January 10, 2005
UPDATED: Don't recycle.

Not yet anyway, if you're a military voter who voted absentee in this election:

As an investigative follow-up to Stefan's slam-dunk scoop "Correction or Cover-up?" we're asking that you and/or your military friends or family look at the postmarks of the envelopes in which the absentee ballots arrived. It's a longshot, we know, since not many troops overseas are going to bother to hold on to an envelope for 3 months, but there's a chance: some personnel fulfill administrative duties and have offices and files. Plus, not all overseas military voters are in combat in Iraq.

Here's what we're thinking: On Oct. 10, a Sunday, 3055 ballots were issued. If we (and by "we" I mean SoundPolitics and you!) can recover absentee ballot envelopes postmarked on or after the 11th, that would be corroborating evidence that someone in King County altered the date on the Fact Sheet on Military Ballots from the 10th to the 7th.

The Google cache that Stefan references is irrefutable evidence that King County had published another date, but they can make the implausible claim that it was an error, which they caught on January 9th, a Sunday, before David Postman's article (Seattle Times) came out. If they did send out 3,055 ballots on Oct. 7th, a Thursday, it is utterly improbable that they would be postmarked on the 12th or later: as reader Gary Minder points out, the 11th was a holiday.

UPDATE: Reader Mark: "If the ballots were sent via Bulk Mail, there would be no postmarks because they'd likely use a pre-printed bulk mail indicia in the corner. HOWEVER, there WOULD be a Bulk Mail acceptance form with the drop-off date (at the post office or bulk mail center), the quantity, weight, etc. The post office keeps a copy and the mailer should have one, too. Not sure if you could FOIA the Seattle bulk mail office of the USPS, but it might be worth checking out."

"To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY letters that would have a postmark would be ones with 'live,' uncancelled postage stamps affixed. That is highly unlikely for a mail quantity of 3,055." Reader Joe pointed out a similar idea.

So ignore the idea of checking postmarks. (How's that for instant accountability, folks?) Let's see what we can do about requesting this info instead.

UPDATE: With high praise to reader Joe O'Donnell for uncovering the answer.

He discovered that Bulk Permit #1455, the permit that is used for mailing absentee ballots, only had activity on October 2nd (1,605 pieces) and October 13th (28,000 pieces)... with no activity between those dates!

In conjunction with Stefan's discovery of the Google cache, this is pretty powerful evidence that King County attempted to cover-up the actual date of the mailed ballots.

So in the entire nation, this state and this county was the last to send out military ballots: on the 13th, not on the 7th, or even the 10th (the Sunday before Columbus day). It is simply not reasonable to suggest that a bulk mailing made on Thursday the 7th would not be sent out on the 8th or 9th.

Our military voters were disenfranchised. "Honest mistake" or not, they should own up to the facts, not disappear the truth from their website.

Posted by Brian Crouch at January 10, 2005 10:05 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Come on guys there is no history of problems with absentees being sent out from King County's R&E division!

Oh wait nevermind.

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 10:15 AM
2. Brian,
Possible that at a certain level say 1,000 + piece mailing the postal service makes you sign something that is dated. Either when you drop off or pickup What about filing a PDA request with USPS for their log at the Post office that is used to mail the ballots.

Just a thought

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 10:25 AM
3. The selective outrage at election *mistakes* or irregularities is nothing short of humorous...

We recently witnessed an entire laundry list of *irregularities* or *mistakes* aired to the US legislative branches being met with derision, incredulity, and outrage by the national Republicans...

How are these two cases any different and why the insistence by Republicans here in Washington but not in Ohio...or New Mexico...or even Michigan, Vermont or any other state?

Until the Republican party takes seriously the incredibly flawed system(s) in place across this country, I would suggest they take their own advice here in Washington and *get over it...the other guy won*...

Fix the system...across the nation...make elections transparent, verifiable, accessable everywhere or take your lumps as you advise the Democrats to do...

G Davis
Seattle, WA

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 10:27 AM
4. G Davis,
It's different because the number of irregularities far surpasses margin of victory. In fact the # of irregularities is at the least 15 times the margin of victory here in King County only.
In Ohio the number of irregularities falls short of the margin of victory by tens of thousands of votes!

