As best as I can tell, the number of unverified provisional ballots that went through the Accuvote machines in King County was about 927.
I gather this from going through the Binder source documents and the companion "Notes file", which is a transcription of the handwritten notes on the source documents.
The earlier number of 348 doesn't quite add up either. The county released a hard copy version of a spreadsheet that showed the precincts in which these ballots were identified, along with their status based on post-election research: i.e. whether the ballot came from a valid voter who simply failed to follow the rules at the polling place, or if it was a double vote, unverifiable voter, etc.
The spreadsheet shows the following:
Total provisionals: 348
Credits (valid voters): 252
Prior credit (likely double voter): 40
Not registered: 43
Cancelled registration (not eligible): 2
Miscellaneous problems (e.g. missing or mismatched signature): 7
Unexplained: 4
But in some precincts, the number of explained ballots exceeds the number of reported ballots. Taking the greater number of ballots for each precinct, I get to 364.
In any event, the new number of provisionals that everybody's fixated on, "660", is the latest number to come from Dean Logan, but it is neither the definitive total number nor strictly a number to be added to 348 or 364. The various Binder file indicate that there is a small amount of overlap between the previously identified provisionals and the new 660. As far as I can tell, that number is based on sloppy methodology and doesn't mean much of anything.
I get to 927 by adding up all the "PB in accuvote" and "no label"s, adjusting only in a few instances where the "no label" was wildly greater than the discrepancy between ballots counted and credited voters. If anybody can come up with a better number, please let me know.
UPDATE: I also counted 9 instances of absentee ballots that were known to have gone into the Accuvote. At Monday's Council meeting, Dean Logan said he wasn't aware of any such incidents. The absentees are visually different from the other ballots. As Micajah asks in a comment on an earlier post -- Why didn't anyone remove and reject them?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 16, 2005 12:30 PM | Email ThisSo what did you do for The Beacon Towers precincts, which showed 13 pb in accuvote and 13 "adjusted #". Did you add them together or treat them as an overlap.
If there are 13 "no labels" show in a precinct and 13 pbav, how do you know whether they are counting the same provisionals or two different sets of provisionals.
If they are counting the same set of provisionals then my guess is almost all of the 348 should be deducted from the 660, not added to it.
Posted by: chew2 on March 16, 2005 12:39 PMI'll try to do that as I get time.
But what did you do about Beacon Towers, that will tell me what methodology you are using. Did you count that as 13 only, or add them together to get 26? I would have counted them as 13.
Posted by: chew2 on March 16, 2005 12:50 PMIf the state goes to all-mail ballot procedures, can we not find a way to challenge basically EVERY new registration, and thus tie up the County to the extent that they MUST ensure validity of the new voters? Heck, can't we do it NOW with just the people who registered at KC Elections bldg?
dan
Posted by: dan on March 16, 2005 12:54 PMI'm going to flag this as one of the polling places I take a closer look at next time they're available.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 16, 2005 12:55 PMYes, but did you add that number 16 to the 13 pbav also shown for Beacon Towers, or did you assume that the 13 pbav was included within that 16.
Thanks for replying.
Apologists for King County have been pretty consistent in labeling the proplems in King County as "human error", and have been quick to claim that there has been no fraud. But no one can vote twice in error, and voting twice IS fraud.
In light of all that has been revealed, all the errors, all the mishandling of ballots, ineligible voters and the rest, I am amazed that Christine Gregoire has not followed Rossi's lead and accepted the need to hold a new election. She cannot possibly be able to look into the mirror and feel good about what she's doing.
Posted by: darrell on March 16, 2005 01:28 PMRegarding the ex-Attorney General: sadly it seems that the only values/morals that liberals/democrats/socialists seem to have are the those they impose on other people. It has been my experience that these individuals have "relativistic morals" - they change their idea of right and wrong to fit the situation.
That is why you find them fighting every measure that would reduce or eliminate fraud.
Posted by: lee egg on March 16, 2005 01:46 PMIt is amazing that Gregoire can feel as though she is legitimate. Unfortunately (as demonstrated throughout her campaign and so-called election) power seems to be her #1 priority. Neither disenfranchisement, fraud, nor King County (mismanagement) seem to matter. She got what she wanted and now she wants us to live with the results. I think she said it all when she stated that mistakes or no mistakes, she believes that she is legit.
In the end, the voters spoke in November and elected Rossi (albeit narrowly) and in the end (either sooner or later) the voters will speak again. Gregoire is sitting on a powder keg. She has to know (or spend a lot of time convincing herself otherwise) that this is probably it for her. By either her own backdoor dealings or by fraud and incompetence of King County, she was appointed Governor. This has not gone away and while she attained the power she craved, her time is soon coming to a close.
Posted by: flexnfx on March 16, 2005 01:52 PM...one follow-up, if Gregoire ran today, polls continue to show she would lose, yet another reason that she would not hold a new election...
Posted by: flexnfx on March 16, 2005 01:55 PMWhat they are unwilling to admit is that with a margin of victory of only 129 votes, this discrepancy is far too great to leave unexplained and certify the election as it has clearly influenced the outcome.
Bring in the Feds.
Some jail time for Logan would give him lots of time to think about how to improve procedures.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 16, 2005 02:03 PMYou and Dean Logan appear to agree on one point.
Logan said in answer to Dunn on Monday that there is "some overlap" between the 348 and 660.
You say in this entry that there is a "small amount of overlap."
"Some" and "small amount" seem pretty close to the same way of describing the situation.
Unfortunately, some statement Logan made in answer to another council member got reported in the news media, so people who have heard or read those reports believe that 660 is the maximum number of provisional ballots that were improperly put into the voting machines. (I didn't hear that statement by Logan.)
Posted by: Micajah on March 16, 2005 02:42 PMIf all the counted "no labels" listed in the various precincts also include all the counted "pbav's" listed in those same precincts, then there is a total overlap and the 660 includes the 348. Stefan hasn't answered that question.
Do you have an answer?
Posted by: chew2 on March 16, 2005 03:24 PMThrowing these provisionals into the pot at any number over 129 is enough to invalidate the election. At least that is what Slade Gorton says and I believe his words more than the most recent AG.
