With some honorable exceptions, I have not been impressed by the coverage of the disputed governor's election. Few journalists, as I have argued before, are even willing to look into the possibility that some Republican claims may be true. That charge led to an exchange with Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat, which I describe here. (As you can see in the post, another Seattle Times employee, Joni Balter, immediately undermined Westneat's argument.)
But I want to be fair, even to journalists. (And I would like them to do more of the investigative work so I can do more commentary.) Westneat assures me that they really, really want to search for vote fraud, even when it is directed against Republicans. If that is so, then they will apprectiate the following tips. (And if it is not so, others who are willing to search for vote fraud may be able to use them.)
That list does not exhaust the possibilities by any means, but it should give Mr. Westneat and his colleagues a few places to start — if they are genuinely interested in vote fraud directed against Republicans.
And of course there are related topics that deserve more investigation. For example, I would love to know more about the ballots that King County election workers "enhanced". Given the election workers' disregard (or ignorance?) of the election laws, I can not be entirely confident that every single "enhancement" actually reflected the clear will of the voter.
If journalists think that the public is not interested in this subject, they should look at the recent letters to the PI, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I found twenty letters on the election dispute in those six days; none of them referred to an investigative article by the PI. (One did mention an op-ed.) Several letters mentioned some of Stefan's findings. The readers are interested, even if the journalists are not.
No doubt I have missed some possibilities; feel free to add more suggestions in the comments below.
(As a result of my discussion with Westneat, I changed this earlier post slightly. I am not sure it will make him any happier.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 07, 2005 07:25 AM | Email Thishttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/206946_vote07.html
This sort of smoking gun is exactly what we need to prove who really is the more trustworthy party.
But Chris Vance is going to prove his case, along with other supposed evidence from very uncredible sources, with dead people voting, and we already have 2 very proven cases where they voted republican.
Good Job Chariman Mao Vance! You make the democrats case even more compelling!
Posted by: DustinJames on January 7, 2005 07:48 AMI'm just saying that the evidence that Chairman Mao Vance keeps talking about seems to stack against them more and more.
Posted by: DustinJames on January 7, 2005 08:18 AMOh, Dustin...if you are TRULY concerned about fraudulent votes, how happy you will be when the Rossi Campaign presents their evidence to a court of law!
I have heard some examples of what they have found, and it should impress even YOU! Just hang on, buddy...it's going to be a wild ride!
Would you change your mind if it were found that one person voted for Gregoire 8 times in this election? Would you change your mind if there is evidence that MoveOn.org engaged in electioneering?
Of course, if you only take into account what the Seattle Slimes and Lost-Intelligencer print, it was a fine election, and the only fraudulent votes went to Rossi! But that doesn't reflect reality, as we all soon will see.
Like Shark asked - what would it take to change your mind?
Posted by: Larry on January 7, 2005 08:18 AMWhat would it take to change your mind?
260 votes that can be proven that they should not have been cast.
Posted by: DustinJames on January 7, 2005 08:20 AMWell, in that case....I suggest you hold your horses!
I understand that there are many hints, allegations, and hypotheses flying around these blogs, as well as a good does of propaganda. But you shouldn't blame us good citizens for the exchange of ideas in the absence of any credible media investigations. We're engaging in what Democrats traditionally love - a grassroots effort!
The real evidence will be presented in court - not a press conference. Why would Chris Vance get in front of cameras and shovel the REAL dirt? Then Ron Sims, Sam Reed, and all the other jokers would have time to cover their a$$es! Nope - Vance, the Rossi Campaign, and the Republicans are being coy in order to give everyone involved just enough rope to hang themselves.
Meanwhile, the local news outlets are unknowingly making a mockery of themselves. It will all come out in the end.
Posted by: Larry on January 7, 2005 08:28 AMThe deluded lefties have NO concern for the integrity of this election. To them it is all about revenge and their sense of "payback" for what they perceieve was - in spite of the facts - a "fraudulent" Florida count in 2000.