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 10:33 AM
5. G Davis,
It's different because the number of irregularities far surpasses margin of victory. In fact the # of irregularities is at the least 15 times the margin of victory here in King County only.
In Ohio the number of irregularities falls short of the margin of victory by tens of thousands of votes!

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 10:33 AM
6. Joe: Right on. The thing is: we're all volunteers and time is an issue. I encourage you to take that one on... we'll give you 100% credit for whatever you find. This is a grassroots effort and everyone is on the team.

G Davis: All right, turnabout is fair play. If those issues bother you so much, why doesn't this bother you? You suggest that we're "selectively outraged." What about you?

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 10, 2005 10:35 AM
7. Monday, 11 October 2004 was Columbus Day ( a federal holiday) and there would have been no mail outgoing that day.

So not only was this mailing supposedly arranged on a Sunday...it was a holiday weekend.

Posted by: Gary Minder on January 10, 2005 10:37 AM
8. Looking at the Google cached page, I notice that right below the "Oct. 10th" text a new paragraph begins with "For the Oct. 7th mailing..." So perhaps it was an honest mistake since they are referring to the mailing as Oct. 7th even before the revision was made???

Still would be interesting to see some postmarks though!

Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 10:37 AM
9. KC website ref absentee mail date oct 11. bb determines doubleungood and needs revamp. new truth oct 7 absentee mailing. revise new truth updated. outdated false truth into memory hole. next four year plan is startling success.

seriously, these people are unbelievable.

send in the Feds.

Posted by: Rex on January 10, 2005 10:41 AM
10. Folks, the point remains that our election systems all across this nation are completely screwed up...

The point remains that sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they lose when the system is at best a crap shoot...

Direct your energies to fixing the system...the Dems can't or won't, so why not the Republicans who really can affect change with their numbers...

Until that happens, one has to wonder why the selectivity...

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 10:46 AM
11. If the ballots were sent via Bulk Mail, there would be no postmarks because they'd likely use a pre-printed bulk mail indicia in the corner. HOWEVER, there WOULD be a Bulk Mail acceptance form with the drop-off date (at the post office or bulk mail center), the quantity, weight, etc. The post office keeps a copy and the mailer should have one, too. Not sure if you could FOIA the Seattle bulk mail office of the USPS, but it might be worth checking out.

To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY letters that would have a postmark would be ones with "live," uncancelled postage stamps affixed. That is highly unlikely for a mail quantity of 3,055.

Posted by: Mark on January 10, 2005 10:48 AM
12. GDavis uses the classic Leftist ploy: changing the subject from the facts to everyone's supposed intentions.

In this game, in order to make an objection and be heard, you must first prove yourself worthy of being listened to, by showing your motives to above reproach. Only those with nothing at all to gain can be trusted. This is the rule you must follow when everything is relative.

Facts--who needs facts?

John Barelli: if you read this, I am talking about Leftists, not all Democrats.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 10:48 AM
13. Lets see 118,000 to 129.

Were there 118,000 irregularities in Ohio?
I really wish Conyers and Boxer would come up with some origial productive ideas
In DC we saw the same ol big mouths ranting and trampling over other members to get to the mic.
Combine that with their constant nagging and it makes a good skit on Saturday Night Live.
.

Posted by: chardonnay on January 10, 2005 10:49 AM
14. GDavis uses the classic Leftist ploy: changing the subject from the facts to everyone's supposed intentions.


That, and RATs always want to fix the NEXT election.

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 10:52 AM
15. Anyone have a comment about my earlier post?

"Looking at the Google cached page, I notice that right below the "Oct. 10th" text a new paragraph begins with "For the Oct. 7th mailing..." So perhaps it was an honest mistake since they are referring to the mailing as Oct. 7th even before the revision was made???

Still would be interesting to see some postmarks though!"

Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 10:52 AM
16. G Davis,
We are working to fix the system. But the problems must be exposed before they can begin to be fixed! Exposing and revealing the flaws is the stage we are in now.

Righting the wrong (revote) that has taken place here is an important step in the process. Taking the "lump" as you suggest, does nothing except to perpetuate these flaws.