Posted by: swatter on March 16, 2005 04:24 PMA poll Inspector told me that absentee ballots had been fed through the AccuVote machines at his polling place.
Yes, these are visually different.
It is my understanding that KC further muddied the waters by (in some cases) using blank absentee ballots as replacements during the provisional ballot duplication process.
Regardless, even at this late date, it is still theoretically possible to go back through and pull out all the absentee ballots that had been fed through the AccuVote machines, since all the ballots that had been enhanced or duplicated should have had marks on them from those workers who did the enhancing/duplicating. Those absentee ballots without marks would thereby be identified as the absentee ballots that had been fed into the AccuVote machines.
Unfortunately, it would be impossible to tell which absentee voters had done this. Therefore, they would not have received credit for voting, which means they could have voted twice (the second time, provisionally) and nobody would be the wiser.
Or, perhaps these absentee ballots may have been stolen from mailboxes. I have heard many anecdotal cases in which people claimed that they never received their absentee ballots. Who knows.
Posted by: Tim B. on March 16, 2005 04:37 PMWell, I'm not having any luck with "part II" of my effort to decode the reconciliation summary.
I can't seem to make any headway without having any information from the cover sheet of a poll book. (I'm also beginning to believe that my hypothesis based on the Bothell Regional Library polling place doesn't explain how all the polling place reconciliations were recorded in the notes and reconciliation summary. The 22 canvassing crew members may have been using more than one procedure for noting their adjustments and reconciliation efforts.)
Once I looked at Cougar Ridge Elementary and saw that the "adjusted #" appeared to have no basis in fact is when I stopped and came to send you this note. Cougar Ridge looks like a bald-faced lie when it says there was a zero net difference, since there is nothing in the notes to hint at an explanation for the "adjustment." There were 15 more ballots than voters credited with voting in 4 precincts. There were 7 fewer ballots than voters in 5 precincts. Presumably, those 7 resulted from "crossover" errors, leaving 8 more ballots than voters. There were 6 PBAVs which could explain all but 2 of the excess ballots. The "adjusted #" is 8, indicating that all 6 of the PBAVs may be included in that 8 -- but there aren't any "no label" ballots that could offer a basis for making an adjustment of 8 rather than 6. (On the other hand, a desire to get to a zero "net difference" might have been all that was needed to tack on a couple more numbers in the "adjusted #" column.)
With only one cover sheet image from Bothell Regional Library polling place, I was able to decode what the canvassing crew members did in that polling place.
What other images of poll book cover sheets and accompanying ballot accountability forms do you have that you could post?
If I knew what you had available, I could ask you to post one or two that seem like polling places where the overlap in PBAV and "no label" or "no copy" might occur.
Posted by: Micajah on March 16, 2005 05:25 PMThose ballots could have been pulled at the time of canvass (Nov. 3 - 16, 2004), and brought to the attention of the canvass board at that time. Indeed, that would have been the proper procedure. But after all of the ballots were "sorted" into precincts for the purpose of the hand count, it became impossible to determine from whence any particular card (ballot) came.
The usual type of forensic reconstruction of errors that may have ocurred at the pollsites, that customarily occurs during canvass to reconcile remaining discrepancies prior to certification, was not done for this election. Further, all of the "clues" (such as absentee ballots in the sealed boxes of ballots from the polls) were lost when all of the ballots were re-sorted for the manual recount.
Posted by: Annie on March 16, 2005 06:04 PMI doubt seriously that all data was transferred accurately and consistently from the poll books to the reconciliation summaries. If someone were trying to minimze the actual discrepancies, the easiest way is to transfer incorrect data to the reconciliations and hope no one goes back to the SOURCE DOCUMENTS (Poll Books). Another way is to ALTER numbers or data on the pollbooks BEFORE doing the reconciliation summary.
Did anyone have access to these pollbooks without observors from both parties??? Answer===YES!
This whole process is so flawed at this point it's like chasing your tail.
You and Stefan are doing the right thing. Take the actual data KingCo provides you with and use KingCo's own data to discredit them.
But also keep your eyes and ears open to the fact that the SOURCE DOCUMENTS that created the data to these reonciliation summaries could have easily been ALTERED in the past few months....especially if individuals had independent access to the SOURCE DOCUMENTS.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 16, 2005 06:26 PMTherefore, if any absentee ballots are found among the provisional/poll ballots, this would be due to either an absentee ballot that was incorrectly fed through the AccuVote machines on election day, or to absentee ballots being used during the provisional ballot duplication process.
This would give us an accurate number of the total number of absentee ballots that were fed into AccuVote machines on election day. The total may indeed be 9, but I would not be surprised if it were higher.
Posted by: Tim B. on March 16, 2005 06:49 PMThere was no "en masse" comingling of abs and polls, but there was most assuredly the pulling of individual cards from various places: add-on batches, poll boxes, etc., in an attempt to "organize" the count into absentees, provisionals and true polls.
There was a substantial amount of handling and resorting of the ballots that the counters and observers at the recount were completely unaware of, as it took place at MBOS with few observers, or after hours with no observers present.
For example, most people who participated in the counting are not aware that the entire count was completely restarted from the beginning due to sort problems. The count simply continued and new numbers replaced the old.
No, the absentees and the polls were not comingled in huge batches for manual counting (actually, tabulating) - the absentees and the polls were counted for the most part seperately in the manual count.
But individual ballots were pulled in cases where an anomalous card was located in one place or another. This would include absentee cards in poll boxes, and would have obliterated the possibility of following the forensic trail and of pulling those cards to reconcile an out-of-balance poll precinct.
And all of the absentees were taken from their original batches (a key to canvass auditing of mail ballots), and re-sorted into precincts, thus obliterating all possibility of auditing individual batches to reconcile the 500 out-of-balance voterless absentees.
Posted by: Annie on March 16, 2005 07:12 PM"Logan said Monday that approximately 573 absentee ballots were rejected because it was mistakenly thought that the signatures on the ballots did not match original voter registration records."
At least at that time, King County admitted they had a problem.