Did you hear the whining and sniffling by the Rats over Ohio...a race decided by over 115,000 votes?
Hence, the lack of MSM coverage (until recently) on the bumbling, stumbling conduct of KC Elections and besides, their gal won, so "What Me Worry?"
Laugh as each day passes, and more cases of misconduct are brought to light and the power holders of this state (the Rats) are forced to admit that the gubernatorial race is infected, inedible and invalid.
Posted by: Shaun on January 7, 2005 08:28 AMI used to consider myself a liberal. My mom most certainly is, but I know she would be appalled at the WA Democrats' behavior (we tend not to talk about politics, though, so I am not sure).
The Democrats wonder why they lost in Nov. and they will not open their eyes to see how they're driving away literally millions of people.
I no longer recognize the Democratic party. I don't know what happened to it.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 08:35 AMThe people making the claims say that as many as 300 provisional votes may have been fed into the machines. The confirmation rate of provisional ballots in King County would be 90%. Let's just say that this happened, although I distrust the timing of this mysterious report. The poll workers should be charged with a felony for their gross incompetence if this really happened. But anyway, back to the math:
90% of 300 = 270. So, 30 votes could be claimed in error, again, IF this happened.
That's not 260, and certainly not within the 129 vote margin of victory. But it is closer to Dino's 42 vote margin of "Victory" which he called on Christine to concede... Tell me, why wasn't Dino interested in a fair election when he was in the lead?
Because, as partisans play, they'll do anything, anything to get their candidate elected. But what scares me about Dino the most is that he was the reform candidate.
Some reform.
Posted by: Dustinjames on January 7, 2005 08:35 AMThe election officials themselves admit that they did not verify 6% of the provisional ballots:
"Democrats downplayed the importance of the revelation, noting that King County verified 94 percent of provisional ballots."
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002142097_webrecount05.html)
There was a RECORD number of provisional ballots. See this news story for an early estimate: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002085234_webprovisional08.html
That is a great deal of uncertainty, especially for such a very close race. Don't the voters deserve better?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 08:47 AMYour mathmatical ability is awesome but you really need to get the right numbers to plug in.
Hehehehe
You just made my morning
:)
But just wait til four years from now-- those same democrats will turn on him and tell everyone how incompetent he was for all the screw-ups and/or corruption that took place. Or worse, that led to a revote (yep, I do believe that's coming) and that he's so incompetent that people should instead vote for their highly partisan hack candidate, who we all know would not have certified this election (by order of crying Paul Berendt) if things were exactly reversed. This same candidate would have at best presented the GUISE of fairness. Just watch it all play out....
Posted by: Michele on January 7, 2005 08:57 AMMy whole life, I voted for Democrats, straight ticket, until Nov. 2004. Now I see a party that contains nobody willing to rein in their Baghdad Bobs. Are there any grownups over there?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 09:05 AMI agree. Neither quite does it. "Willfully uninformed" might be close to the mark.
Posted by: J.A. on January 7, 2005 09:08 AMAgain, I still haven't seen that any of those are proven that they shouldn't have voted.
There are felons being weeded out on the lists. Some have had voting rights restored, some haven't. The ones that haven't, I'll take those into consideration. I'm willing to let the 6% provisional slide for all the counties east of the mountains that didn't verify sigantures on any of their absentee ballots, which were considerably more than what happened in King County.
I'm also not for a revote until we can get some universal standards. Without those, who is to say that this whole shenanigan won't take place in a revote? And what happens if it does? Do we just keep revoting until the results never change and give up or what?
Posted by: DustinJames on January 7, 2005 09:10 AMPlan on attending rally on Tuesday - not familiar with Olympia, where is the rally taking place?
Posted by: Susan on January 7, 2005 09:13 AMWith all these allegations coming up, we then couldn't be confident of any electoral result in the last election, if what you are saying is true, right?