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 10:54 AM
17. Don't forget that when a Holiday is on a Friday or a Monday, most State and County employees take
the day off before or after the weekend as to get another 4 day weekend.
Probably Depends on the Union status, journeyman, seniority, etc.
That would make Thursday Oct 7th the day they were mailed or Oct 12th the following tuesday.

Posted by: chardonnay on January 10, 2005 10:55 AM
18. Kristen, yes, I saw that--interesting. I don't know what can be concluded from it. The whole thing could be written off as another innocent mistake.

KC is asking its voters to forgive a lot of those.

I wonder if anyone at the post office could remember which day such a large bunch of mail was sent out.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 10:56 AM
19. G Davis: "How are these two cases any different and why the insistence by Republicans here in Washington but not in Ohio...or New Mexico...or even Michigan, Vermont or any other state?"

The actions being taken by Washington Republicans are to correct egregious errors in the Washington state electoral process. Why should they be trying to correct problems in some other state? They're focusing on cleaning their own house. Or are you suggesting that all state elections be run by the Federal Government?

Posted by: Patrick on January 10, 2005 10:59 AM
20. Working on the post office end right now...
They might be able to confirm through a log what day the absentees reached their office.

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 11:00 AM
21. I'll post when I know more

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 11:01 AM
22. Where send or fax or whatever these ballots envelopes. I'm e-mailing my military friends right now.

Posted by: GS on January 10, 2005 11:03 AM
23. Where send or fax or whatever these ballots envelopes. I'm e-mailing my military friends right now.

Posted by: GS on January 10, 2005 11:04 AM
24. Working to fix the system(s)? Allowing transgressions simply perpetuates the problems?

Best read this article, one of many nationwide, then...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1135&slug=Kentucky%20Election


Look...you folks have no clue how I voted...you have no idea who I support personally...

What you do know is I think the bigger issue is the entire system and it's lack of veracity...

How can I stongly support ANY elected official if I don't know if they were really elected or not?

How is Washington State any different than any other state or even our national elections?

My point, and my personal fight, is to get the system fixed nationwide so all the complaints from all quarters can be met with rational, sound evidence rather than the hyperbole I see from both sides of many elections this last time around...

Fix the system(s)...make them transparent, verifiable and accessible...then all the questions disappear...

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 11:06 AM
25. Stefan or one of the other pajama-hadeen on this site ought to file a public information request for all incoming emails to the KC website administrators as well as the logs of updates to that page. find out what the impetus was to do that update.

if anyone recalls the investigation and fallout from those idiots at Wash State Dept of Labor and Industries, they had every last one of those emails archived and they were available by public information request.

this dog has legs and it's gonna hunt. even if it was an "honest" mistake, the fact that there was a scramble to correct that page suggests that there were not "honest" intentions. looks to me like a very publicly accessible CYA.

Posted by: Rex on January 10, 2005 11:07 AM
26. Kristen, I see what you are talking about:

------
Number of military/overseas ballots issued on that date:

On Oct.1, 246 ballots were issued
On Oct.10, 3055 ballots were issued

For the Oct.7 mailing, King County prioritized our mail-out to ensure military and overseas ballots were mailed as soon as they were available and within the timeframes required by state law and guidelines from the United State Department of Justice.
------

I doubt that could be a typo, for the simple reason that a typo is typically an unintended keystroke that is in close proximity to the intended keystroke. The "mistake" in question her is two keystrokes "10" being made in place of the single "intended" keystroke of "7".

If it were something like "6", "8", or "&" (a shifted "7") or even "y" or "u" (as they are physically close to the "7" key it would make more sense to attribute this to a typo. However I find it hard to believe that someone would type two characters, "1" and "0" when they really intended to type only "7".

Of course, I'm just trying to use common sense speculation, but in the end, I am just speculating.

Posted by: Jason on January 10, 2005 11:08 AM
27. For some reason I have an old envelope for one of my abesentee ballots from a prior election. The postage is not paid using a meter. There is a sprayed date from the USPS scanning equipment, though.

The billing records for USPS Seattle WA Permit NO 1455 should indicate on what date the ballots were sent. If that permit is used by multiple units/departments, then KC accounting records should shed some light on the matter as the postage is charged to various internal budgets.

Posted by: rw on January 10, 2005 11:09 AM
28. G Davis,
FINE, we all agree, we want that kind of system. Just stop telling us to take our "lumps" that doesn't help get you to the end result you say you are in favor of.

