Wednesday's Seattle Times explains some of the astonishing discrepancy between the number of ballots cast and the number of voters who voted:
An unknown number of provisional voters, some of whom may not even have been registered to vote, improperly put their ballots directly into vote-counting machines at polling places, King County's elections superintendent said yesterday.Chris Vance will discuss this at a press conference later on Wednesday. I've seen an email from a polling place and canvass worker who will be speaking at the press conference about what he witnessed. It's pretty damning stuff and the numbers of questioned ballots is large relative to Gregoire's margin of "victory".Once those ballots went into the machines, there was no way to separate them from legitimate ballots.
Meanwhile, what does Governor-pretend Fraudoire have to say about all of this? She says: "Calm down"
"The idea of a redo I find to be absolutely ludicrous," Gregoire said. "It's particularly unfortunate we're somehow suggesting these county election officials haven't done their job, when there is absolutely no evidence to support that."Doesn't that just tell you how hard a Governor Gregoire would work to defend the citizens against bureaucratic incompetence? And that's just one of the reasons why we fight so hard to nullify this dreadful woman's illegitimate "victory". Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 05, 2005 12:37 AM | Email This
It now seems obvious where those extra 3000 or so votes have come from. Should be interesting tomorrow, I'm thinking the silence from the editorial pages of our fair and balanced papers is going to be deafening.
Posted by: Mike on January 5, 2005 01:27 AMThese 484 military and overseas ballots cast something called a federal write-in ballot, which only has federal offices on it. The military and state department make these available in case either (1) the regular absentee ballot doesn't arrive in time to be cast or (2) the prospective voter isn't registered in the first place.
In either event, these should be reflected, but perhaps the 484 names have not yet been added. Anything is possible.
Probably most of the 484 federal write-in ballots were cast by military personnel, whose regular absentee ballot had not arrived in time. These people's ballots were otherwise received in time. These 484 voters should be allowed the chance to re-vote, so that this time they will be able to vote for Governor as well.
Somehow, I thought there would be more than 74 Address Confidentiality Program voters, since there are over 1,200 people in that program. However, some are children, some are aliens, and some are apathetic. And probably some actually register publicly, instead of confidentially.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 5, 2005 01:41 AM"Mistakes were made." However, they weren't "our" mistakes...
"I can't completely fault our poll workers 100 percent in this matter, especially when you're dealing with over 300,000 voters at the polls. People come in all kinds of varieties and shapes and sizes," Huennekens said.
Jim Rigby, a Republican observer at a polling place in the lobby of the King County Administration Building on Election Day, said that the scene was "chaos" and that he objected when one man walked into the building and promptly shoved a ballot into the vote-counting machine.
No confusion there...if someone walks into a polling center, walks to a vote counting machine and inserts a ballot, then that is certainly confusion, but it's not "our mistake," and it certainly isn't "fraud," because (Huennekens said) "there was no evidence of voter fraud."
So it is, and it isn't...those 3500 extra votes may be the result of provisional ballots, so there's no "proof" that King County can't account for votes...however, that's just a theory, it's not "proof" King County allowed voters to walk into buildings and promptly insert ballots into counting machines.
It's also no big deal, because vote counts and voters never are "perfectly" reconciled, and Logan says that's no big deal.
However, Gregoire says that no mistakes were made..."The idea of a redo I find to be absolutely ludicrous," Gregoire said. "It's particularly unfortunate we're somehow suggesting these county election officials haven't done their job, when there is absolutely no evidence to support that."
Because, you see, she said there's no evidence to support the idea that county election officials haven't done their job. Huennekens said it wasn't "totally" the fault of election workers, but he didn't say who or who else it might be.
This is the latest dispatch from through the looking glass, at an election process Gregoire has described as a model for the nation.
I'm glad I could help clear the confusion.
The process is so...Clintonesque. If this fraud is allowed to stand, look for four years of what we've been subjected to for the last two months...carefully worded denials and various forms of weasel-words.
What we're seeing here is what gives attorneys and politicians a bad name.
Posted by: South County on January 5, 2005 02:29 AMhttp://loony.phenominet.com/gregoier-PR.htm
Posted by: Splatter on January 5, 2005 02:45 AMPerhaps it's not about the system...perhaps it's fighting only if your guy (or gal) isn't winning...