I know I can't. If books are being cooked, as you all claim, then who knows exactly what book was cooked for whom. I bet that if we started seriously looking at every vote in the state, and scrutinized them very carefully, I could find enough to call Doug Sutherland's 80k vote margin of victory into question.
What margin is then actually appropriate?
Posted by: DustinJames on January 7, 2005 09:17 AMFor these ballots, NOBODY knows whether those votes were legal. Many, hopefully most, were completely legal, but that is UNKNOWN and possible unknowable, due to the illegal mixing of provo ballots with regular ones.
It is not necessary to prove that ANY of those were illegal. It is necessary only to demonstrate that those ballots represent a margin of error that is far, far larger than CG's win.
***
There already are universal standards, I believe. The election officials failed to follow them. In doing so, they disenfranchised voters.
The rally is taking place at the state capitol building. Not sure where you're coming from. From the North take I-5 South, take exit 105 state capitol/city center exit. go straight you'll see the capitol building. go right at the light. there is parking on campus. it may be real full. the parking is paid parking you go to the paystation, get a ticket and place it on your windshield. Otherwise there are parking lots all through the downtown area. And, don't forget to wear orange!
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 7, 2005 09:23 AMHow do I know if any of the Absentee ballots received east of the mountains that had zero siganture verification were legal either?
I don't.
I think Dino's people underestimate C.G.'s supporter's. We threw away votes on the libertarian, we threw away votes on writing Ron Sim's name in, and we stayed away from the ballot box because we knew that C.G. was a shoo-in.
No mainstream statewide poll from any state daily paper showed Rossi within 5% of winning the race. The thus-far proven by self-admission cases of voter fraud have both been to Republicans for stuffing the ballot box. I think you are all fools for floating this re-vote thing to begin with. My uncle Bart and aunt Bev, Rossi voters, have already stated that they will not vote for the schlump again for his arrogance in characterizing the election as fair when he was winning, but a complete disaster when the hand count showed he wasn't. Both agree that the hand count was more accurate, and both wouldn't vote for him again.
I think, that if it did go to a revote, which I don't want to do, he'd lose 55/45 statewide and he'd be done with politically.
Take some advice from your own republicans in response both to Florida in 2000 and Ohio this year:
"There's a wise saying we've used in Florida the past four years that the other side would be wise to learn: Get over it," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/01/06/national1519EST0642.DTL
Posted by: DustinJames on January 7, 2005 09:29 AMPlease refer to Realclearpolitics.com for your polling information.
Posted by: seattle todd on January 7, 2005 09:36 AMI would like every paper in the country to be discussing the details of how elections are run, what procedures are in place to prevent errors & fraud, and what has happened in KC.
As a voter, I would like a giant spotlight of attention on the officials who misconducted the polling, so that all such officials understand that they must comply with the legal standards--and that if they do not do so, they will be held responsible.
I don't think that will happen if we "fix it next time." That's been said before.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 09:39 AMDJ and others,
Just to let you know. Any provisional ballot that was not reviewed for all the required information is illegal by definition.
Also, the numbers we are seeing of these kinds of ballots is about what Stefan had calculated. 3500 diff between 5000 voter less ballots and 1500 voters with no ballots.
For the 1500 voters with no ballots we have found the 484 military mentioned and about 80 domestic violence ladies. This leaves about 950 of these.
We have not account for to many of the 5000 voter less ballots, so you can expect to see a number of over 4000 today (if it happens today) of unaccounted voter less ballots.
I think this bares repeating so I will say
again and again until everyone here's it.
The one thing that continues to be left out of
any of these discussions is the utter lack
of organization of the king county GOP.
We would not be having this discussion
had they done there job.when you have
between 65 and 85,000 registered republicans
that don't even vote there is something very wrong.
This group did virtually nothing to get
out the vote{bush-cheney is not the same thing}
they also had 65,000 dollars in the bank
after the election.That was stupid and inexcusable.There should not ever be anything
left after an election.
Even if only 10 percent of those that
didn't vote had voted we wouldnt be having
this discussion.
