I obtained the latest copy of the King County voter list this afternoon.
I'm shocked. shocked! to report that the numbers don't add up. The Elections Dept. explains that the numbers aren't supposed to add up. Even after adjusting for a total of 320 legitimate Address Confidentiality Program Voters and federal write-in absentee ballots, and the 348 known unverified provisional ballots that went into the ballot pool illegally, there is still what King County says is a discrepancy of 1,217 more ballots than identified voters. But I can't even reconcile the file they gave me to within a few hundred yards of 1,217. There's still a discrepancy between their discrepancy and the apparent discrepancy.
I'm convinced they delivered a file that was designed not be in any way reconcilable, in order to make it as difficult as possible to detect the specific sources of the errors. Oh, wait:
Updates to the CD include additional registrations, cancellations, and changes to individual voter records.King County has known for over a week that every serious person in the state has been demanding the most accurate list possible. King County has been promising to deliver the most accurate list possible. But the list they delivered deletes the names of some people who voted on Nov. 2, and changes the precinct assignments of others. We really will never know who voted on Nov. 2 and where they voted. I have 2 earlier snapshots of the database, so I think I might be able to reconstruct close to the entire Nov. 2 voter list, but it won't be easy or 100% accurate.
Nevertheless, King County reassures us that their numbers are very accurate:
The remaining difference in the number of votes cast versus the number of registrations credited with voting in the 2004 General Election is 1,217 – an accuracy rate of 99.99% based on close to 900,000 ballots cast.First of all, it's just plain sleazy to claim that the number of unaccounted for ballots is only 1,217, when that number doesn't include the 348 illegal and unidentified provisionals. But even then, 1,217 errors out of 899,199 is not an accuracy rate of 99.99%, it's an accuracy rate of 99.86%.
But who's counting?
Cheapshots aside, the real discrepancy between ballots counted and known voters has to include the 348 magical mystery provisional ballots, or 1,565 in all(assuming one can even reconcile to the reported discrepancy, which seems to be an intractable problem). Based on the percentages in the manual recount, 1,565 randomly selected ballots in King County would break down as follows:
891 Gregoire
611 Rossi
73 Split between Bennet, write-in, overvote, blank
i.e. these 1,565 voterless mystery ballots alone must have added 280 votes to Gregoire's lead.
I'm ready to declare Dino Rossi the winner again, but I'm willing to have a run-off. It's time to nullify the election, or call the FBI. Or both.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 07, 2005 10:32 PM | Email ThisWhy do we need to assume that illegal or improper ballots have the same proportion of votes as the valid ballots do?
Seems to me that we could as easily assume that might have been voted all one way -- there's no way of ever knowing. The process seems to have been designed to keep us from knowing.
Posted by: Boonie on January 7, 2005 11:26 PMctmohr
Posted by: ctmohr on January 7, 2005 11:33 PMCome on, you're so damn sure that there is corruption and fraud going on in King County Elections, bring in the feds. You want to see Dean Logan behind bars so badly, call in the FBI.
CALL IN THE FBI!
Or are you just all talk when you know nobody's gonna call your bluff?
Posted by: David Goldstein on January 7, 2005 11:36 PMIt seems to say that the 1,217 "voterless ballots" include 348 provisional ballots:
"The reconciliation work done this week reduced the difference between ballots cast and voters credited from 3,539 to 1,217. This number includes 348 provisional ballots mistakenly put through vote tabulation machines at polling places.”
If "this number" doesn't refer to 1,217 then what is "this number" which includes those provisional ballots that were put through the counting machines?
They seem to add the 69 Address Confidentiality Program ballots and 251 federal write-in ballots to the 348 provisional ballots that they say went through the counting machines without being validated. Those numbers add up to the "668 ballots [which] were accounted for but not represented in the registration system."
They take the 3,539 original figure and subtract 1,654 ballots that were cast by "voters [who] were credited for voting during the reconciliation process." That leaves 1885 unaccounted for.
Then, they subtract the 668 ACP, federal write-in, and provisional ballots to arrive at 1,217 ballots for which they have no explanation.
The 1,217 figure, then, doesn't include the 348 provisional ballots, since those ballots were subtracted to arrive at 1,217.
Are they claiming that they were able to validate those 348 provisional ballots which were mistakenly counted at the polling places?
If they were able to validate those 348 provisional ballots, why weren't they included in the 1,654 ballots that were matched up to registered voters during the reconciliation process? (Were they included, and thus subtracted twice from the original 3,539?)