Posted by: tom on January 5, 2005 06:14 AMAnd I really can't say I blame you. If I were a Democrat, I certainly wouldn't want the truth about King County's electoral process to come out.
Posted by: ScottM on January 5, 2005 06:37 AM:)
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 06:52 AMI'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I believe the court can ORDER the Legislature to hold a special election. Then it would come down to a classic Judicial vs. Legislative branch fight, but I don't think the Legislature can then say no. All they can do is pass the law setting up the date and the rules. Or would the judge do that?
Anyone know more about how this would go down? Can a judge call for a special election without involving the Legislature?
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 5, 2005 07:17 AMI don't believe that the two are ever linked together unless there is suspicion of error. To be completely certain you would need to reconcile the stubs against the stubs that are sent back to election headquarters. Once that's done you would immediately see that there are more ballots than stubs. These would end up being ballots that were "shoved" in the scanning machines or ballots that were simply dropped in the ballot boxes without having a ballot given to you by the election official
Does anyone that was an observer in any county recall seeing ballots that still had stubs on them?
I suspect that the machines that scan would probably reject the ballot until you tear the stub off. If not, an upgrade should be done to only allow a ballot of dimensions 8.5" x 14". (Not sure if this is actually the size.) The optical eye that is inside the machine could do this.
This is why this election is a mess. It would take another 3-4 weeks to be able to reconcile all of this information.
It's time for a revote.
Posted by: Brett Kappenman on January 5, 2005 07:27 AMYou are not the first to presume I'm a democrat (just like many Horses*** people presume I'm a republican).
I find it interesting that many times when a legitimate point is brought forward, it's met with a response associated with party partisan chides -- like yours (and the ones I get on horses***).
Geez. If someone disagrees, their a desperate member of the opposite party. Forget discussing the issue at hand...
That isn't how our democracy is supposed to work...yet it works more and more like that. Just witness the goings on in DC during the first set of speeches/decisions made by our new congress...the partisanship from both sides is at a new level.
OK...revote. If you can, please answer these questions:
1) Should only people registered the first time be able to vote this time?
2) What happens if someone voted the first time and has since moved?
3) What about people who moved here after the first election?
4) What about people who have since turned 18?
5) What should be done to guarantee votes are counted the way you want them (other than demonstrated by having your candidate win?)
You see, whichever party was leading after whichever count/recount was JUST FINE with the system. The only time the system was the problem was when the OTHER side was ahead. This is true for both sides.
I know, I must be a ranting democrat for saying this. The republicans I voted for would be surprised to hear that....
Posted by: tom on January 5, 2005 07:54 AMIf Huennekens knew that in some cases provisional ballots where put into the machines but did not remove them before certifying the election results, that I would think would constitute fraud! What else would you call knowingly certifying inacurate results?
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 5, 2005 08:03 AM1. How can you have a system that allows a provisional ballot to be fed into a voting machine?
2. How is it possible or acceptable that ANY dicrepancy can exist between ballots and voters?
3. If Washington State had a problem with the electoral process in 1998, why didn't politicians and bureaucrats correct the system (to democrats and republicans in office at the time)?
4. Why haven't Washington State politicians addressed the problem of overseas military personnel not being able to vote?
If Mr. Vance wants re-election, he needs to demonstrate to the rest of us why he deserves another term. He can do this by addressing the above questions.
Mr. Reed needs to answer these questions as well.
Posted by: jaybo on January 5, 2005 08:06 AMVery good questions. To be consistent, we'd have to throw out all the elections since then...and to be consistent with the current situation, we certainly would throw out all the 2004 results (including Sen. Murray, AG McKenna, LG Owen, Secy of State Reed, etc.).
Of course, we could just re-do one election (the governor) but how fair would that be? With the scope of errors alleged, all elections are and should be in question.
Real answer, of course, is change election law so this never happens again. In the meantime, the law is the law...you may hate it, but the recounts are all in there as well as options for people to contest.
Posted by: tom on January 5, 2005 08:13 AMAs an ex-Democrat, I'll offer my observation that conservatives prefer for the law to be followed, regardless of outcome. In contrast, at least some leftists look at the outcome and work back to deduce whether the process was "correct."