In case anyone hasn't already figured it out (by the fact that I'm not starting this with a tirade against Christine Gregoire) I'm a Democrat.
The "ReVote" debate is not going to be solved here. The courts will hear the evidence and decide what action needs to be taken. If they find sufficient evidence to overturn the election, I would hope for a re-vote, but I suspect (and hope I'm wrong) that if the court simply says "go back to the first recount numbers" the clamor for a re-vote will die out on this board. It will be interesting to watch. Will Mr. Rossi still call for a re-vote if the numbers turn his way? Since I want to believe that both candidates are honest and honorable, I hope so, but the record in this election (for both) doesn't give me much hope.
So, what can this board (and others) do? How about a discussion of what changes are needed? I've seen an attempt at this by Mr. Miller at the top of this thread, but the posters don't really seem interested in the topic. Let me throw out some ideas:
1. Voting machines using verifiable paper ballots and instant "vote checking" where if a ballot is obviously (double vote, etc...) wrong, it is immediately handed back to the voter, who can then fix it. This type of machine is currently used in my precinct of Pierce County, so I know it's possible.
2. Require photo ID at the polling place. Yes, I know that some of my fellow Democrats don't like this idea, but it really isn't a burden. If you're close enough to walk to the poll, then you can get back quickly. If you drove to the poll, then what are you doing on the road without your license?
3. Absentee ballots. Where to begin? I'm old-school, and think that voting is important enough to roust my sorry butt out of my chair and drive the two miles to my polling place. Besides, it's a church, and they always have a good bake sale going for election day. (Good pumpkin bread!) I spent over 20 years active duty in the Military, and understand that some folks need to vote absentee. But over half of many precincts? Requiring a valid residence is actually a bigger problem than it seems (military personnel are one obvious example, but there are others.) Still, over 500 people living in the King County building? I've never used the rest rooms there, and now I'm afraid to.
4. We're in the computer age, so purges of dead people, felons and the like should not be such a problem.
So, probably a third of you will blast me for being a Democrat, and another third will ignore me for the same reason. Still, my public school education tells me that 1/3 + 1/3 does not equal 1, so maybe we can find someone that actually wants to fix the system, not just put down the other guys.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 7, 2005 09:48 AMBig if, though. If 85,000 Republicans aren't alarmed enough by the thought of Christmas-in-Cambodia Kerry as CIC, why would they worry about Ms. Gregoire?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 09:55 AMYou're right about the system needing fixed. I am republican and did vote for Rossi. As, I've stated before, this is not about C.G. or D.R., it is about the system being fixed so that these things do not continue to happen. Two of my five children will be able to vote in 2008. They are watching what is going on now. I hope that some measures are taken to ensure that these things don't happen again.
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 7, 2005 09:56 AMNo offense to Uncle Bart and Aunt Bev... but they are idiots if they actually believe the hand count was more accurate than the machine count.
As for your believe that CG would win 55/45, how does that explain that 69% of the people in a recent poll say to revote? Wouldn't the Dems say 'no' to a revote if they supported CG? I'm not afraid of a revote... but the Dems sure are, why else would bawling Paul send out his cry for help email the other day begging supporters to call Olympia and tell the legislators to certify the election for CG... they are running scared, and with good reason.
IMO, this election will be tossed and there will be a revote. All it takes is proof that at least 129 illegal votes were cast. It doesn't matter who they were for, only that they were illegal. I'm certainly not privy to what the WSRP will present in court, but I have no doubt it will be much more than the terrific data we've seen presented on this website. Stay tuned... the fat lady hasn't sung yet.
Posted by: TomP on January 7, 2005 09:58 AMAs a voter, I want election officals to be able to demonstrate that the election results are reasonably accurate and as fraud-proof as possible, and I want them to tell us what the margin of error is. Otherwise, I will wonder if I am being disenfranchised.
As for the large number of people whose residence is listed as that county building, that's the address used for homeless people, as I heard. I think you're safe if you're in the neighborhood & need to use the loo.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 10:02 AM"What margin is then actually appropriate?"