There is strong evidence that this was a highly flawed election!

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 11:11 AM
29. RW,
Thank you for that permit number that just made my job of tracking this down a lot easier!!!!

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 11:14 AM
30. Kevin & Bostonian,

yes, typo seems a bit unlikely! However could still be one of the many, many, many mistakes by KC. However, it's really interesting that the google version has four different date references (Oct. 1st, 6th, 7th and 10th) while the KC revised version has only Oct. 1st and 7th. What shall we make of that?

Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 11:18 AM
31. sorry my last post should have been addressed to Jason, not Kevin. oops.

Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 11:23 AM
32. Joe...I'm simply repeating the rhetoric that was spewed when any other election where vast majorities of *irregularities* were recorded went to the Republican candidate...

The article I linked is concerning a Republican sworn into office by a Republican legislature despite not fulfilling the residency laws of that state...

Is that right and just? Did that fella follow the rule of law the Republicans hold dear?

So why no fuss about that election?

My objection(s) are to the systems across the nation...they are all flawed and disparate...

They need to be fixed or no one will ever be allowed to govern without question...

In our case, Rossi came out on the short end of the stick in an election that could have easily gone either way...

Extrapolate the numbers of questionable votes in al these close elections all across the nation and Rossi is one of many...

But our majority party doesn't seem concerned with any of the other races in which their player came out on the long end of the stick...

Is that right and just?

Fix the system...until then, take the lumps that come with turning a blind eye to same...

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 11:24 AM
33. G Davis,

So, I don't think we have a disagreement here. You go work on the other forty-nine states. Fix the system. Report back, say, around September 2006 and we can compare notes.

Now go!

Posted by: Ken on January 10, 2005 11:29 AM
34. Kristen,

I think the "6" and "7" references in the googled cache version would be the most likely candidates of "typos" if that is in fact what happened. With "6" and "7" being physically next to each other on a keyboard, I'd accept the explanation of a typo for those discrepancies. However I think it's really far fetched to believe that a typo is responsible for "10" being entered when "7" was intended.

It will be interesting to see what the information request from the Post Office reveals.

Posted by: Jason on January 10, 2005 11:36 AM
35. LOL...so Ken, you have no problem with our national Republican party being so selective in their outrage?

You're content to ponder our own little corner of the national belly button lint?

Is that how enlightened our corner of the world is?

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 11:42 AM
36. With all of the publicity and problems King County had over postage errors this election.....wouldn't the Post Office have a record of when these bulk mailings went out? If King County had to foot the bill for the postage difference.....the Post Office may have kept billing records of some sort...

I'm not sure if the postage errors were only in the primary election...

Another thing to consider...Does the post office handle Military mail different than regular mail? If so - is there a way to trace when bulk mailings went out via FPO,etc? from King County?

Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 11:43 AM
37. Jason, I agree with you. Though as a side note, on my computer, the 6 and 7 are not next to each other. Not on the number pad, nor in the top row of numbers since I use one of those Microsoft "natural" keyboards (those curvy ones that have been around a long time and are quite popular.)

Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 11:44 AM
38. SOS Sam Reed just on komo 1000 states that it is true that the military did threaten with lawsuit if the ballots weren't mailed within 45 days of election. SOS states they were all mailed within that window, therefore, it shouldnt affect the GOP claims that they didnt get to them in time. Also states that military probably had some to do with not getting the ballots there in time-due to the situation of the war-military may not have gotten the ballots there in time. hmmmmmm

Posted by: mary on January 10, 2005 11:49 AM
39. Mr Davis:

Are you old enough to remember this expression?

"It's a cinch by the inch, but hard by the yard"

We're working on that "inch" part by keeping our focus on our own state.

Posted by: Susu on January 10, 2005 11:54 AM
40. From the King County Notice.

"12474 ballots counted out of 12694 received." That's 220 ballots received but not counted, anyone know why?

Posted by: jaybo on January 10, 2005 11:56 AM
41. SuSu...never heard that one before and I'm older than dirt...

I understand the fervor of this forum members with this state's elections...and am not questioning same...

I am, however, incredulous that there is not more disgust with our Republican leaders for their selectivity...we at the local levels should be outraged with our national leadership as it is THEY would can affect change across the nation for the betterment of all of us...

so where's that outrage?