So I'll just reframe 5, if you don't mind: What should be done to guarantee that the election is honest and lawful?
Many, many ideas come to mind:
*Purge the voter rolls of dead people & felons.
*Allow independent, timely access to this information to verify that it has been done.
*Print provisional ballots on a different color of paper so that they cannot be mixed in & lost.
*Station both Democrat & Republican observers at every polling station.
*Make sure that at every signoff stage, the legally required steps have been taken. Hold these people accountable for signing off the results.
*Publish the results in a timely manner, and provide the voter information using the same criteria as the ballots so that it is possible to determine whether there are duplicates.
*Wherever possible, take steps to prevent fraud. Anticipate how the system can be gamed, and remove those security holes.
In other words: follow a process that passes the laugh test.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 08:16 AM1. In Fed. Court for equal protection - changing the rules, military ballots (which seems to be a big problem if 454 of them had to use the fed prov. ballot).
2. Illegal votes - felons, dead people, voting twice and etc. I beleive we have heard enough to know that there are 100's of these.
3. Misconduct on the part of the election workers. Note this is not fraud by the election workers (but fraud would do) it is misconduct. In short misconduct is not doing what you know to do and/or doing what you know you are to do. I beleive that kc explaination for the un-verfied prov ball. getting to the system qualifies as misconduct. Either by the polling people or those who trained them.
I would expect to see a court filing by Friday.
Posted by: Doug on January 5, 2005 08:18 AMKing County will surely lose the voter rolls in the Blizzard.
Now we can truly look like the Ukraine!
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 5, 2005 08:20 AMThis election, however, is the most recent, and the election officials have already broken the law by certifying the results without having met the standards required by law. I consider that serious, and the system will never get better if nobody is prosecuted.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 08:26 AMFederal court would be for having the election voided because of changing the rules or problems with military ballots. This would be like the FL case in 2000.
Posted by: Doug on January 5, 2005 08:26 AMDoes equal protection apply to state elections for state offices?
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 5, 2005 08:29 AMI seriously doubt if the Supreme Court in this state would admit to an already flawed decision..I think it would have to come from the federal level..ie..SCOTUS.
Posted by: PR on January 5, 2005 08:41 AMNow the question to be asked is "Why did King County design its provisional ballots in such a way as to facilitate fraud?"
Tom: Here's a question for you: Don't you even care that King County stole this election for Gregoire? Don't you even care?
Posted by: ScottM on January 5, 2005 08:52 AMYour recipe for a fair election sounds very good. How is it possible to put on a re-vote, in any reasonable timeframe, that objectively meets the standards you have outlined?
For example, your first point is supposedly the rule everywhere..yet for over 100 years, such people continue to appear on the rolls (including pets, etc.).
I think your ideas are worthy...but we have to wonder if we can create a system that is really able to deliver (even with 95% confidence) on them. And certainly, one questions how it is even remotely possible for a quick re-vote this time around.
And again, it would be all results...not just the tight governor race.
And the 1/1 date seems arbitrary and debatable. That allows many new people to vote who haven't voted before....just seems like it's a bad idea that isn't likely constitutional.
I maintain...this is a good thing to do but the current case reeks of partisanship with the Rs being just fine with the entire process until G pulled ahead (or was likely to pull ahead).
The future...do as much of what you suggest, create runoffs intead of recounts, etc.
Florida 2000 should have taught us all this. Shame on us.
Posted by: tom on January 5, 2005 08:52 AMAll currently registered voters should have to show up at a polling place with proof of ID & residency to cast a simple vote. If you want to vote for Gregoire you pick up a colored slip of paper and fill out your name, address and telephone number and put it in the ballot box. If you want Rossi, you do the same thing but with a differently colored ballot.
Lock and seal all ballot boxes across the state and ship them to Olympia where the Secretary of States office then tallies the vote under public scrutiny of both parties, media, and any citizen that wants to attend.
Posted by: Fedup on January 5, 2005 08:53 AM"She repeatedly complained about what she called divisive rhetoric about the legitimacy of her victory. The election is over and a revote is a ludicrous suggestion that undermines confidence in the election process, she said."