A margin of one vote would be adequate, in my mind......as long as the actual number of votes equals the actual number of legitimate voters. It might be time consuming but all the illegitimate voters and and illegitimate ballots should be removed from the count.
If this cannot be done, the only fair way is to conduct a revote with tighter controls in place.
Any disagreement?
Posted by: Ken Muller on January 7, 2005 10:04 AMFor D.J.: Again, a ReVote is not all about a Rossi win. I think he would, but if he lost fair and square that would something I could live with.
The previous blotched election process (thanks King County for your incompetence) is not something anyone should want to live with.
Besides, I always expect Democrats to win in this very leftist state.
Posted by: JG on January 7, 2005 10:05 AMAnd we also still have 950 cases of more voters than ballots (let's call them Disappeared Ballots or DB) when Jefferson County had exactly 0 cases of these before certifying each of 3 counts. Not good for King Co either.
Lets see if anyone agrees with this mathematical equation:
BS + DB+ Deadguys +Felons +Direct deposits of Provisionals + illegitimate ballot enhancing+ Multiple votes by some individuals + Many Ballots with same signature + MORE TO COME!========
REVOTE!
Suggestion: If the Inauguration Ball moves forward on a hotly contested election, it would add further fuel to the fire for the R's.
DustinJames..you are going to need to quickly remobilize your base. Suggest you donate tickets to: HOBO's for Gregoire or Perverts for Gregoire. Would make a great campaign ad for the revote, don't you think?
I've heard this idea: Require people to pick up their absentee ballots in person & show ID & proof of residence, just the same as they would on polling day.
An alternative is to have additional polling days (more expensive).
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 10:16 AMWith all due respect, you are playing checkers when chess is called for. Dino will be criticized by the left regardless of what happens or what he does...if it's not concede.
If the election results are thrown out and the machine recount results are certified by the court, he's in a win-win situation. What would Dino gain by calling for a revote nonetheless?
---he immediately gains more stature.
---he will certainly win by a resounding margin.
---He will have credibility.
Man, lose your focus on that "they all do it" cr@p and get in the real game. They don't all do it.
Posted by: South County on January 7, 2005 10:37 AM
"Never since the beginning of history have princes been so blind in the presence of facts and the portion of divine authority that facts contain and promulgate. Never had that earthly pretension called the right of kings denied the divine right to such an extent."
Victor Hugo (Les Miserables)
Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness: and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens.
Exodus 18:21
For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
Matthew 16:26
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw of such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Declaration of Independence
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me give me liberty or give me death."
Patrick Henry
I've seen evidence of vote fraud, I just haven't seen enough to invalidate the results of the hand re-count. I've seen of a total of 25 confirmed cases of ineligible voters voting.
I would need 130 to throw the election in question, for me, and 260 to throw out the vote.
Posted by: DustinJames on January 7, 2005 01:00 PMWhy is this so very irrelevant to you?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 01:31 PMEven as a Republican, I agree with self-confessed Dem. JohnB re: the reform of the systems. In the 2003 elections, only 5 of 39 counties in WA had less than 50% of their votes cast as absentee ballots. 75% of all votes were absentee - that's a lot of opportunities for fraud.
I think the voter rolls in every county should be shredded up and thrown in the trash. Start over from scratch. Require every person in the state to re-register with proof of ID, proof of residence, signature and thumbprint (both of which can be captured electronically).
Require all able-bodied, registered voters to appear in person with photo ID and sign in to receive a ballot. Biometric scanner compares thumbprint and digital signature on file can be compared to signature in ballot record book.
Those who will be unable to physically appear at the polling place may be allowed to vote absentee, but will have pickup their ballot in person prior to the election and return it by mail - postmarked not later than election day. Military voters and people overseas could have special provisions established to ensure that their ballots are received early enough to allow for return and counting before final certification.
That's not a bad handle! Where did you get it?
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 7, 2005 01:56 PM