Posted by: Micajah on January 7, 2005 11:39 PMI can just see the poor judge looking at these various reports and all the unexplained changes and discrepancies. His poor brow will be furrowed permanently with confusion and disgust.
I've never believed there was any vast left-wing conspiracy. I believe there are many instances of fraud and lots of convenient incompetence. I will be glad when other County Auditors speak up about where the bar should be set on reconciliations.
Are there actually 899,199 names on the currently revised list as being credited with voting?
I will remind everyone once again that fraud need not be proved to overturn this election. Merely the mishandling of enough ballots to throw the outcome into doubt. That's obviously been proved.
Posted by: Timothy on January 7, 2005 11:45 PMNo one wants Logan to go to jail either Goldy. The Lefty's continue to spin what is required here is to prove actual FRAUD. You all use the F- word repeatedly like somehow if you do so the law is going to magically change and require that high of a standard. Fraud isn't required to successfully contest this election Goldy. But I think you know that. Yer jest joshin' us!
And this is supposedly good enough for a win.
Well my figures show that out of the 2,810,058 votes (not voters) counted in this state, CG is basing her landslide win on a 129 vote lead which is a percentage of 99.9954. Now I would say (and I am no math man like Shark) that this contestment is well within an exceptable margin of error to pursue.
Posted by: GS on January 7, 2005 11:52 PMNo kidding.
Posted by: TADD on January 7, 2005 11:54 PMSince I don't live in the Democratic Party's Kingdom County, I was wondering---
Has there ever been talk of splitting up the fiefdom into two or three counties? Would this be worse? Could it be any worse?
Wouldn't surprise me if they claim that the citizenship field is not public information, since it is not listed among the data that is specifically discloseable to the public. It wouldn't surprise me if the citizenship field on the King County voter database is not fully populated.
I guess I will have to wait until Wednesday 01-12-2004 to see whether Dean Logan considers a registered voter's U.S. citizenship status to be public information.
"Cheapshot aside?" What cheapshot?
Posted by: max on January 8, 2005 12:14 AMWhere is America now? Do we risk our plasma tvs and suv's for liberty? Will we risk our lives to secure a government that will uphold the devine right of property? Will we risk our honor?
To risk our honor we must have honor. Yet do we? Are we a virtous people? We have gone 40 years away from religion. Now we are returning to it in large numbers. Yet morality is only slowly coming back. Nearly all Christian household still view tv. Still the Christian watches the ridiculous Survivor or the Apprentice and its accompanying filthy commericals. The most viewed movie of the holiday season was Meet the Folkers a completely immoral gutter film. I have to believe with the kind of revenue that it garnered that many Christians went to see it. Some Christian aquaintances told me they saw it.
There are many other examples of our immorality - from the girth of our belts, to our disregard of our parental responsibilty, to our lack of charitable giving (irrespective of the recent outpouring of private American wealth to SE Asia church going Americans give only 2% of their income to charity when God asks a minimum of a 10% tithe and offering on top of that.)
Every revolution fails, eventually. The American revolution is no exception. Within thirty years of the revolution the principle reason for the founding of the nation, free pursuit of God, had taken a secondary seat to the preservation and growth of the republic. Today we won't even suffer the maintainance of the republic - we desire peace instead - full bellies, dvd entertainment, warmth, Ford Expeditions, manicured lawns, Pizza delivery, etc. We are willing to lose our republic - both here in Washington and the federal one for our comfort.
Our forefathers rebelled in part over a 2% tax rate on a limited number of goods. We have tax rates for most of middle America that effectively pass 25% even with full itemizing.
Issachar is a strong ass couching down between two burdens: and he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant, and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute. Genesis 49:14-15
Olympia and DC know their people well - they have been a long time seeing to your comfort. You have been long at rest and those chains you now wear do not seem so heavy. To pull Christ's yoke instead seems to you silly, putting you subject to ridicule and scorn - so because of this many of you wear both the chains of the utopians - your slavers - and Christ's yoke.
In whose kingdom will you choose to live - God's or Satan's?