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 12:06 PM
42. Oh fer cryin' out--G Davis, if there is something else you want everyone to be outraged about it, please at least tell us what it is.

Where is the close race won by a *Republican* where you think fraud and/or sloppiness is to blame? Please tell us. Come on, don't be shy.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 12:12 PM
43. PS, G Davis:

Specific criticism is more useful than general outrage. By all means, stomp your feet if it makes you feel better, but don't pretend it fixes anything.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 12:14 PM
44. Bostonian...sorry to upset your sensibilities...

If you had read the link I offered above, you would have seen the Kentuckian who was sworn in despite overtly violating state residency laws...where the national Republican party remains completely silent...

Yet they choose to jump on the Rossi loss focusing on one county...same county that admitted mistakes, but says nothing to the Snohomish county votes that are completely unverifiable...

I object to the selectivity, the partisanism that is running rampant in this nation today...both sides...

Problem is only the Republicans can really do anything about it anywhere, but choose to only raise a fuss and flex their muscles where their boy lost....

Seems to me that does great harm to the credibility of all Republicans all across the nation...

But again, I guess this isn't the place to voice those concerns as there are apparently many selectively deaf ears...

Too bad...there are many marginalized voters everywhere looking for some leadership to follow...

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 12:27 PM
45. Some guy on Dori's show (AM 710) just claimed his Marine son's ballot was postmarked Oct 28th

Posted by: N Seattle Mike on January 10, 2005 12:54 PM
46. If it looks like a troll and talks like a troll, it's probably a troll.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 01:11 PM
47. G, understand that you are concerned about the entire countries issues with elections. But this is a discussion regarding the Washington gubernatorial election, and injecting the entire country doesn't help in getting Washington's problems resolved.

And actually, in Washington Republicans are fighting an uphill battle as we DON'T control the legislature. The other party does.

As I've alluded in another thread here, the Congress won't act unless the states refuse to act. They've left the management of elections to the states, paying only lip-service to how to do it.

Washingtonians can only let their Senators and Representatives know that election reform is an issue that needs to be brought up and dealt with. But we can do something about the current election by continuing to assist in bringing to light the problems that surround this most recent election (or should I say selection?).

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on January 10, 2005 01:40 PM
48. Joe & other researchers,

The forms you're looking for from the post office are most likely:

3600-R (First-Class Mail — Permit Imprint) OR

3602-N (Nonprofit Standard Mail Letters and Flats — Permit Imprint) OR MAYBE

3602-NP (Nonprofit Standard Mail Letters and Flats — Postage Affixed)

These are the numbers for the *DATED* Domestic Mail Statements that are submitted when you bring mail to the post office.

NOTE: It is possible that the county (or other governmental agencies) use different form numbers, but I don't think so. Also, it MAY be that forms destined for APO/FPO are different.

Hope this at least gives some leads to follow.

Posted by: Mark on January 10, 2005 01:48 PM
49. Kristen,

I can't stand those darn "curvey" natural keyboards. I've been typing at a pretty good pace for about 20 years now. But on those "natural" keyboards I'm reduced to hunting and pecking :-)

Posted by: Jason on January 10, 2005 01:51 PM
50. Look...you folks have no clue how I voted...you have no idea who I support personally...

What you do know is I think the bigger issue is the entire system and it's lack of veracity...

Of course we do...lefties always want to fix the NEXT election. I'm curious why you think we have to choose between fixing the system and fixing this election. Highlighting the shenannigans occuring now provides a map and momentum toward fixing the problem

You don't have a problem with that, do you?

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 01:59 PM
51. South County, no...I have no problem with *fixing* (some might consider that a Freudian slip, btw) any of the elections that have been highlighted across the nation...

I do, however, have a problem with all the partisan elements of both parties that simply cannot carry on a conversation without resorting to the standard *if it walks like a troll* nonsense...

I do have a problem with the seeming selectivity of the powers in charge of only investigating, pushing for *fixing* of elections where their boy didn't win...

I have a serious problem with the division all across our nation, including Washington State...

How is anyone going to accept any part of this election whether or not it's revoted? It clearly was incredibly close even given the widest differences in any of the counts or recounts...