That's like right out of The Village, man! She would have made a great Number 2. Ha, Ha, Ha! Ya just got to love these self-serving Democrats. They're like parodies of themselves.
Posted by: Kevin on January 5, 2005 08:55 AMOne more thing that needs to be changed before the next election.
Posted by: ScottM on January 5, 2005 08:57 AM"There will be no revote without a court order throwing out the last recount. And if Rossi does not file in Federal court before the 11th, he will lose the public support he now has. Once Gregoire is sworn in as Governor, it's over. Rossi can still sue, but public support will fade away......."
Robin, I couldn't agree more. I think that court papers have to be filed sooner, rather than later.
At least to expose this election mess.
Everytime Governor-pretend Fraudoire opens her mouth I find her words "absolutely ludicrous."
Better for her if she would just shut up now. Actually, better for the Republicans if she keeps on pontificating.
Posted by: JG on January 5, 2005 08:59 AMWhy do you care what the supposed motivations of the Republicans are? What, pray tell, does that have to do with legality or illegality of the last election?
Do you require anyone who discovers lawbreaking behavior to have absolutely nothing to gain by the prosecution of the law before they are listened to?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 09:02 AMI really do think x-tine is sweating bullets now. She has become the very symbol of fraud and corruption. btw, I hope she keeps her team of public speaking advisors. They are unwittingly some of Dino's greatest helpers!
Posted by: Michele on January 5, 2005 09:04 AM
Tom: Some answers for your questions...
1) Should only people registered the first time be able to vote this time?
No...this would be difficult to confirm and be too onerous a task. This is a new vote.
2) What happens if someone voted the first time and has since moved?
They don't get to vote. They are no longer eligible.
3) What about people who moved here after the first election?
If they are registered in time, they are now legal residents, they should be allowed to vote. As I understand it from Carlson last night, there is an election already planned for some time in February (for school levies, other minor issues). Anyone properly registered would already be voting for these.
4) What about people who have since turned 18?
Same answer as #3.
5) What should be done to guarantee votes are counted the way you want them (other than demonstrated by having your candidate win?)
Good question...no real good answer. Except to parrot what Carlson has said in the past...the whole process will be under a much larger microscope...probably nationwide. I know that I'll volunteer as an observer again. I think that if the King County list of voters is independently verified (and maybe those of the other larger counties) and only those eligible are allowed to vote we should be okay. *crossing fingers*
If CG comes out with a clear victory, then she'll be my governor and I will respect the office she holds. However, I happen to believe that a large number of people have seen her true colors and are fed up...I didn't hate her before all of this and I am close to that strong emotion now. I think Dino would win by a small landslide.
Posted by: megs on January 5, 2005 09:08 AMThat's why the Republicans are more upset now. Because Christine Gregoire will become governor solely because King County ran an unfair, incompetent, and almost certainly corrupt election.
Naturally, the Republicans will be less upset if King County's machinations fail than if they succeed. Are you really shocked, shocked at this?
Posted by: ScottM on January 5, 2005 09:11 AM"I maintain...this is a good thing to do but the current case reeks of partisanship with the Rs being just fine with the entire process until G pulled ahead (or was likely to pull ahead)."
Tom, Republicans were complaining about this process from the first recount! They filed a suit challenging "found" ballots, but since the first recount didn't change the result, there was no "harm", so the case was withdrawn.
Further, we didn't have access to the data (we still don't have the "final" data) until just recently to be able to uncover much of this!
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 5, 2005 09:21 AMI believe every word your Stefan, but as I keep saying you are not going to stop this 'steamroller' it just runs right over the bumps even the big ones.
everyone knows how this election sham has uncovered the 'conferacy of dunces' known as King Co. (just look at the polls).
but there is no legal means to stop it. and as i keep saying, elections are all political when it is 'razor thin - even in the courts - fair or unfair.
she has a nice big 'kick me' sign on her back and lets not tear it off.
Posted by: JPO on January 5, 2005 09:22 AMThere are three ways this election can be decided: Either by the judges, the legislators, or THE ELECTORATE.
The only way there can be confidence in the result is if this is decided by the electorate. The democrat-dominated legislature will blow this off--thus supplanting the will of the people.