What does Christ say about those with a foot in both kingdoms? "I know thou works thou aren't
neither cold (in other words soothing - blessed are the peacemakers - Jesus in the sermon on the mount was refering to those who bring peace within families/congregations etc, not Wilsonian 'peacemakers.')
nor hot (eg. chastising of the sinners - see John the Baptists ministry in the gospels) ,
I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot I will spue thee out of my mouth (kick you out of my kingdom) Revelations 3:15-16
he goes on to say why he does this: Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing and knowest not that thou are wretched, and miserable and poor and blind and naked Revelations 3:17
So what to do? He gives the solution in the next few verses: Look it up and read it.
If you won't bother to do that then you can't expect any effort you make in Olympia on Tuesday or anything else you do will make a difference. Christ will not suffer the immoral their earthly liberty. Repent or continue to wear those chains.
Posted by: Jericho on January 8, 2005 12:18 AMI heard Dean Logan saying that's a percentage he can "live with". With this close an election???? Pardon me, but is he nuts? ONLY IN GOVERNMENT WOULD THIS BE SEEN AS OKAY. THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS REQUIRED TO BE MUCH MORE ACCURATE in its transactions with the public. I'm tired of the double standard.
Posted by: Michele on January 8, 2005 12:25 AMYes, there has been talk of spliting the county. The East would like to become Cedar County. You can read about some of the reasons why here:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0451/041222_news_geov.php
As for the 348 provisional ballots, these were probably the empty envelopes. Does this mean 348 validated empty envelopes, or just 348 empty envelopes altogether? Probably the 348 people with empty envelopes were not given credit for voting, even though their ballots were counted.
So there should be a public records request for the list of 348 people who stuffed their ballots, instead of putting them in the envelope. Also for photocopies of all 348 empty envelopes, and all records related to this. Also, information as to whether any of the 348 empty envelopes were registered voter and signature validated.
In theory, there should be up to 1,654 new names in your latest CD, which were not there previously. However, you would probably have to make a separate public records request for all additional people who have been added to the list.
Is there any way to weight the voterless ballots by precinct? Of course, that would be difficult with 69 confidential address people and 251 federal write-in ballots, even if the rest of the database were accurate.
My suspicion is that the voterless ballot precincts (when weighted by the number of such ballots in each precinct) would be several points more in favor of Gregoire, than King County as a whole.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 8, 2005 12:26 AMI don't know what you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here.
"...God asks a minimum of a 10% tithe..."
Oh really? And you know this how? Did he tell you himself? No? Oh, you read it? And who do you suppose wrote it? God? Unlikely. Do you really think any God so profoundly powerful enough to create us, our world, and this universe, would be so micromanaging as to demand a specific payment? No sir, I'm afraid that's the work of your fellow man.
Posted by: Jason on January 8, 2005 12:33 AMRossi and Vance may be able to pry the data they need from the county using the subpoena power of the court where they filed their challenge. I hope they do.
The list you want actually does exist -- just not in the form you desire. It's divided among the pollbooks for each precinct that list the registered voters as of Election Day. Add up those lists, and you will have a complete list of registered voters. Each pollbook also shows the status of voters who cast their vote at the polling place. Ballot counts for each precinct were certified by counting the number of ballots and cross-checking with the number of voters who signed the pollbook.
There is also a list of absentee ballots that were sent. This list only contains registered voters because each request for an absentee ballot was checked against the list of registered voters before the ballot was sent. When the absentee ballots were returned, they were only accepted if signatures matched those in county records. The absentee voter list was updated to show the status of each absentee voter. Absentee ballot counts can therefore be certified simply by comparing the number of accepted ballots to the number shown in the absentee voter list.
A similar procedure was followed for provisional votes.
Certification of the entire canvass is possible based on the poll ballot certifications of each precinct, the absentee ballot certification, and the provisional ballot certification. These tallies are never going to match perfectly, because errors do occur. One example is provisional ballots being mixed with regular polling place ballots. This would cause the polling place ballot count to exceed the number of pollbook entries. Another example would be empty absentee ballot envelopes. By the time the inner security envelope is opened, the voter who signed the outer envelope has already been credited so this error would reduce the number of ballots vs. credited voters.
The net size of these errors is much smaller than the 3539 voterless ballots you reported earlier, or even the 1217 you are now claiming. Furthermore, the size of this error is in line with discrepancies reported by other counties, so claims of incompetence in King County are unfounded -- at least with respect to this kind of error.
The fact that the certification is not (and cannot) be made against the current live voter registration database is irrelevant, because certification was performed against the other lists I described. The database you have been using was never intended to serve as a basis for reconciling Election Day counts. All of your detailed analyses based on this database (or earlier versions) are meaningless because the database never contained the data you would need to conduct a meaningful analysis.