Posted by: mike on March 16, 2005 07:17 PM"Logan said Monday that approximately 573 absentee ballots were rejected because it was mistakenly thought that the signatures on the ballots did not match original voter registration records."
At least at that time, King County admitted they had a problem.
Posted by: mike on March 16, 2005 07:17 PMBecause instead of honest election officials who take the job of accurate elections seriously, we've got highly partisan operatives who were quite pleased that the result favored Gregoire.
Gregoire won by 129 votes?
These, along with the felon voters, enhanced ballots, double voters and dead people....should be more than enough to convince even the most liberal judge that the margin of questionable and illegal votes far exceeds Gregoires margin of victory...
When is Rossi's next court date?
Posted by: Deborah on March 16, 2005 07:40 PMRegardless of how the Supremes rule here (assuming the election is thrown out in Chelan Co.), this warrants a Federal investigation, which becomes more apparent by the effort that King County officials have expended to coverup shall we say - the illegitimacies - the result of OUTSIDE FRAUD by activist groups - led by Moveon.org that mobilized mainly in Seattle on Election Day.
Posted by: KS on March 16, 2005 09:45 PMDeborah:
You can probably show that you have more impropper and/or illegal votes than the margin of victory, I'm not sure anyone has tried to argue that. You haven't showed that it mattered, and you haven't (and this might not matter) shown that it was intentional.
And, unfortunately for you, you have chosen a conservative judge (the Republican's didn't file in Chelan for nothing, they are paying enough for their out of state legal team, having them drive another three hours isn't for fun). If he is a conservative, it seems highly questionable that he will override the people and the legislature.
Posted by: JDB on March 16, 2005 09:48 PMCan you recognize the logical fallacy in your statement that the judge will be reluctant to "override the people" by setting aside the election?
The question is whether Gregoire was duly elected. Your statement that setting aside the election would "override the people" assumes the answer to the very question that must be proved.
But thanks anyway for the pep talk.
Posted by: Micajah on March 16, 2005 10:23 PMI've sent emails to the Rossi camp too and have yet to hear anything back....
We know they have enough evidence, we know the Judge DID NOT not agree with the Dems notion that the Republicans must show *who* the invalid votes were cast for..ie; Rossi or Gregoire...
I'm thinking they (Rossi camp) are in the process of something big right now.....Perhaps collaborating with the Feds......I'm beginning to think that Judge Bridges delay for discovery was made on behalf of the Feds....(So they can do what they do.....)
I just cannot see the Republicans and Rossi simply walking away from this - That would be impossible...So the only other possibility is a delay for the sake of an investigation....
Posted by: Deborah on March 16, 2005 10:24 PMTo put your mind at ease. When Dino was down here at Dorchester, he mentioned to me that he's not giving up the fight.
Trust me, he says it, it goes.
Posted by: Big M on March 16, 2005 10:34 PMI agree!
That's why this lull is beginning to be intriguing!
Those of us who like to 'wonder'.....have deducted just about every other possibility....
There are only a few possibilites remaining.
Posted by: Deborah on March 16, 2005 10:40 PMYou can't change reality. The starting point is that Christien Gregoire is the elected Govenor and that the legislature has ratified that election, as required by the Constitution. That is the starting point. The presumption is, for all the mistakes, the election is valid. The fact that you know, no your heart, that it isn't doesn't change the legal reality.
Deborah:
Judge Bridges has been quoted to you, the constitution has been quoted to you. The law has been quoted to you. Unless you are six, you should know that holding your breath and wishing something true does not work. The judge has made no such ruling, but has made clear (as the case law and the Constituion demands) that the question comes back to can the challangeer showed that the errors effected the outcome. Just speculating that it might have been differnt isn't enough.
And on what grounds is this super secret Federal investigation taking place? Unless you are claiming the Senatorial or Presidential election, or a House race was effected, what are the federal grounds for an investigation? Plus do you think the Bush administration is stupid enough to touch this with a fifty foot poll?
If you have a fact, any fact, that contradicts what I have written, please produce it. Do you have the courage of your convications, or are you so sure that if you open your eyes that your fantasy will just fade away?
Posted by: JDB on March 16, 2005 10:46 PMI suspect the reason you're not hearing much from the Rossi Campaign because they are painfully aware of the fact that:
1. They don't have much in the way of good news to share. Despite all the overblown rhetoric and allegations, nothing even remotely resembling intentional fraud has appeared.
2. Even though they no doubt appreciate your cheer leading, it's really hard to take you folks seriously. You are just a little too whacked out to bother with returning your calls or answering your e-mails.
How 'bout ya just sit tight and wait for the good judge in Wenatchee to figure out how to deal with this little hot potato (that's potatoe for all you Dan Quail fans). Then we can move on to the State Supremes for another round of wild-eyed accusations and hyperbole.
While your taking a few deep breaths and getting your **** together, think about just how far you are out of sync with your national conservative brethren in screaming for investigations of voter fraud and your fantasies of "calling in the feds".
And finally, thanks so much for the wonderful entertainment you've provided us libs. Frankly, it's been a tough year for us, with Bush II's re-election and all. Without this little guv's race in WA, I'm not sure we would have made it through.
Fraud is not required...that much has been said by the judge. You are drinking too much of the kool-aid. All that is required is that the votes which are illegal are enough to change the election.
Let's take for example 900 illegal/improper votes in King County alone. If Gregoire took 60% of the votes in KingCo then she benefitted from 540 of those illegal votes and Rossi benefitted from 360. That would be net +180 for Gregoire and would change the election results. No?
Posted by: MTD on March 16, 2005 11:33 PMAnd with Mandigo gone...(living large as Security now for Holland Cruiseline..) I suspect the agency here is still getting itself in order... (I miss Mandigo - He reminded me of Kramer from Seinfeld when he rushed into press conferences - looking all disheveled!)
Yep! The Seattle Bureau is pretty busy and probably wouldn't be able to acommodate the large scale investigation that would be required for our state elections mess......However, those pesky Feds can cross state lines - and come from just about anywhere to run an investigation.....
