The Olympian hosted a live web chat with Secretary of State Sam Reed this afternoon from 3pm -4pm.
The transcript is posted here. He completely minimizes the ballot/voter discrepancy in King County:
They have military people not on record, address confidentiality people they can't have records on, so those numbers don't quite add up to the number of voters in the last election.Fair enough, but the military and ACP voters were already accounted for before we got to the 1,800 net discrepancy. Amazing that Sam downplays a discrepancy that was 15 times the apparent gubernatorial victory margin as "don't quite add up". He does go on to allege that "King County has some very serious deep problems", without bothering to tell us what they are, or whether they could have altered the outcome of the election. He concludes by telling us what he thinks the real problem with this election was:
A frustration of mine as a person with considerable experience in the field of elections is that some of the rumors of errors, mistakes, illegalities, were absolutely incorrect, but because of the Internet, blogs and talk radio, they were circulated rapidly and extensively and helped contribute to the loss of confidence and trust in the system. I would hope in the future that the people who operate these blogs and the talk radio hosts will exercise the caution and ethics of the journalism profession, and that will help the citizery understand what really happened in the election process.It would have been helpful if he backed up this assertion with some actual facts. Tomorrow I'll contact the Secretary's office to find out what exactly he was referring to. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 15, 2005 02:05 PM | Email This
Pardon my ignorance, but where would one find the link to enter/view/participate in the "live chat" with Sam Reed?
Having submitted a "pre-chat" question (thanks to your "heads-up"), I would truly like to view his response.
Thanks in advance. And a special thanks for all you are doing in this Blogosphere.
Posted by: Chief on February 15, 2005 03:03 PM
Reed: I do because of what our system is. We had an election, a hand recount and a machine recount. That is how our system works. I also think the challenge is part of the system. I have not seen evidence that the vote should be overturned. They haven't gotten to that part of the trial yet. They do have a chance, but I believe the courts do not want to change the outcome of an election unless they have a compelling reason to do so. The judge in Wenatchee conveyed this in his last hearing he conducted on this, Feb. 4.
Posted by: Margaret on February 15, 2005 03:31 PMReed: I view it as kind of a high level summary report. If I were the county executive I would now ask for much more detail in terms of what happened during the election, because King County has some very serious deep problems that are going to have to be addressed by the county. This election once again revealed that the election operations in the state of Washington have some of the biggest problems, and they're going to have to committ the resources and flexibility to deal with these problems.
For those who missed it.. here's his comment on blogs and talk radio at the very end of the questions.
Moderator: Anything, Sam, you want so say that you haven't had a chance to address? Any urban myths?
Reed: Actually, there is, you are right. A frustration of mine as a person with considerable experience in the field of elections is that some of the rumors of errors, mistakes, illegalities, were absolutely incorrect, but because of the Internet, blogs and talk radio, they were circulated rapidly and extensively and helped contribute to the loss of confidence and trust in the system. I would hope in the future that the people who operate these blogs and the talk radio hosts will exercise the caution and ethics of the journalism profession, and that will help the citizery understand what really happened in the election process.
A cogent, semi-lucid reference to Dan Rather, the journalism professional that all bloggers should strive to emulate.
Posted by: JG on February 15, 2005 06:10 PMIs this the liberal spin coming from the SOS that claims all conservatives, when citing truth, are considered "uneducated and ignorant"
It's obvious that Mr Reed is suffering from some kind of memory disorder...possibly early onset of liberalism.
He said it appears King County reconciled their ballot counts before certification.
"What I don't know for sure is whether King County has done the first, but it sounds like they have, believe it or not." [The first being the required pre-certification reconciliation. The second was the updating of voter registration records to show the date of the last election that each voter participated in.]
As is often the case, I offer a longer explanation here:
http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/02/did-they-or-didnt-they-do.html
Andrew, Vancouver: Some people would like to see expanded use of absentee ballots or even elections conducted entirely by mail. Critics of early voting say it would eliminate the impact of last minute events, that activists use absentee rolls to pressure voters and that absentee ballots are not truly "secret." Are the risks of absentee ballots and mail-in voting outweighed by the convenience and accessibility?