ATTENTION SPOKANE COUNTY--flood your representative LISA BROWN with phone calls and emails--she's a disgrace for saying this election "followed the rules". This is SHAMEFUL!
Posted by: noel on January 5, 2005 09:28 AM"RCW 29A.68.110
Illegal votes -- Number of votes affected -- Enough to change result.
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person."
Shouldnt this be enough for the legislature to overturn the election, given king county-& others-have allowed the provisionals and felony voters to all count in the 3rd recount??
Also, the Washington state Constitution stipulates you must be able to speak and read in English in order to vote. How are people whom are illeterate allowed to vote then?? How are they going to know what is being read and written, on the ballot, by "non-partisan election officials"???
can someone clear this up for me??
stefan-thank you again for all you have done.
Could I please refer you to the post by "Maggie" at 8:18am.
Posted by: Susu on January 5, 2005 09:51 AMThe precedent I would like to set here is to embarrass the hell out of the officials who ran such a shoddy election. Prosecute people if possible. Make it hurt that they served voters (of all parties!) so very badly.
This raises the stakes for election officials all over the country to tighten up their procedures to prevent fraud. If there is no penalty for screwing up, there's not much motivation to change, now is there?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 10:18 AMTony Snow just ran a piece on his talkshow about this fiasco in Washington.
Posted by: jaybo on January 5, 2005 10:18 AM"Also, the Washington state Constitution stipulates you must be able to speak and read in English in order to vote. How are people whom are illeterate allowed to vote then?? How are they going to know what is being read and written, on the ballot, by "non-partisan election officials"???"
The elector qualification to be able to read and to speak English was added to the original state constitution in 1896. These same qualifications were stricken from the constitution in 1974.
In 2000 the SCOTUS ruling didn't disenfranchise anyone, they just stopped the Democrats from counting, recounting, and recounting again until they could manufacture the number of votes needed to win in Florida. Believe me, the goal of the Democratics was NOT to count every vote, but to count until they won. Like the Washington state Dems have done.
Lucky for all of America the SCOTUS ruled as they did.
Posted by: Chuck on January 5, 2005 10:36 AMAll these things are only problems when the vote is closer than the margin of error/fraud. So, only close races are
You wrote: "And again, it would be all results...not just the tight governor race." Why all results? By what precedent? We can't do anything about those elections but we can do something about this one, sir. Personally, I'd love to find out if Kerry really did win this state. But that ain't going to happen now is it?
"And the 1/1 date seems arbitrary and debatable. That allows many new people to vote who haven't voted before....just seems like it's a bad idea that isn't likely constitutional." Wow, you pulled all that right out of your ass. What wouldn't be arbitrary and debatable to you? By what standard? Those that are eligible to vote in any election are those that are eligible to vote at the time of the election - as always.
"I maintain...this is a good thing to do but the current case reeks of partisanship with the Rs being just fine with the entire process until G pulled ahead (or was likely to pull ahead)." When I was a small child I came to the realization that even though I might not like someone if what they say is true is true I should listen. Is what those who call for a new election say true or false? Is what the Democrats say true or false? Simple enough for a child to understand. Partisanship? Sir, I put it to you that every argument you've put forward in this forum has been straight from the Democrat Party playbook. Are you a Democrat or a shit-disturber? From what I can see it's one or the other. Of course you're nonpartisan! Being a Democrat is the very sine qua non of being nonpartisan. Every Democrat knows this.
"The future...do as much of what you suggest, create runoffs intead of recounts, etc." Runoffs instead of recounts? I don't know what a runoff could be but another election. Is that what you propose here?
"Florida 2000 should have taught us all this. Shame on us." I take it you are suggesting we should learn from Al Gore's unethical and unseemly actions in his ugly efforts to steal the Presidential election in 2000 and the subsequent shadow that black cloud has cast over the entire Democrat Party? Sir, we Republicans did learn from that episode. Believe me you we learned a lot about Democrats from that. Thank you for admitting your shame. That might be the first step to recovery.