But don't you worry your pretty little heads JDB and Unk...As soon as I get more *definitive* information..I will *surely* post it right here and risk blowing everything for the sake of your curiosity......NOT!
The importnat part of your statement is "If." "*If* Gregroire took 60% of the votes...." *If* BS was gold, you would be a millionare. As of now, you have no idea how any of those votes were cast. Actually, to be more accurate, what little we know has shown that these votes trended toward Rossi.
As to the actual standard, Judge Bridges has not ruled one way or the other. He has said that he will take that up before trial. But when he explained his thinking, he has made it clear that his lowest standard is that you have to show that impropper/illegal votes changed the outcome. (Note, the judge has not said just illegal votes, like you state, but has said he will allow evidence of impropper votes also. He has not said if they could be used to overturn the election and appoint Rossi govenor, he is reserving ruling until trial on that).
As I said above, he hs yet to say that you might have to prove intent to change the outcome. I personally think there is only about a 20% chance of that, but it is still on the table.
And, again, do you have any facts that supports your position. And saying you heard it on this board doesn't make it true. Based upon what I have heard on this board, we are minutes from an armed revolution which will lead to the true government that the people really want, assuming the super secret Federal Government operations dont' sweep in first and arrest all the commies. In the mean time, we will be looking at whether anyone with a funny name is voting illegally, and assume they must all have been illegal aliens until we have some proof other than their names sure are funny. This board is about as credible of a source as a Jeff Gannon exclusive.
I appreciate that there are a few people here that actually have the courage of their convications and will join into a true debate. But most everything here is fairy-tale, name calling and B.S. I'm just surprised that so few have the ability to defend their position on this board, where you have home field advantage.
However, the more Lord of the Flies this gets, the more fun it is to watch. And who knows, like the debate on the Death Penalty a few weeks ago, some times there are some interesting conversations here. If I am the wisest man, it is only because I know I know nothing.
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 12:42 AMThe importnat part of your statement is "If." "*If* Gregroire took 60% of the votes...." *If* BS was gold, you would be a millionare. As of now, you have no idea how any of those votes were cast. Actually, to be more accurate, what little we know has shown that these votes trended toward Rossi.
As to the actual standard, Judge Bridges has not ruled one way or the other. He has said that he will take that up before trial. But when he explained his thinking, he has made it clear that his lowest standard is that you have to show that impropper/illegal votes changed the outcome. (Note, the judge has not said just illegal votes, like you state, but has said he will allow evidence of impropper votes also. He has not said if they could be used to overturn the election and appoint Rossi govenor, he is reserving ruling until trial on that).
As I said above, he hs yet to say that you might have to prove intent to change the outcome. I personally think there is only about a 20% chance of that, but it is still on the table.
And, again, do you have any facts that supports your position. And saying you heard it on this board doesn't make it true. Based upon what I have heard on this board, we are minutes from an armed revolution which will lead to the true government that the people really want, assuming the super secret Federal Government operations dont' sweep in first and arrest all the commies. In the mean time, we will be looking at whether anyone with a funny name is voting illegally, and assume they must all have been illegal aliens until we have some proof other than their names sure are funny. This board is about as credible of a source as a Jeff Gannon exclusive.
I appreciate that there are a few people here that actually have the courage of their convications and will join into a true debate. But most everything here is fairy-tale, name calling and B.S. I'm just surprised that so few have the ability to defend their position on this board, where you have home field advantage.
However, the more Lord of the Flies this gets, the more fun it is to watch. And who knows, like the debate on the Death Penalty a few weeks ago, some times there are some interesting conversations here. If I am the wisest man, it is only because I know I know nothing.
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 12:42 AMYou are assuming that there wasn't any fraud, maybe because you won't or can't accept that the democratic party wouldn't do that or maybe it's because you think all people are inherently good at heart.
The 40 double voters in King County all committed fraud. The spouses who voted for their dead spouses all willingly committed fraud. Everyone of the poll workers who turned their heads the other way and allowed provisional ballots to go into the Accuvu counting machines committed fraud. The procedures and the rules given to them probably allowed them to do this, otherwise you are looking at literally thousands of poll workers who intentionally committed fraud and risked criminial charges filed against them!
Thousands of poll workers didn't do their jobs in King County because they weren't properly told what to do. Who wrote their instructions? Who trained them?
That is where the problem is....
and by the way, I like your email address...
Bite me, Jeff!~
Once again, thank you for your patient and oft repeated analysis of King County voting patterns. Unfortunately, it is fatally flawed.
Now that we know Rossi's list of felon voters is only slightly more accurate than Bush's weapons of mass destruction assessments, it's becoming difficult to take any of their projections seriously. But ignoring that, what data (other than wishful thinking) do you have to support mapping King County voting patterns onto a group of "felons"?
It's more than a little amusing to me that the vast majority of "felons" interviewed so far claim to have voted for Dino. I find your response of "these guys are convicted criminals anyway, so it's obvious they would lie about that" way less than compelling.
Which leaves of with only two reasons for your logic:
1. Your ideological bent that tells you anyone who votes for liberals must be some kind of criminal, and:
2. Your fervent and irrepressible belief that Dino was clearly the "peoples choice" and only criminal intervention has frustrated that.
As I've said from the beginning, keep it up. It's great theater.
My conclusion is that all of the 348 pbav are included within the 660 "adjusted #'s", so that the maximum number of provisionals fed thru the accuvote was 660, not the 900+ number claimed by stefan.
The Master Explanation pdf document regarding Clark Elementary makes it pretty clear that whenever any pbav's were counted, they were also counted as "adjusted #'s".
My inspection of the reconciliation worksheet seems to confirm this (unless I missed something). Whenever there was a numerical count for pbav listed, there was a count for "adjusted 3's" as large or larger.
Neither of you have responded to this, or to my initial reference to the Beacon Towers count.
Do I take that you agree?
Clark Elementary Explanation:
"Clark Elementary – this is an example of a situation where there was confirmation from a poll worker that provisional ballots went through the Accuvote machine. In this instance, the number is represented in the “PBAV column” and then in the “Adjusted #” column so that the adjusted reconciliation for the polling location indicates a net difference of 0."
