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 31, 2004
12:34 AM | Email This
Maybe because the reality that King County does not smell like roses is starting to set in?
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 31, 2004 06:22 AMHowever, it is obviously not the precinct with the most ballotless voters. It had 354 voters, and only 352 ballots, which is 2 ballotless voters.
If there are 1,512 ballotless voters, and 684 precincts (to date) with more voters than ballots, that is an average of more than two per precinct.
So how about a new thread, identifying the precinct which has the most ballotless voters? And also the precinct with the most voterless ballots, along with any changes in ballot counts between the three counts (for both types of precincts)?
If King County as a whole has 3,539 more ballots than voters, and 684 of the precincts have 1,512 more voters than ballots, then out of the remaining 1,932 precincts (some of which may be in balance), there must be 5,051 more ballots than voters.
(By the way, King County is supposed to have 2,616 precincts. You used the number 2,626 -- which I assume was a typo on your part. But if the number of precincts changed, let me know. Anything is possible in Belarus County.)
If you add 1,512 ballotless voters to 5,051 voterless ballots, this is a total of 6,563 errors or wrongful acts -- far more than Fraudoire's apparent victory margin of 129 votes.
These errors don't exactly cancel out or net out, but instead cumulate. A ballotless voter may mean than a ballot cast by a voter for Rossi was simply removed and tossed out. A voterless ballot may mean that a ballot marked for Gregoire not cast by a voter was stuffed into the ballot pile.
So how about telling us the number of precincts with voterless ballots, and identifying which precinct has the most voterless ballots (along with any changes in ballot counts between the three counts)?
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 31, 2004 06:57 AMI have been copying and pasting everything you've put on this web site and sending it out across the state and country. Keep it up. If we don't keep the pot stirred, then there won't be any soup to serve.
Again thank you all for your efforts.
Mel
You are the Powerline of Washington State!
Many thanks for your eagle eye.
Perhaps you can pull a committee together to do this for all of King County.
Posted by: John Lemon on December 31, 2004 10:19 AMhave disappeared: two Rossi ballots, a Bennett
ballot, and an undervote. There is no real
plausible explanation for this. The number of
ballots should be a monotonically increasing
function, and the original and machine counts
reconcile to the same total when adjusted for the
added absentee ballot. The original count was,
therefore, almost certainly correct.
If a recount restores the ballots, it is proof
that the manual recount process was flawed. If
a recount fails to find the ballots, it is
very strong evidence that the ballots were not
properly secured.
In any case, it is important to reduce the
margin going into the contest. Rossi has at least
three sources of votes: military votes, the
absentee undercount in counties outside of
King that were subjected to less permissive
rules than King County, and [willful?] errors
in King and other counties. The first two
are subject to federal ligitation. Every Dino
vote properly restored before the federal
challenge lowers his burden of proof by that
vote.
In addition to challenging the tally, Dino can
challenge ballots by double voters, non-citizens,
non-residents, improperly registered persons,
fictious and impersonated voters. Again, every
restored ballot lowers Dino's burden of proof
by one vote.
Dino should offer to pay for a second manual
recount by a impartial auditing firm immediately.
Let Gregroire object!
At this point, assuming Fraudoire holds her ground--take a heck of a PR campaign to get her to back down and agree to another election and I frankly don't think Chris Vance is competent enough to mount one--all that can be done is a contest and vote by vote challenge.
I'm not sure contesting this election in court is the way to go. The Republicans might gain from the perception Democrats are a completely fraudulent entity who steal elections for the next four years, but then we've known that for a long time I suppose. Cantwell would almost surely be toast in 06. I wonder if Rossi has called her. If not someone needs to.. she needs to be on record as being part of these shenanigans.
Personally I'd like to see some coordination with Washington and maybe get the Justice Department and FBI out here.
I know it doesn't set the best precedent, but neither does vote fraud.
Posted by: Jim on December 31, 2004 12:25 PMThere was a crooked woman,
And she wore a crooked smile.
She had a crooked concience,
Besides the crooked smile;
She stole a crooked vote,
Which was her crooked fate,
And so became the leader,
Of a very crooked state.
But what guarantee do we have that Cook County won't screw up again? (Other than the Xine or Rossi victory being so big that they can't?) Will still be the same group of incompetently corrupt partisans working with the same voting rolls.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on December 31, 2004 01:07 PMKerry Lost. I got over it.
Spend this much energy on some real voting problems in Ohio and you'll find something real to waste your time on. Our elections are FUCKED UP at all levels. Please put partisan issues aside and spend the time working on FIXING THE BROKEN SYSTEM.
Posted by: Jimmy on December 31, 2004 02:14 PMThough what you've stated about the Dems pretty much sums them up....(remember Clinton was *bullet proof* ), you have to admit - this time there is just too much opposition to their fraud tactics. This time they just didn't have enough kevlar to cover their deeds......
Expect this.. When the Dems do go down...we will see a few RINO's go down with them...
Posted by: Deborah on December 31, 2004 11:19 PMGregoire called the race a tie when Rossi was ahead by 261 and again when he was ahead by 42. As soon as she was ahead, she was "the winner" and the word "tie" never again crossed her lips.
The fact is that Rossi won two out of three counts and his average margin of victory was 151.5 votes. Gregoire won one out of three counts, only after new votes were added in, with a margin of victory of only 129 votes. That is less than Rossi's AVERAGE for two counts, and less than HALF of Rossi's initial victory.
If she were rational (highly questionable at this point), she would understand that if a victory by 261 votes was "a tie" then a victory by 129 votes is a closer tie that still needs to be broken with a new election.
Posted by: Chip Gibbons on January 1, 2005 10:29 AMAnother Oregonian here (thinking of moving to Vancouver--frying pan into the fire?) who wonders how you can simply float what must be a bogus error rate on a machine count. Did you read the analysis above? The machine recounts were consistent after the one vote difference was explained. The source of most errors using modern machinery of this type is due to human programming or operating errors. Machines are now able to beat the best chess players; at a simple task such as counting votes they are far superior to humans. It is not at all practical to count votes in any other way, so your proposal is mute.
Hugh Hewitt had it right; if it is not close they can't cheat.
Posted by: Mike on January 3, 2005 12:37 PM