Posted by: Kevin on January 5, 2005 10:51 AMThey didn't go after just the low hanging cherries...they rustled their way through the leaves and branches all over that tree...looking only for the exact shape and sweetness of cherry they WANTED and likely discarded their perceived culls (Rossi votes). And in the process they damaged the tree so badly that it'll take much effort to heal and produce fruit again! It is so blatently obvious!
The involved "pickers" should be ashamed and should be limited to "pick" areas that they're qualified to pick...body parts not excluded. But even then, they'd keep the nice booger and carry the others around on the backside of their pant leg claiming to have picked only one!
Heads should roll over the activities that have gone on in King Countly! Punishment to the full extent of the law!
I find it very hypocritical of Gregoire in her recent statement accusing Republicans of dividing the state with their accusations. "I think we ought to put it behind us and move on," she said. "This is not good for the state of Washington." Of course she thinks she should move on...move on and out of the state, as far as I'm concerned...
Mini-Hillary didn't have this opinion after the first count...she didn't have this opinion after the second count. Only after she "appears" to have taken the lead does she formulate her most recent, and continually changing opinion. Can't she see in herself what hypocrasy this is? Now THIS is really someone I'd like to see fill the governor's office...just chock full of integrity...
As another example of my perspective, I can understand King Countly finding "lost" ballots under some empty mail container ONCE...I can understand King Countly finding "lost" ballots TWICE...I daresay that I could even understand King Countly finding "lost" ballots THREE times...albeit with a raised eyebrow...but King Countly found "lost" ballots NINE TIMES...count'em...NINE! Incredulous! Unbelievable! What ineptitude! What cheating!
On top of that Gregoire won't even mildly concede that King Countly had any problems at all! She would be well served to at least admit that "maybe there was a bit of a problem here and there".
I believe in integrity, honesty, fairness, responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY...not only in our public officials but in all people!
King Countly was the only one of our 39 counties that have had these types of problems. To me, that speaks volumes! I've only sited a couple of the issues...there are so many examples...too many to cover in any one letter. I thank SoundPolitics for their coverage, investigation and perseverance!
I have to admit I sometimes find myself wanting to throw my arms up in the air and walk away...but, that's exactly what the democratic party wants me to do...
Instead, I'm agitated to the point that I highly recommend that the Republican Party, and those of us wanting an honest outcome, whatever that outcome will be, should PERSEVERE! We must have a REVOTE! (please take a minute and sign the revote petition at www.revotewa.com)! ! !
To me, honestly, it's not about WHO won the election...it's about KNOWING who won the election. The issues at hand are about the integrity of the democratic process. Corrupt the democratic process and you've corrupted the very HEART of America, not to mention Washington State!
I find it appropriately ironic that the Republican Party mascot is an elephant...it is said that elephants "never forget". I, for one, will never forget this election. In my mind, it will forever smear the integrity of the democratic party (intentionally lower case).
I also find it appropriately ironic that the democratic party mascot is...what...a jackass, isn't it? Need I say more?
Most sincerely,
Dan (born in Seattle and a registered voter of Snohomish County)
I just phoned pierce county elections department-both my husband and I were on the approved list of voters-thankfully. I emailed all of our legislatures about a month ago re: the election fiasco-nothing in response.
This am, I called Senator Pam Roaches office-the very nice gentleman that answered the phones stated Ms. Roach's office has received numerous phone calls and email's re:this election. Evidently she has put together a "special re-vote" bill that she will be presenting next week. This gentleman assured me that they are doing everything possible to make sure this doesnt get swept under the rug, after taking my name and number.
I also read in the newspaper this am..quoting from Ms. Gregoire- "I'm totally dedicated to serving the citizens of the state of Washington to moving forward". Who and what citizens is she addressing???
Because I dont believe she has been listening to any citizens of the current Washington State I am living in today.
As a veteran of the miliatary services-both my husband and I-we are deeply disturbed by this election. We both live in pierce county. All of 300 homes in our small sub division in this county received our absentee ballots 4 or 5 days prior to the election.!!!! I'm concerned that the responses from Sec. State Sam Reed stating this has been no evidence of any military disenfranchisement on any level-ballots were sent out in october-more than enough time to vote and get ballots back. Does he know where Iraq and Afghanistan is located?? Does he know how long it takes for mail to get to "war zones???"