Posted by: chew2 on March 17, 2005 08:53 AMIt’s almost disappointing to me to hear you admit that the local FBI has far more important things to do than get Dino elected governor. I do have to say most of your references are completely lost on me though. I have no idea who Mandigo is, and I must confess I’ve never watched a single episode of Seinfeld. It’s a serious gap in my cultural development.
But it makes me wonder if watching sitcoms is where you get these ridiculous stereotypes of liberals. Sorta like us lib’s concluding all conservatives are about as dumb as Archie Bunker (an equally erroneous conclusion). Neither squares very well with the folks of both stripes I meet out in the real world. But I digress, this forum is not the real world.
Anyway, thanks for all your hard work, I look forward to getting more of your “definitive” information. It puts a smile on my face.
Oh, and say, aren’t you the one who is going to go through all the phone books looking for “foreign sounding names” to verify they are not voting illegally? Do keep us posted.
Fraud is a narrower definition than just doing something wrong. If I'm doing 80 in a 20 zone, I'm not committing fraud, even if I know what I'm doing is wrong.
Hence, the old man who votes for his recently deceased wife because that's her wish, illegal, but not fraud. A person who signs up under five different names and votes five times, fraud.
The double voters, for this reason, are a little more troubling. However, like the felon list, I will note that the 40 number you site has been reduced. I'm not sure if their is an agreed number at this point, but given the GOP track record on their numbers, lets say it is 20. Not enough to effect the outcome of the election, even if you could show who everyone voted for.
These votes, even if illegal, still might not have been impropper. An example I have given on another post. Person A registers for vote for mail and moves just before the ballots are sent out. Through an error, balltos are sent to A's old address and new address. Person B moves into A's old address, gets the ballot, and carelessly assumes it is for B. A votes at the new address, and B votes with A's other ballot at the old address. B does not go to the polls, thinking they have voted correctly (Yes, B is not very observant, but many people are not very observant).
In this case you would have two votes credited to A, one over vote and one illegal vote. However, since A and B were both elligible to vote the final tally is actually correct.
There are plenty of holes in the example, but you could spin a million more where you get over votes and illegal votes, but still have correct votes. The point is that while there were errors in the system, that doesn't mean that the outcome was effected. In anything this large and human, there will be errors. Errors do not equal fraud.
My point, other than bringing a little reality to this board, in many posts has been that if we actually worked together for the best of this state, we could make the system better. It would be nice that instead of dreaming up super secret federal investigations into nothing we dealt with reality.
Nor do I believe that fraud is impossible, or that people are by their very nature good. However, most people do not try to break the law. And, have you ever worked in politics? Democratic politics especially? It is way to chaotic for the grand conspiracy theories that this board lives off of. And surely the Democrats could have knocked off McKenna if they really were going to have this "massive vote fraud."
Of course, we should have a do over in that race since we had a massive outside conservative organization come in, fail to comply with campaign disclosure requirements, and then effect the primary and the general election...., maybe that is the super secret federal investigation Deborah is hearing about.
I do agree with you that there are problems, and that they should be corrected as best possible. That could make for a very good conversation, but we have seen from the GOP's and BIAW's own attempts to show bad votes that this is much harder than you would think. Heck, their error rate is so far somewhere between 10%-50%. Imagine if they ran the elections.
And I'm glad you like the e-mail address. It is my spam address (I do check it though daily just to make sure something that needs to be responded to gets responded to..., who knows, I might actually win a million dollars). I highly recomend to everyone that they have a second address that they can use anytime you have to give a email address; it has cut down the spam to my personal account by about half. Deborah seems to like it to, although she might have just been coming on to me.
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 09:23 AMGOVERNOR
Christine Gregoire Democratic 505,243 57.7468%
Dino Rossi Republican 350,779 40.0923%
I apparently overstated the percentage for Gregoire, slightly, and even underestimated (even more slightly) Dino's percentages.
So, basing soley on 900 "flawed" (I never said fraud and as I understand it, showing fraud is not required but that's for another post), Gregoire would benefit from:
900 votes x 57.7468% = 519.72 "extra" votes
and Dino Rossi would benefit from
900 votes x 40.0923% = 360.83 "extra" votes
Meaning Gregoire picked up 159 net votes (rounded slightly)
Last I checked, 159 is larger than the margin of victory...
129 is the margin of victory according to
http://vote.wa.gov/general/recount.aspx
Can you dispute this?
We do have an election where the privacy of the ballot is still in-tact. Right? If so, I can't imagine a method more fair to determine who benefits from these "extra" votes.
Thoughts from the Libbie lurkers or others?
Posted by: MTD on March 17, 2005 09:25 AMMTD:
You are opperating from a falacy that a subset must reflect the composition of the larger group. Witz will probably argue this better than I but other than that gets you a number you want, what evidence do you have that it is true? So far of the impropper/illegal votes uncovered, they have trended toward Rossi. As such, we could also assume that Governor Gregoire won by a larger amount. (Note, I am now comitting the falacy that the larger group must reflect the subset, equally bad arguement).
Simply put, you are speculating, and using numbers that come out your way. It is highly doubtful that Judge Bridges will overturn an election based upon speculation. Everything he has said has indicated that he is looking for much more before he assumes he knows better than the people and the legislature.
Again, if you have some proof that the subset (improper votes) was exactly the same as the whole, please post it. Secondly, have you then applied this logic to the counties that went Rossi, and corrected downward for that? And, given that most of these questionable numbers have come from the BIAW's attempt to buy this election for Rossi, and have been shown to have large errors, can you trust these numbers at all?
There were errors, no doubt, but do you have any proof that they effected the outcome of the election?
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 10:10 AMMTD:
You say you can’t imagine a “method more fair to determine who benefits from these "extra" votes.“ Just offhand, I’d say your imagination is fairly limited, probably by your passion to overturn the outcome of this election.
I’d be hard pressed to state the error of your logic any more succinctly than JDB. And I have no idea how much statistical analysis you’ve been exposed to. From your arguments, I’m guessing not much.