Reed: I believe that mail voting has advantages that are significant, but most important is a better-informed electorate who can take time, read documents and are not likely to vote for a candidate or issue they know nothing about when they have the time to deliberate.
(What? My wife voted absentee, I voted at the polls, we received our voter pamphlets the same day! She sent her ballot by mail, two weeks before I voted. Who had more time to study the candidate and issues? Its a good thing none of her candidates were exposed as child molesters at the last moment.)
In fact, mail ballots seem to be a pretty secure way of voting because we have more control over the ballot when it gets back to the county courthouse, more so than at a polling place.
(Finally a truthful answer! WE HAVE MORE CONTROL.)
The potentional disadvantages that the questioner poses are ones we hear rumors of but we have not had anyone prove.
(Oh, so now I have to "PROVE" the "RUMORS". Where have I heard that before? OK. How about pressure from activists? Here is Kirstin Brost spilling the beans again..
"Political people love the absentee voter. They're easier to track, and if someone is absentee, I've got three weeks to get them to vote, instead of just one day." She also said she seeks to "convert" voters from Election Day voters to absentee voters because they can "easily determine from county auditor's lists which voter's ballots have been received and which voters need another phone call".
Mr. Secretary, early voting early eliminating the "October Surprise" is not a rumor, it is a well known fact.
You didn't read past the word "Critics" did you Mr. Secretary?
And, that's to darn bad. We expect you to do your job. The day's of the star struck MSM pampering KC & Oly politicians are OVER.
Listening to that jerk John Gibson the last 2 days, and the callers informing him, was very powerful. So many people KNOW the facts and are passionate about this. I am confident we are winning. Even if we wait until 06.
But that just aint gonna happen. Why is Phil Talmage talking out loud about throwing his hat in the ring? Why is Owen talking to the Daily O on what his position would be if he had to take control? Is something UP?
Thank you Mr. Secretary
Posted by: Splatter on February 15, 2005 07:01 PMLt. Gov. Brad Owen contemplates a major 'if'
Capitol veteran says he would continue Gregoire's path if new election ordered
REBECCA COOK
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
But Owen's profile is rapidly rising as the legal challenge to the governor's election heads toward a trial.
If Republican Dino Rossi succeeds in his challenge of Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire -- a big "if" -- a court could nullify the 2004 election, creating a vacancy in the Governor's Office and making Owen the temporary governor until a new election occurs.
So who is this guy who could be governor?
entire article :
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050214/topstories/87983.shtml
More enamored with Democrat approval than doing the right thing. Or worse, he actually believes he's done the right thing.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on February 15, 2005 07:57 PMbut has anyone been able to bring up the Secretary of State's page?
Posted by: ellas on February 15, 2005 09:32 PMIt's also unbelieveable to me that many still don't get the simple concept of an accurate election. The outrage is that there are not more voices of authority calling for the same thing that the majority of the citizens want. A fair election. Even if the contest fails, the citizens know that just because that Dean Logan says that he has no way to remove felons or voters that register at storage facilities, doesn't mean we should live with an election process that was not as good as what just took place in Iraq.
There's going to be reform, if the people have to use the initiative to do this themselves, and I can gaurantee that many heads are going to roll in 2006 to address all of the foolish statements that politicians such as Gregoire, Darneille and Reed are making.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 15, 2005 09:36 PMI believe intimidation by vocal minorities and radical activists have essentially neutered many public officials. The WA-MOB uses the promise of political security and public ego stoking to keep their people in line. The puppets dance while the theater burns.
Posted by: Splatter on February 15, 2005 09:57 PMOne article talked about having each county decide when they wanted to convert to all mail-in ballots. The impression being that most will use mail-in ballots, while only a small percentage would continue to vote in person, until we reach a goal of 100% mail-in.
I do not see how 100% mail-in will solve the problems of the 2004 election. It seems like there would be more room for possible "fraud."