Posted by: scottd on January 8, 2005 12:36 AMIn the same article, Paul Berendt bellars: "There is no evidence of fraud"! DUH!!
1) Fraud is but one example of a wrongful act. The Dems continue to repeat this mantra as if that will magically change the law. Bad try Paul--No sale. Maybe if Paul cries before the judges they will change the law just to shut him up and get rid of him.
2) The filing today was ALLEGATIONS not evidence. The evidence comes later. Again, nice try Paul.
Paul has some clever wordsmiths. His other favorite is "No conspiracy has been found"!! Who cares Paul? It's not required and no sane person is making that accusation.
With these Dems, you have to carefully analyze there words. Kind of like "it depends upon what your definition of is is"!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 8, 2005 12:50 AMThere should be a file maintained on each individual voter, to show the address and precinct history of each individual voter. It should show the date each change was submitted, and the ID code of the election worker who input the data.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. King County only maintains the current data on each voter, not the historical data. And a voter's address can be changed without any accountability whatsoever -- such as a letter (signature probably not verified) or even a telephone call.
This needs to be changed. And the reconciliation process should be required by law as part of the canvassing and certification. All ballot types (poll, absentee, and provisional) should be distinct, both in appearance and computer coding. And there should also be some sort of tracking of the empty ballot envelopes.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 8, 2005 12:52 AMYou argument sounds valid on the surface, but it assumes that everything works perfectly, a scenario usually referred to as "Frictionless Physics". Assuming everything works perfectly is great when trying to simplify the variables in a complex, but hypothetical situation. We are dealing with reality, frictionless physics don't exist, and everything didn't run perfectly.
For example, you claim:
"There is also a list of absentee ballots that were sent. This list only contains registered voters because each request for an absentee ballot was checked against the list of registered voters before the ballot was sent."
Yet we already know that the "Dead Voters" were people who were on those absentee ballot lists. Just because they are registered, doesn't mean they are legitimate voters. It's the difference between the words "Impossible" and "Improbable". You are assuming that it's impossible for a illegitimate voter to be registered, when in fact it is quite possible, just improbable. Improbability is nice, but it doesn't guarantee us perfect voter rolls. Otherwise dead people wouldn't be getting absentee ballots, or worse, sending them back in.
Posted by: Jason on January 8, 2005 12:57 AMI didn't care about past elections as much as I cared about this one. It wasn't a matter of politics but a matter of beliefs.
For decades, Christianity has been increasingly marginalized in American culture - what we see on TV and in movies, hear on the radio, read in magazines, etc., including all of the recent debates about God's name being used in a child's Thanksgiving poem and Christmas displays and Christmas songs and Christmas greetings.
I'll not argue that America is a Christian nation, but I will say that for one of the longest periods in history, America has been a harbor for Christianity and its practioners. At least until recently.
Then came the bitter campaign between Bush and Kerry. But in my perspective as a Christian, I saw it more as a debate between those in America who believed we were right to assert our might in Afghanistan and Iraq and those who believed we were wrong to do so. And, in the final sum of it all, I believe that Bush does not care for anything more than to confront those Muslims who seek to destroy anyone and anything (including other Muslims) so as to accomplish their goal of cultural domination, not only in the Middle East, but in all corners of the world. I believe Bush refuses to let that happen during his presidency, regardless of what his accusers claim are his motives. I believe that Bush wants to bring freedom and the chance to live peacefully in a democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe that Kerry and his supporters are either blind to this or would actually prefer for those Muslim extremists to succeed in their ambitions.
So, I voted for Bush. I also voted for Dino. I didn't think he had a chance in a state that consistently went Democrat. Then he won the election, won in the first recount and lost in the second recount.
As a citizen, I care about the rules being followed and the process being fair, honest and open. As a practicing Christian, I want for Christians to be willing to stand up and not be afraid to say by their words and actions how we ought to live as people who worship God. But not everyone believes in and/or worships God, so I wouldn't expect them to agree with Jericho or me about that.
That's what I think Jericho is getting at, though I don't know. I tried to keep this reply relevant to the topic at hand, which is the election and impending revote.
Posted by: JRR on January 8, 2005 01:01 AMThe way things stand, if you wanted a reasonable estimate of the number of "voterless" ballots, you would need to substract the number of pollbook signatures, validated absentee ballots, and validated provisional ballots from the total number of counted ballots. Even in this case, there would be small sources of error. My guess is the total would be close to the 348 provisional ballots erroneously processed as polling place ballots.