To put it in layman’s terms, you are mistaken in trying to project a division of votes from a very large group (King County with roughly a million votes) to determine that same division in a very small group (900 alleged felons who may or may not have voting privileges). This is particularly true in light of the fact the overall makeup of the groups (age, gender, socio-economic brackets, geographic dispersal; etc.) are in no way similar.
Now I know this is difficult for you, but you are going to have to start contemplating the harsh reality that the re-vote will most likely not take place until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2008.
I agree with concept that your speeding is NOT fraud. However; the old man voting for his wife was fraud. He did it from the heart, his emotions led him to it, he knew it was wrong, he is willing to accept the punishment for it, and it is fraud, because he intentionally meant to deceive election workers by forging his wife's signature. The forged signature is the fraud.
The double voters hasn't been lowered that I know of. It was just released this weekend in the Times by reporter Keith Ervin.
Your example of the ballots and the moving voters doesn't work either. I am retired Army and I had some friends get assigned here to Fort Lewis to retire after I had been here for a year or so. They stayed with me for the first 2 months while buying their house, they both got driver's licenses and registered to vote. Vic's absentee ballots kept coming to my house. The first time I got one, I thought it was mine for a primary election, he was in Kuwait and I filled it out and when I put it in the envelope and went to seal it, his name was on the back, so needless to say, I did NOT forge his name to it. My daughter's and mine arrived the next day.
Your point about errors in the system, it's only human and it doesn't mean the outcome was affected; doesn't wash with me and that dog don't hunt either! One of the counties matched to I think 9 votes, and when told of the discrepancy, she found every one of them and matched 100%. I will tell you that she cares, she's extrememly meticulous, and takes her job and responsibility very seriously. You say that errors don't equal fraud. Yes, they can. On this board it has been called distrubuted vote fraud many times in many different posts.
I do agree that working together can fix it. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. I have NEVER worked in politics. I spent 30 years in the Army, I retired and now I am being lazy! I am getting mad enough to stand on a street corner with a sign during the next election cycle though. American politics is becoming explosive in many ways. The sides are becoming more and more polarized and it just keeps getting uglier. I don't know about the grand conspiracy theories that you are talking about. At this point, I am not sure that I don't believe that all of them are true. I was shocked at the three breakins of the RNC here in Washington State. I was shocked at the tire slashing of 30 RNC rental vehicles on election day. I don't believe that fraud was rampant all over Washington State, King County is another matter. It is very plausible that moveon.org had a dozen or so voters in a van to go into busy polling stations in King County, request provisionals and stuff them in the Accuvu machines in the midst of the confusion. It is just as reasonable to believe this explanation as it is to believe that a thousand grandmas and grandpas working the polling stations all didn't know what they were doing or were trying to sway the election.
Most of the reforms happening in the legislature right now, don't fix the problems. It is interesting to note that the present Gregoire said this is a model election, yet she appointed a task force. Why would you do that for a model election? The democratic position on voting isn't the same as the republican position, so working together to fix it is tough.
The GOP's and BIAW's error rate is understandable considering the road blocks that are being thrown at them. The paperwork that Stefan is analyzing and that they released only because they had to for the discovery in the lawsuit was done on 17 Dec 04. They knew THEN about 660 votes, they knew THEN about the 40 double voters. They have done NOTHING but circle the wagons around Dean Logan and the truth and the truth is ugly. When they are busted and forced to admit the truth, it comes out. They found new votes 9 times during the recounts. This is why everyone is on them like duck on a fly! If they were upfront and honest about the problems, it might go over better. I doubt it, because the problems were the same as the 2000 election, but worse. They were told a year before this past election not to enhance ballots, they were told to color code provisionals, they ignored it. King County has created this nightmare and it will get worse too!
Us ordinary people want accountablity from leaders. If Judge Bridges nullifies this election, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the state of Washington! It will send a clear strong message to all that elections are sacred and that bad behavior won't be tolerated.
I don't know whether Deborah was coming on to you or not, but for all you know, I might have been too! Women can be SGM's too.
Posted by: sgmmac on March 17, 2005 11:10 AMWhat methodology would you use to determine who benefited from a flawed election? Oh wait, you wouldn't...you simply want to move on. Nice...ignore what has happened and hope that your party will use what has worked "well" for them in this election to "help" elections in teh future. ?
JDB,
You ask me for proof...but then you offer this line:
"So far of the impropper/illegal votes uncovered, they have trended toward Rossi."
Um...excuse me? Where is proof of this?
We'll see how the courts rule. This election is far from over, I am very sorry to say.
And...one last parting question to you both: If Gregoire had lost all 3 counts would Dems still be crying foul?
My guess is yes...since they're still crying about 2000 and some even trying to say that 2004 somehow was stolen as well.
Posted by: MTD on March 17, 2005 11:14 AMYou raise some good points, I will try to address them later in the day when I have some more time. But it is nice to find a real debate on this board. I appreciate it.
And you are right, I have assumed you were male, but that doesn't mean you weren't coming on to me either.... however, I don't want you to loose your job, so I won't ask, you won 't tell.
MTD:
As I said, my arguement is equally invalid. I'm glad you agree. However, if you know of one of the impropper/illegal votes that was caste for Gregoire, please let us know. I assume that they were not all for Rossi, but you notice you aren't seeing a single case cited on this board.
To answer your question, Govenor Gregoire stated she would not contest the election if she had lost after the last recount. Whether or not Democrats would be grousing..., I would assume they would be.
It is interesting to note that based upon the arguements put forward by this board, KVI, KTTH etc. that Govenor Gregoire should challange the election. Since no one can show who the errors favored, the election is equally flawed for either canidates, and Rossi winning the recounts doesn't make it right just because the person you want to win wins. The Govenor is a good attorney, though, and would have known her chances of prevaling were near zero. I think she would have stayed by her word. Then again, she is a politician, and I don't hold them to the highest standard.
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 11:45 AMI am retired so I won't lose my job!
I pasted sections below from the Columbian.com, you can read the whole article there by putting in felon voter in the search section.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
By JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer
County Auditor Greg Kimsey said his office has confirmed that all 33 voted in the November election. Several of the 33 suspected illegal voters in Clark County said they had no idea they weren't allowed to vote.