As a veteran of the military I am appaled that this is not taken more seriously with the military service members-they dont lie!!!
However, I think this sort of thing does show that reforms are needed, including a _legal_ means of establishing a revote if the election is closer than some margin of confidence. I'm a scientist, and if the vote is to determine the "will" of the people (however one wants to define it), then results like this are meaningless for the purposes of measurement.
However, if we were to have future revotes (I'm taking it out of the discussion of this election) I would want two things
1) automatic runoff in the first election - people should be able to mark second choices so that if no one gets an absolute majority, people who voted for bennett (e.g.) would immediately be tallied for whoever their second choice was. I'd rather this than spend loads of money on a whole new election if it could be avoided. the revote would be just of the top two vote getters
2) not just one polling day - not everyone can get days off, or is in town, or what have you, kids get sick, whatever. If we're to have an election for just one office, I'd like to see ten days of polling, like the early polling stations in FLA, with one, or maybe two, days with lots of voting stations open, and the other eight or nine with more limited ones.
Seriously, electing someone with a 200 or 40 or 100 vote margin is just silly with an electorate this size. I don't believe that such a victory really shows the "will" of the people.
Now, what's currently law is a totally different question.
Posted by: Edgar is Good on January 5, 2005 11:17 AM"I just called the legislative hotline at 800-562-6000 as Shark mentioned. It was very easy, and quite pleasent. The nice lady on the phone took my message verbatim, even reading it back to me to make sure it was accurate, and said it will be sent to my Senator and both representatives.
I asked them to not certify the election for Governor. I pointed out that the closeness of the race, coupled with the volume of irregularities state wide mean that the only way to really know with any certainty who won, is to revote.
I urge you all to do the same.
Posted by Jason at January 5, 2005 11:29 AM"
Posted by: MS. Cynical on January 5, 2005 11:36 AMI maintain, exposing the extent of the manipulation by contesting this election in the courts has the benefit of increasing the margin of victory for Rossi in the public's eye. It's also faster and by-passes the need to depend upon a slow-moving, partisan legislature in seeking redress for this botched election.
Posted by: RLG on January 5, 2005 11:49 AMPerhaps if enough people write enough letters and express their concern, even the Democrats might start listening. The citizens of this state are upset and this is a huge issue for Washington.
Posted by: Larry in Renton on January 5, 2005 11:49 AMBut either way, please shine a bright light on all the dark icky spots! (I'm not a WA voter, for obvious reasons.)
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 12:00 PMBut, apart from the outcome of this election, important as it is, we the citizens of Washington have a grievance! We have been defrauded of our rights as citizens who vote. The place to take our grievance is the courts. This will not only clean up this election but ensure the needed reforms that will protect future elections as well. It's overdue, folks.
Posted by: RLG on January 5, 2005 12:08 PMPlease check Jay Nordlinger's badly written stuff in today's NRO. He mentions anonymous voting at his precinct (no ID required), and the ... liberal (no other word, except 'promiscuous,' will do) distribution of provisional ballots.
My experience while voting at the Admin Building, downtown, was a ditto. I was given a provisional, despite being registered at the Ad
Bldg, and was never asked for ID. Finally convinced someone that I should have been given a regular ballot, and then witnessed a long, loud argument among several poll workers about the One Best Way to account for the improperly issued provisional. All this while dozens of voters were pushing back & forth, most of them looking for spare space to fill out their provisional ballots. Only once did I show ID, utterly unofficial, and only because my final poll worker was apparently a recent immigrant who apparently could not speak English.
It's dangerous to extrapolate from personal anecdote, but I suspect there were many stories like mine & Nordlinger's in our naked city.
Bottom line: Indifference to ID; misuse of provisional ballots (Nordlinger asserts that provisionals were often counted, as if they
were standard ballots, without the pretense of verifying IDs and registration status); inadequate training of workers and supervisors.
Get over it
Move on
You all lost.
Live With It.
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 5, 2005 01:21 PMRe-vote!
Posted by: MES on January 5, 2005 01:29 PM"Bottom line: Indifference to ID; misuse of provisional ballots (Nordlinger asserts that provisionals were often counted, as if they
were standard ballots, without the pretense of verifying IDs and registration status); inadequate training of workers and supervisors."