Posted by: scottd on January 8, 2005 01:04 AMSeattle Times, are you... reporting?
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 8, 2005 01:12 AMI also made no claim of a perfect system -- quite to the contrary. I was only pointing out what would be necessary to reconcile the number of cast ballots against the number of Election Day registered voters credited with voting. The analyses presented so far that purport to do this are flawed because we don't have access to the necessary data.
Finally, I never claimed that every registered voter was a legitimate voter -- although that's certainly the goal of every voter registrar. Our current laws for maintaining voter registration allow a certain amount of error. Richard Pope's post lists some reforms that may help reduce the amount of error -- but no practical system is going to reduce the error to zero.
Posted by: scottd on January 8, 2005 01:16 AMAnd King County KNOWS that the more they play with the numbers...the more confused everyone will become......This is a classic smokescreen tactic!
Expect excuses and false explanations to come fast and furious from KC for the discrepancies! The rapid flood of information adds to the confusion! At the same time expect a flood of Democrat talking-heads to make public statements - calming the masses - insisting this chaos is all within the normal boundaries of an election! This is a familar tactic...Didn't we just see this going on in Venezuela? Or was it the Ukraine? It seems to be out of some communist playbook!
I'm sorry! But King County and the *Left* side of Washington State is running this election like some third world country attempting a coup!
Are we still in America?
Posted by: Deborah on January 8, 2005 01:24 AMActually, what Rossi has to prove is described in the RCW Title 29A (Elections), specifically, chapter 68 (Contesting An Election). Take a look at it yourself:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=chapterdigest&chapter=29A.68
I'm not a judge (or even a lawyer), so my opinion doesn't count for much. But my read of the statute suggests he has a tougher row to hoe. Specifically, he has to produce a list of illegal votes and show that they appear to give a net advantage to CG that is greater than her margin of victory.
Posted by: scottd on January 8, 2005 01:38 AMscottd?
I know you post here......But do you READ here as well?
Your argument and reference to that RCW has been proven wrong in about 15 threads here over the past few days!
Do everyone a favor....Go read up in the other threads! You may learn something - and at the very least - you will avoid posting false information! Unless, of course....this is some *strategic* incompetence... heh! (I love that term!)
Don't ask me to look it up for you. You have to get your hands dirty like everyone else in here!
Rest assured, I have been following the other threads here, including your penetrating analyses. I've seen some idle chatter concerning the RCW, but certainly nothing that would "prove" me wrong -- just alternate interpretations from others whose lack of expertise in this area probably matches mine. I'd ask you to be more specific, but you've already indicated an unwillingness to back up your arguments with anything of substance.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter what I think. I'm glad Rossi and Vance have finally taken this to court. We'll see how it plays out.
Cheers.
Posted by: scottd on January 8, 2005 02:00 AMAnd good night, all!
Posted by: scottd on January 8, 2005 02:11 AMScott said: ***The way things stand, if you wanted a reasonable estimate of the number of "voterless" ballots, you would need to substract the number of pollbook signatures, validated absentee ballots, and validated provisional ballots from the total number of counted ballots.***
That's right. The total number of votes counted makes up a "universe". Theoretically, that universe should contain the same number of ballots as the "sub-universe": voters who cast ballots.
Some things can be known about the sub-universe:
--Total signatures on poll books.
--Total absentee and federal write in ballots received.
--"secret" ballots such as the domestic violence voters.
--and provisional ballots which were eventually validated.
Note: Given the "found" votes during the recount, I have no idea
which category they would fall into. But they fell somewhere,
so we should be able to find out.
The total of the above "sub-universe" allows us to calculate the discrepancy between it and the "universe" (votes counted). It should be possible to break down the discrepancy for each sub-universe category.
Now, we can divide irregularites into two sets:
--#1: Improper votes in the sub-universe (i.e., dead people.)
These votes have no bearing on the DISCREPANCY, since they were counted
in both sets of numbers.
--#2: The discrepancy: the difference between the universe
and the sub-universe. This is the nut. It doesn't matter HOW they explain it.
If votes are counted which cannot be factored into
the sub-universe, those votes are suspect and should
be the basis for invalidating the election.