Chesa Legette told The Columbian on Wednesday that she didn't reregister following her conviction and simply showed up and voted at her regular polling place.
"I was off of probation in April of last year," she said. "I just thought I could vote. I really didn't talk to my probation officer ...about how long I was unable to vote."
Legette wasn't even sure whom she voted for in the gubernatorial race, but she suspected it was Gregoire.
"It might have been," she said. "Because I don't think I voted for the Republican."
Rhett Fulwider said he is in the process of having his voting rights restored. When asked whom he voted for governor, Fulwider replied: "That's my business."
Brandi Collum said she completed a deferred prosecution program through Clark County Superior Court's drug court.
"I never lost my civil rights as a voter," she said. "I looked into it before registering to vote."
Collum said she will continue to vote, even though she was a little fuzzy on which gubernatorial candidate she backed in November.
"I'm not sure who I voted for for governor," she said. "I'm sure it was a Democrat."
Have a great day!
Posted by: sgmmac on March 17, 2005 01:32 PMI promised to get back to you, and I am.
First, again, let me thank you for actually debating the issue. I think you make some good points.
On the example of the moving ballot. In your own personal example, you didn't even catch your error until the last chance. Based upon everything you say about yourself, I have to assume that you are a fairly careful observer. I would also assume that based upon your experience, that you know their are people that are much less observant than you. If you only noticed at the end, surely you can see that someone might never notice. No malice, no attempt at fraud, just human error.
And, if after you sent in the first ballot, you get your real ballot, wouldn't you agree that many people would send that in thinking either that the county had made a mistake, or that the county would catch their mistake, and you wanted to make sure the real ballot got counted.
My arguement has simply been that 90% of the errors, and most of the errors that this board obsesses about are simple human error.
I appreciate the Columbian article you site. Note that it sounds like two of these might have had a legitmate right to vote, and as I said, I was surprised that no one had found someone that voted for Gregoire (I would also note that none of these seem to be part of any organized attempt to swing the eleciton, they, at worse, voted by mistake without and great ideological conviction).
I really find it hard to believe that some person off from parole for assault sign up to vote because they thought they could throw the election to the female attorney general. That doesn't match with most of the perps I have ever known. (Does anyone know if their are any studies of how former felons vote? My gut tells me that they probably reflect the population as a whole, although I could spin it either way.)
The double votes are a little more troubling, but so far, we are talking at the most 40, probably more like 20, and probably half of that 20 can be explained by mistakes like my example. The remaining 10 votes are troubling, throw in 10-20 votes from the dead (while I believe that most of these cases were not fraud per se, they are clearly impropper votes, and no mater how much one's dying spouse wanted you to vote for Rossi, you should not have done so) and can you really say we have a problem? Is it worth millions of dollars in reforms that will almost assuredly lead to people who should be able to vote not voting just to get rid of 40 votes?
While people make errors, I do believe that most people try to be good. Most people follow the rules to the best of their ability. I ran several elections at my college back east in the mid 80s. We had voting stations set up at the two dining halls. To prevent double voting, we had everyone sign next to their name in the school directory, and then before counting, went page by page and made sure their were not two signatures. Was this system foolproof? Of course not. If I couldn't trust my felow students, the system could have been easily defeated. But it worked, and the elections I ran were considered fair and had good turnouts. But I am sure we had errors; fortunately I didn't have to count a million votes and have an election that came down to a tiny percentage of the overall vote.
"Distributed vote fraud" is a made up phrase of this board which allows a person to use the word "fraud" even though there is none. The phrase has no meaning. If you are going to define fraud so loosly, then you have to admit that President Bush's arguement for invading Iraq were fraudulent. Personally, I think they were just BS, not fraud (and we can talk about the difference between the two at some time). And while most studies show that a full recount of Florida would have given Gore the eleciton, I don't think Bush won by fraud (errors, yes, fraud, no).
Why would Moveon drive around in a van stuffing ballots when they could use that time and money dragging legitimate voters to the polls? Why take the chance on destroying your entire movement for so little return? Plus, if you were doing this, why did it only effect the Govenor's race? Plus their is a Republican and a Democratic poll watcher at each station (if the GOP and Dems wish to send them). Rembmer, leading up to the election, both parties promised to have teams of lawyers and watchers to prevent these actions. Why is it that the Republicans did not catch any of these errors at the time? (Answer, because they are human too.) And why do this when most people did not think Rossi would make it so close?
If there was some showing of an organized attempt to turn the election, I would be more sypathetic, but everything just looks like errors and mistakes. As Will Rogers once noted, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." Go to a Moveon meeting, I think it will put aside your fears of a great left wing conspiracy.
The slashing of campaign vehicles (in Wisconsin, just to be clear) is unforgiveable. I think you would agree it was the same when the GOP sent Congressional aids to Florida to storm the recount meetings in 2000 and tried to make it look like a local protest. The break-ins, while they should be investigated (anyone know if there have been any arrest?) are probably just people getting easily fencible computer equipment. While talk radio liked to make it sound onesided, across the nation their was bad behavior on both sides. Did you ever hear Rush Limbaugh or John Carlson talk about the arsons of Louisana Democrat Offices?
I do agree that there were plenty of warning signs and that King County should have made the corrections to their system (note, the enhancement issue is up in the air, my understanding is that King County claims they have enhanced in a legal, reversable manner).
To say that King County "found votes 9 times," is just rhetoric. The votes were their, and secure (except for the ones found in the bottom of the machine, and I can't remember if those were counted by the canvasing board or not). Votes were not found, errors that prevented those votes from being counted were found, and then corrected. These corrections were taken all the way up to the Supreme Court, which approved them. Shouldn't we all, if we want a fair and accurate election, applaud the correction of these errors?
The problem we have, like you said, is that the sides are so polorized that they do not trust anything the other does. My purpose of being a concious to this board is that I think forums like this tend to make the system worse, since here every rumor or conspiracy theory is amplified and repeated until it becomes the gospel truth. Both sides believe the other's reforms are their just to screw them over.