How are we going to revote with any credibility if some counties votes can't be verified at all without any paper trail?

It's amazing to me that folks simply can't discuss this in a broader, less partisan context of what's good for all of us...

But in the spirit of this forum, has anyone here done any investigations into any of the other counties besides King?

If the citizens of this great state are to be asked to pony up another 4mil+ for a revote, shouldn't some leg work be put into disparities that may have existed in other counties...especially those less visible, less populated counties that could sneak through things without anyone watching?

And if they revote for Governer, won't they have to revote for all the other offices as well?

Without that, is there anything but selective *redos* because we can....

How is that fair and just?

signed,
Your resident troll

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 02:29 PM
52. And if they revote for Governer, won't they have to revote for all the other offices as well?

Without that, is there anything but selective *redos* because we can....How is that fair and just?

Because the # of errors exceeds the margin of victory. All races in which the errors exceed the margin of victory should be done over so we have a real democratically elected leader.

If we just counted legal votes, no question Gregoire losses the November election. But since we can not be absolutely sure, it would be better to have a another election for Governor than have the courts install Rossi.

The most fair & just thing is to have another election.

Posted by: Kingdome on January 10, 2005 02:56 PM
53. GDavis-

I think the party disadvantaged by "irregularities" is the party with whom the burden of contesting such issues lies.

That last Senatorial race in SoDak had Thune loosing by a few hundred amid charges of serious “irregularities” in those counties covering the Pine Ridge Reservation. It was Thune’s call to challenge and he chose not to. He ran this year and defeated Daschle.

In those races where you suggest the Republican candidate benefited from “irregularities” I would suggest it’s up to the Democrat candidate to chose to fight or concede.

Yes, national our system is disparate and illogical. Until we get to valid photo ID for voting, we’re going to have situations like SoDak and WaState.

Ciao

Posted by: KyGuy on January 10, 2005 03:42 PM
54. In a court of law, one has to convince a judge to listen. In the court of public opinion, and in the blogosphere, the idea is the same, except each person is their own judge. I have listened to your viewpoint and found it disingenuous at best. I recognize a sales job as well as anyone, and I recongize spin and shading when I see it.

In my case at least, you've been judged to be a disrupter. You are entitled to free speech, that's what America is about.

You are not entitled to an audience.

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 03:53 PM
55. Here’s what I have to say to defiant Democrats:

What's wrong with a re-vote? Wouldn't it be nice to give both Gregoire and Rossi another chance since "nobody knows who really won"? Is there something wrong with being fair?

Or is it that, without "cheating", the original winner would win again? Is that the real problem?

Posted by: TADD on January 10, 2005 04:48 PM
56. In those races where you suggest the Republican candidate benefited from “irregularities” I would suggest it’s up to the Democrat candidate to chose to fight or concede.

I suspect that many liberal Republicans benefit considerably from voter fraud. After all, even if Democrats only got 40% of the vote they could run to the right and still have their core constituencies to vote for them. But if Democrats only got 40% of the vote, where would liberal Republicans run?

Posted by: supercat on January 10, 2005 04:57 PM
57. "I don't belong to an organized political Party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers

In reading GDavis's posts, I hear a certain frustration that I share, although we may all be in a situation that will end up with most of us in both parties (at least here in Washington) agreeing to some much-needed changes. Unfortunately, it's simply not practical to make some of those changes prior to any re-vote. I'm hoping that the Republicans here (and thoughout the state) will remember some of the frustration of this race, and understand why many Democrats have been asking for changes.

1. We need a verifiable paper ballot for all elections. Does anyone here dispute that now?

2. We need independent auditing of election commissions and vote-counting.

3. We need consistent voting standards throughout the country, but for right now, we can start with our state.

As a Democrat, I'm more than a bit embarrassed by the fact that these are things that we've been fighting for in other areas, but where we hold the control, they seem less important. No gloating, please. Many of the Republican posters here are asking for changes that have been stonewalled by your fellow Republicans elsewhere. Both pot and kettle could use some cleaning.

Winners in political races have little incentive to take a long, hard look at the process that elected them, and the losers in those races tend to have their (often valid) complaints dismissed as "sour grapes." Remember Florida? Believe what you wish about the result (hey, it was over four years ago. What could anyone do about it now?) but the problems that were highlighted were pretty much ignored by the winning side. Understandable, as nobody wanted to open that can of worms, but regrettable nonetheless.