--------------------------------------------
One thing that is still a question to me. We are told that 300+ provisionals were run thru the machine before validation. Is King County claiming they have the empty provisional envelopes and that is how they know the number? That's been presumed, but I haven't seen where they actually claim it. How do they know that number?
Posted by: JeanneB on January 8, 2005 06:31 AMJason,
If God is who He says He is then He can certainly get the Bible written inerrantly and He did. The 10% tithe is biblical as is the rest of the bible. Why do you think the bible is the most popular and longest living of all books? To believe otherwise is utter foolishness.
Just take a look at yourself in the mirror. Who made you? Walk on the beach. If you can say that is all a cosmic accident then your intelligence is in question. Too smart for your own soul? Dangerous my brother. Either the bible is inerrant or NONE of it is true. I choose the first answer Alex.
On another note here, RE-VOTE, Re-Vote, Re-Vote....
Posted by: niceville on January 8, 2005 07:27 AMInteresting.
I wonder why these gentlement keep coming here to tell us this.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 8, 2005 07:35 AMTo win the contest, however, you have to produce a list of specific illegal votes cast for the winning candidate that, if subtracted from her total, would give the election to another candidate. If the declared winner can produce a similar list of specific illegal votes cast for the other candidate, those must also be subtracted from his total before determining the final outcome.
Posted by: Patrick on January 8, 2005 08:02 AMWhat strikes me is the changes in attitude. The WA Dem party and Berendt are hitting the public with confident and sometimes patronizing comments, only to modify them in the next conference. Berendt stated that he was glad that there were challenges, for they would be thrown out and hurt the Repubicans forever. There's been buzz about how 'mean' the Republicans are in this, and how it would hurt them. Now, this morning, the lawyer representing the Dem party states that any revote would have to include ALL the races. ore and more letters to the editor try to portray this as a 'makeup' for the 2000 Presidential election.
Sounds like the efforts and analysis are causing people to understand the problems here, and are uncomfortable that they are in defensible positions. You all should enjoy knowing that you are having an impact, no matter which side you take.
I still maintain that there's a need for the Justice Department to look over this election, and identify the issues objectively. I still am concerned about the games that would be played in a revote.
My thanks to you all.
Posted by: Steve on January 8, 2005 08:26 AMHow could that ever be possible?
For example, if a felon is found to have voted, is even possible to track down their specific ballot, and thereby determine who they voted for? Same thing for people submitting absentees for dead relatives. I suppose you could ask them who they voted for, but if there is no way to find ~their~ ballot, how could they be believed?
I think the only thing that needs to be proved is that there were illegal votes cast in greater number than the margin of victory.
Posted by: ecurbh on January 8, 2005 08:33 AMJason thanks for the link concerning King County, and a proposed Cedar County.
Jericho, Jason, Niceville and all:
Let us not become bogged down in a "religious" discussion right now. I am also a Christian, and believe in the Bible, but I also believe in the separation of church and state. The nation of Israel was living under a Theocracy in the Old Testament; we are living under a Democracy in the U.S. of A. God is still God, and I believe He never changes, but governments do.
I have probably said too much on this subject, but Jericho, please, if you must, short posts would be more effective.
"The strongest chains that bind us are the ones we forge ourselves."
Not sure who said this, but I find it helpful to know that we are still free (to an extent at least) in this country, but sometimes we enslave ourselves without realizing it (e.g. by not voting, voting for the wrong people, not voicing our political opinions etc.). Thanks, I'm not trying to offend or start arguments, but this discussion is about King County Elections Math, and I always have trouble staying on the topic, as evidenced by this post.
End of sermon.
It looks like King County tried to make the registrations numbers match after Nov. 1 and still messed up. Not even close enough for government work!
The FBI, I predict, will be involved in this before everything settles down. The FBI simply investigates, examines, and looks around.
King County's "vote counters", among others, have disenfranchised every voter who cast a legal vote in Washington. Hey, all you sniveling Democrats out there--can you say "disenfranchised?". That big word has been popping out of a lot of your mouths this year, and since 2000. Disenfranchised, disenfranchised, diesnfranchised!.
Thank you for your amazing work and persistence.
RitaSV
I have to admit I am partisan I wanted Dino Rossi to win but never expected in a million years that this election would be so close. I have no confidence in this election and beleive the only way to restore confidence with the voters is a Revote.
Jason, Yes, God is powerful enough to create us, our world and the universe. He has given us EVERYTHING and only asks for a tenth in return. I will get off the pulpit now.