But that doesn't mean we can't try to work on some reforms. I would agree that better procedures for purging the voting rolls (cross lists with felons, moving voters, death notices), and I think moving the primary date needs to be done to better protect military voters and to allow the auditors more time to get their ballots done correctly. I also think we should go to computer ballots, but only if their is a paper trail. Personally, I think we should take the party chairs into a small room and bang their heads together until they agree to let us go back to our old primary system (Justice Scalia authored that great oppinion, and I still don't see how the parties rights trump the people's right to deside how to run their elections).
If reasonable people talk these issues out, solutions are possible. If we assume the other are evil/stupid/coniving we will get nowhere.
I came to this board hoping for the first, and have found mostly the second. I don't expect to change anyone, especially the trolls, minds, but perhaps with a little work, we can move this board more toward the first proposition, and realize we are all in this together.
Posted by: JDB on March 18, 2005 11:57 AMSome good points. There are 500 absentee ballots more than absentee voters. The procedure is: compare the signature, check the postmark and credit the voter. KC sent out hundreds of duplicate and triplicate absentee ballots. That's an enormous amount of clerical errors.
I, too, believe that most people try to do the best job possible. Which is actually why I think that fraud occurred in KC. Otherwise, I would have to believe that everyone of the workers at the polls and the election office are so totally incompetent that they all have to be fired! Stefan posted a email letter a long time ago he got from a KC election worker who said as much in the letter. She also said they were drastically understaffed and overworked. She said there were certain people who were running in and out of the warehouse and work areas constantly. The implication was that certain people in high places in KC had their fingers deep in the cookie jar. She was also fearful of losing her job.
They really did "find" votes 9 times throughout the three counts. They have to report their progress to the SOS. Now, curiously, their absentee total doesn't match what they reported in the final report to the SOS. The first find was 10,000 ballots, that according to the election worker came in during the weekend when the workers weren't there. And there really were 8 more times, somewhere here on this board, they are all listed by dates and the ballot amounts and the newspaper who reported it. This alone caused a lot of questions to be raised about fraud.
KC keeps continuing with the error reporting too. Everytime they release something, it just gets worse. I busted out laughing this morning over a report that the democratics are looking for more votes. One of the attorneys says they are going over all of the rejected provisionals and they want them rechecked and that if they are valid, that Judge Bridges should allow them to be counted now. And of course, they will say that all of the invalid ones cannot be thrown out, because you don't know who they are for!
Distributed vote fraud means that all of the errors combined with bad leadership decisions or indecisions equal fraud.
I firmly believe that Logan, Hennekuens, Sims, and Phillips knew exactly what they were doing and that their actions and inactions have caused this disaster. Unfortunately, in the Army, I witnessed many leaders who when the situation reflected badly on them, blamed their subordinates. Logan did exactly that in his first meeting with the city council. He blamed all election errors on the workers, he even said there were some cultural issues with the workers! If Logan or Huennekuens told those poll workers to put those provisionals in the accuvu machines to save time and get the counts done faster, that's exactly what they would have done.
I don't believe there is a big conspiracy, but I believe there are those that will win at all costs. Baseball and steroids come to mind!
Have a Great Weekend!
Dana
If you have 30 minutes or so, go the EFF link on the homepage here and read their election report slowly.
Posted by: sgmmac on March 18, 2005 02:08 PMJust looking at the reconciliation summary, I found 303 of the 348 were included in the 660.
27 of the 348 were not included in the 660.
353 of the 660 were not included in the 348.
So, on this first time through: 683 provisional ballots went through the AccuVote machine, according to the reconciliation summary.
Another 216 ballots of unknown origin went through as well -- for a total of 899 illegitimate ballots run through the AccuVote machine according to the reconciliation summary.
I need to go back and double-check to see if I missed any or made other mistakes.
So far as I can tell, the "PBAV" column in the summary doesn't total 348. It seems to total 336 based on the notes I took as I went through the summary.
I come up short 18 of the 348 in my notes.
All I did was identify the "sets" of numbers:
How many in the PBAV column are matched by those in the Adjusted # column? (This gives me the "overlap" between the 348 and 660.)
How many in the PBAV column aren't matched by those in the Adjusted # column in each precinct? (This gives me the part of the 348 that doesn't "overlap" the 660.)
How many in the Adjusted # column exceed those in the PBAV column? (This gives me the part of the 660 which doesn't "overlap" the 348.)
The total of those 3 sets is the total of provisional ballots run through the AccuVote -- according to the summary done by Logan's people to supposedly explain the "big binder."
There could be mistakes in the summary or omissions other than the 8 precincts Gregg noted that are entirely omitted -- which means the summary isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the big binder's contents.
Nevertheless, this total that I've reached on the first time through is what Logan's people don't dispute according to their own summary of the big binder.
Posted by: Micajah on March 19, 2005 10:38 AMYou are (both generally and specifically) full of crap.
The election results and massive evidence discovered are not "feelings," they are strong indicators of misconduct and fraud.
MoveOn itself is the liberal strategy that consists of saying and/or doing whatever makes one look good (regardless of accuracy or truth) and then distancing oneself from it as quickly as possible. If you agree with MoveOn, you agree with George Soros and Michael Moore, and that is all anyone needs to know. Pretend whatever you like, I don't care.
You say, "If reasonable people talk these issues out, solutions are possible. If we assume the other are evil/stupid/coniving we will get nowhere."
I sincerely hope that people like you consider me evil/stupid/coniving [sic] or whatever other silly misspelled garbage you want to feel about me. Your contempt for my views strikes an appropriate contrast to yours that only further validates them and proves that I am on the right track.
I don't plan on wasting time reasoning with someone of your obvious limitations. Your onanistic attempt at appearing reasonable and gracious is gratuitous and I will watch with certain satisfaction as you prove it.
There are no reasonable democrats left in this state, and you help signify it. We will get lots of good things done as soon as we can move self-satisfied people like you --on-- out of the way.
P.S.: You are mentally disturbed. Seek help, or just wig out when you lose again.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 21, 2005 10:40 AM