As for the re-vote, I'll just keep beating my old drum. I think it needs to come through the court, rather than through the politicians. That's what the court is supposed to do best. Weigh the evidence and make an unbiased decision. However, I will be very surprised (and somewhat disappointed) if the court does not order a new election.

Posted by: John Barelli on January 10, 2005 05:39 PM
58. Again, John Barelli,

Thanks for your post. It is pretty easy to say "DO IT AGAIN" and not mean it from the standpoint of following up.

There are ways to hold elections which include the elusive threshold of 100 percent accuracy. Something different than the 100.01 percent claimed by KC (you know, there were more votes than voters, so it was MUCH BETTER than 100 percent).

Good suggestions for improvement. I saw more examples of reforms which should also be adopted (I hope they will, regardless of who is in the Mansion).

As for an ordered revote, the Legislature would be ideal for holding up certification until the court could decide, but such is the way of political party politics: follow the majority over the abyss (I say that for both parties)...

Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 06:48 PM
59. I am an absentee voter, or, am trying to be. I had a feeling that I would not be receiving my absentee ballot this year. Some of the folks at the county and state level know my politics as I have actively petitioned against leftist nonsense in the Clark County area. I became concerned when my ballot had not arrived in Springfield, OR the day before the election and determined to drive to Vancouver to vote. My vote was handled as an 'exception' and tossed onto a table with the coats, etc. of the elections staff. I am not certain my vote was ever counted. Oh, by the way, I have NEVER received my absentee ballot! I am not surprised, but I am not pleased!

Posted by: Jeff Reed on January 10, 2005 07:18 PM
60. The goggle cache now displays the current ("updated") page. King County has friends at Google?

Posted by: Spanky on January 10, 2005 07:37 PM
61. The google cache now displays the current ("updated") page. King County has friends at Google?

Posted by: Spanky on January 10, 2005 07:37 PM
62. Thank you John Barelli...a constructive post given in an engaging manner...well done...

I will disagree with the idea that a revote is the panacea...it will cost me more tax dollars, it will likely result in just as close an election as this last one and where will we be then? Do we then decide to revote yet again?

I can only see this leading to all of us being more torn apart and acrimonious than we are now...

In every case where the Republicans won or were *selected* for an office, the opposing party was unceremoniously told to suck it up and get over it...

I find the selectivity of their outrage disingenuous and morally lacking...

Care about elections, yes...but care about all of them regardless of what the outcome is...

Fix the entire system...make it transparent, verifiable and accessible...

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 08:17 PM
63. So Gdavis, you would be content then if a judge installed Rossi as Governor after tossing the illegal ballots in King County?

We will save the money of a reelection but I think the people want & deserve a reelection so a true winner will emerge.

Posted by: Kingdome on January 10, 2005 09:43 PM
64. I'm wondering why the two different dates? Could they have known certain voters were Republicans and sent those absentee ballots on Oct 13th, while sending known Democrats their ballots on the earlier dates?

Posted by: Scott on January 11, 2005 08:12 AM
65. Kingdome...in this current election, I would be content if the courts decided the outcome based on STATEWIDE discrepancies...

Will I be content if they cherry pick only votes in King County? No...

Find all the discrepancies across the entire state and disallow all of them or none of them...

Selectivity is wrong, no matter the color of the precinct...

And while they're at it, maybe the court can figure out a way to verify the votes in touch screen counties...

Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 12:05 PM
66. Man! Am I glad you guys are on this. I have been boiling about this since The Gore/Liebermann ticket paid $10,000 to charter a Gulfstream jet and parachute a bunch of lawyers from Atlanta into the VPS airport in Okaloosa county just to challenge military absentee ballots.

Posted by: madawaskan on January 11, 2005 07:41 PM
67. Gdavis,

You didn't answer my question. My question is: would you be content as you are now if a judge installs Rossi as Governor in the next few weeks?

I wouldn't. There are more proven errors than margin of victory in any of the three counts. The only way to find the real winner is a re-vote.

Posted by: Kingdome on January 12, 2005 09:51 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?