Posted by: LOOKOUT-WIFE on January 8, 2005 10:12 AMWell said! I only want to point out briefly that almost all of the contributors and readers here are more than able to discern the difference between a representative republic, which is the general form of government in the US, and a democracy, which is not and shall never be.
The word "Democracy" is thrown around ad nauseum by those who should know better, and most people seem to think there is little harm - but I disagree. Our entire system of checks and balances was designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority. A descent into socia1ism is inevitable in a democracy since the rich (who have accumulated and utilize capital - and energize the nation's economy despite the net effect of government) will never be in the majority. Our goal in the world should never be to establish "democracy", but to provide an example of good government (assuming we still have it), and when necessary or when asked, to help form governments based on representative government, the preservation of individual rights, and the establishment of capitalism.
End of my sermon . . .
Posted by: srogers on January 8, 2005 10:13 AMThere is no known way to replicate a retina, and a retina from a dead person would deteriorate too fast to be useful.
Posted by: MB on January 8, 2005 10:21 AMPosted by Boonie at January 7, 2005 11:20 PM
Boonie, that's the new motto of King County..."Its close enough...trust us."
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 10:21 AMAs for the 348 provisional ballots, these were probably the empty envelopes. Does this mean 348 validated empty envelopes, or just 348 empty envelopes altogether? Probably the 348 people with empty envelopes were not given credit for voting, even though their ballots were counted.
Richard, witnesses have said that at some locations people came in and fed ballots directly into a counting machine. I don't think any paper trail would have been created for that, and those ballots would not be included in the 348.
Other witnesses have said that the associated envelopes were thrown away at some locations. Those ballots associated with those would not be included in the 348.
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 10:29 AMThis is a poorly disguised attempt to shift responsibilty and raise the bar. We need only prove sufficient mistakes. We need not reconstruct just where King County Elections screwed up, based upon whatever misleading and incomplete information they choose to offer.
If what King County says doesn't square, it's their responsibility to explain it.
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 10:34 AMI believe scott is indulging in what could be described as strategic ignorance, a close member of the same family.
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 10:38 AMscottd?
Another case of misdirection and raising the bar...our system of voting is based upon guaranteed anonymity. It would, by scottd's reading and conclusion, be impossible to overturn an election result. That would negate the purpose of having a contest provision in state law.
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 10:44 AMThat's only if you assume the only vote that matters is that improperly cast, and the only person worthy of consideration is the one casting the illegal vote. Voting is by definition a zero-sum exercise...any vote cast illegally or improperly disenfrancises another voter who voted the other way.
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 10:51 AMActually it *is* disenfranchisement.
If your ballot got put through the shredder instead of the counting machine, that's disenfranchisement, isn't it? And you would be absolutely furious.
It is EXACTLY the same if someone enters an illegal ballot that cancels yours.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 8, 2005 11:27 AMNow it is our turn. We should be saying: "Every legal vote should count, but every illegal vote should be discounted"! Re-elect Rossie for Governor! Move this thing to a Revote!
Posted by: Jerry-H on January 8, 2005 12:19 PMOut of respect for others here, I'm not going to engage you in a religious debate. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. Chances are, particularly in a forum such as this, neither of us would be able to pursuade the other to think any differently.
However I will say that I don't feel the need to force my beliefs on others, as many of strong religious faith seem to do. I have enough respect for you to understand that I'm not likely to change your mind. That doesn't mean I won't challenge someone like Jericho who feels the need to shove his beliefs on me. But I do wish those of faith would exercise some respect for others in regards to beliefs.
Of course I feel that I'm right in what I believe, as I'm sure you feel the same way. But that doesn't give me license to run around telling others who believe differently that they are wrong, nor should it you.
Posted by: Jason on January 8, 2005 01:16 PMYou are correct!
Maybe we should be using the word : Disfranchised
(It means the same and is slightly easier to type!)
Posted by: Deborah on January 8, 2005 01:20 PMBy the way, Stefan, great job and a great site!
Posted by: Glenn T. on January 8, 2005 01:41 PMPlease give all of us some examples of those things you dearly believe in--the things that you wouldn't dream of "shoving" on people who disagree with you.
And does that also mean you wouldn't like a court forcing your beliefs on anyone else, either?