The chief judge at the polling place is called an Elections Inspector. In King County, the inspectors are taught that they cannot ask voters for ID's. Not even there voter ID card! You might get some reassurance by asking their address before letting them view the polling book, but even if they cannot cite their own address, the judges are not permitted to challenge their right to receive a regular ballot. This was the training I received in 2002 as a King County inspector.
Posted by: Huckleberry on January 5, 2005 01:56 PMAs for me, I'm an Independent. I want EVERY vote to count, but I want EVERY vote to be legal and verifiable. I would have counted all the votes in Florida, as long as a reasonable equal standard had been applied to them all. I don't like paperless electronic voting. There shouldn't be longer lines in minority precincts (that’s the claim in Ohio), etc. If more democrats where using these arguments to support GC's [hopefully temporary if there where > 129 net illegal votes for GC] "win"...but they're not.
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 5, 2005 01:58 PMbut there is no legal means to stop it. and as i keep saying, elections are all political when it is 'razor thin - even in the courts - fair or unfair.
Those who are convinced that something can't be done, should stay out of the way of those attempting to do so.
Posted by: South County on January 5, 2005 02:53 PMThe difference between libs and repubs? Libs want to fix the NEXT election.
Posted by: South County on January 5, 2005 02:58 PMRegarding motivation: The Ds say what the Rs said and vice versa. The only possible explanation is pure partisanship. It's never been about "following rules" or "counting all votes" -- it's been about ensuring your (D or R) candidate wins.
The hyprocisy (every time I use that word to describe what the Ds or Rs to, I get labelled a liberal here...) on BOTH sides is obvious and patently disingenous.
Tell me in your hearts that if Gregoire had been behind after the hand recount and decided to use the exact same logic y'all are using that you wouldn't continue the arguments you used before the hand recount ("you lost, voters have responsibility, fraud/miscounting is a false claim to steal the election, you are a cheater).
Of course she would have been slammed using the exact same arguments the Ds are using.
And, Ds, tell me that you wouldn't pull all the stops out in the courts to try to get a revote because you didn't like the result. Of course you would.
Rossi told G to concede; now he won't.
G told Rossi to concede; he won't.
TOTAL HYPOCRISY ON BOTH SIDES
It may be a neat trick to divide every political problem in half, find what appears to the middle, and put yourself there... but your heart, sir, belongs to the Left.
For you, this is all words & positioning. There is no truth underneath for you. You think that motives matter more than the rule of law. These are signs of the Left.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 5, 2005 06:45 PMI only point out that the Rs were just fine and dandy with the election until it became clear Rossi would lose the lead. And the Ds refused to accept the results until Gregoire got the lead. Both used the arguments they other side used when the swtich seemed prudent.
It couldn't be more blatant...I'm not surprised D or R partisans pretend they have the sole right to the moral ground when in fact all they want is their guy/gal in office.
I'm also not surprised that you take a personal attack at me (you say "There is no truth underneath for you.")...I've never given a personal attack here but have been the recipient of many (FedUp is really good at them).
Personal attacks usually happen when the logic argruments fail.
I wish all the partisans would admit they really really really want Rossi/Gregoire for governor and will say anything and use selective facts (and the courts) to get their way.
The Rs are doing here exactly what the Ds did in Florida. Both can't be right or wrong. But both can be trying every possible way to get their candidate sworn in. Really would be nice if folks just admitted it.
You asserted that the Republicans were fine with this when they were ahead. The Republicans who had first-hand knowledge of the ballots had been handled were very alarmed indeed, starting on Nov. 2. Many of them have spoken up here.
As to the Republican leadership, I don't know what they knew on Nov. 2, but since that date, a lot more of the ugly truth has come out, and yes, it has changed minds.
I think that on Nov. 2, the Republican leadership (who did not have all the information we now have) was prepared to accept the results of a statistical fluke. It looked like (and perhaps was) a statistical tie.
For me, there's a giant difference between going along with a coin toss and blithely accepting gross incompetence.
I don't know what was in Dino Rossi's head on Nov. 2 and I don't much care, but your accusation of "TOTAL HYPOCRISY" was an attack.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 6, 2005 06:27 AM