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 8, 2005 01:44 PMYes, you are right I am guilty of using the "d" word, when America has always been a Republic.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out, as I was going to use both Republic, and democracy in my original post, but was trying not to confuse the issues. I am certainly not the most learned person concerning American government. New U.S. citizens (who have to study for citizenship) probably know more than the average naturally born U.S. citizen about the function of the American government system.
Posted by: JG on January 8, 2005 03:01 PMI'm not quite sure what you are fishing for. And no, I wouldn't want a court forcing my belief system on anyone else, just as I wouldn't want the court forcing someone else's belief system on me.
I'm probably a more complex person that you suspect I am. My beliefs tend toward Atheism, but I oppose the recent attempts to remove the words "...under God..." from the pledge of allegiance. I celebrate Christmas, and one of my favorite holiday songs is Silent Night, complete with all the religious references. Just because I don't believe in the literal word of the bible, or any religious text, doesn't mean that I can't accept your right to do so, nor does it mean that I am automatically opposed to any reference to religion, even if it's from our own government. I'm simply saying don't expect me to believe everything you do, and don't call me a fool for not accept your "truth".
Jason, you can believe whatever you want to believe in. If your life has fulfilment enough, then you are a rare person. I would just wonder why you take issue with something you don't even need to read about? Choices that involve delving into commentary which can't affect you unless you read them means you are looking at the world around you in the same manner most every other person does. I won't force you to read, but I will give you the opportunity to choose to do so (or not)...
At the risk of turing this into my own personal chat session, I have to ask, what are you talking about?
The only think I took issue with here was Jericho's rant about how we all need to be better Christians. I take issue with that because I am not a Christian, and don't appreciate someone implying that I'm a bad person for not believing as they do.
I have no problem with Jericho or anyone else being a Christian. I have no problem with Christians talking about how wonderful their faith is. I DO have a problem with Christians or any other group claiming moral superiority over me because I don't believe in the same things they do.
Posted by: Jason on January 8, 2005 06:27 PMI wouldn't want to force/shove "religion" on anyone (while some might), and some non-believers might try to force the "religion" of secularism on me (others might not). I should be very careful interfering with another person's "free will" to live his life as he chooses, when he is not causing harm to another. That is a little like taking someone else's vote from them, and voting for them. We would all be driving Chevrolets if it were up to me. Only black ones, maybe dark green. I am glad you wouldn't want to shove some idea at me. I just couldn't drive a Ford, or an import (but they're all imports now).
Finally, my point (and I might have one) is that being a conservative and/or republican does not require belief or disbelief in God. You obviously agree with that.
This may be another wild tangent of mine, but I think you brought up a good point, and articulated it well.
Now about this darn election...
As for MB, there are lots of things that can be shoved on us without our permission, the election of Christine Gregiore is one, and Religion is certainly another.
And yes, I like to think of myself as the type of Republican who breaks the Democratic stereotype of us as all being evangelical Christians :-)
Posted by: Jason on January 8, 2005 07:40 PMSorry for confusing you, Jason!
Posted by: smegma on January 8, 2005 08:01 PMI get your point. Maybe "shoved at" is slightly better. But I can still choose what I listen to.
Pardon my syntax, not to be confused with "sin tax" that Gary Locke is talking about so much lately.
Posted by: JG on January 8, 2005 09:22 PM
Someone has really hurt you bad, or is it just an act?
You are good at it I must say. Please don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Posted by: JG on January 8, 2005 09:31 PMBring in the FBI. Even if/when the election is thrown out and Rossi is declared a winner, or we have a revote and Rossi wins, I won't be satisfied until I see Dean Logan in an orange jumpsuit.
We have had a forty year drift from religion in the US and although there is a strong growth in the church as of late there is a lag in the morality of the church (see the work of George Barna). We as a people are losing faith in our republic, a dangerous thing, because no laws, rules, WACs, RCW's, etc will function with an immoral people - particularly the godless which dominate such departments as the KC elections.
Any attempt by the Republicans, which are dominated by church-goers, to thwart the power brokers ill-designs in KC or Olympia will in my estimation be viewed by God through the lens of our immorality (sin). The book of Judges gives a good indication of how God deals with the on again off again faithful -- on again off again meaning the faithful that follow God when they need too, but follow the world the rest of the time.
Posted by: Jericho on January 9, 2005 09:30 PMThe Prophets were in a hostile audience at all times. There is no difference here.
God Bless...
Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 06:15 PMal
Posted by: al on January 10, 2005 06:34 PMal
Posted by: al on January 10, 2005 06:34 PM