Even back in January when King County Elections officials announced that they knew about "up to 348" unverified provisional ballots that went through the AccuVote machines, and later hedged in the February "comprehensive report", saying that "348 provisional ballots were identified by poll workers as being improperly deposited into precinct vote counters (AccuVotes)", they had to have known that they were understating the number.
Here is King County's spreadsheet of the 348. Look at the first polling place on the list, Aki Kurose Middle School --
Notice the 3rd precinct on the list, SEA 37-1620. Column D shows that 3 provisionals were explained by valid voters, but Column C shows that 0 unverified provisionals went into the AccuVote in that precinct? Doesn't make sense. In fact, the poll book shows that there were 57 signatures in the poll book, but 63 ballots were counted by the Accuvote, while the "Binder" page shows 7 "no label" ballots, together indicating that 6 provisionals went through the Accuvote from that precinct, not 0. Then there is precinct SEA 37-1636, which doesn't show up in the spreadsheet of the 348, even though the notes from the pollworker found in the Ballot Accountability Sheet shows that 122 signatures were counted, 125 ballots went through the AccuVote with the explanation that "some provisional ballots went thru". Consider the Binder page which confirms that there were 4 "no label" provisionals in that precinct, and the obvious conclusion is that 3 unverified provisionals went through the AccuVote. The total of all of this is that 15 unverified provisionals went through at Aki Kurose Middle School, which they should have known about when they created the spreadsheet that claimed there were only 6.
N.B. Having slogged through every page of all of the poll books from Aki Kurose Middle School, I now have more insights into the discrepancy of 34 more poll ballots than poll voters credited at that polling place: the 15 from unverified provisionals that went into the Accuvote; another 15 comes from absentee voters who showed up to vote at the polls and should have been given a provisional ballot, but instead were permitted to cast a regular ballot. Did any of these folks also vote an absentee ballot? We may never know
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 21, 2005 12:50 AM | Email ThisDEAN almost screamed:
One major reason his party lost the 2004 race to the "brain-dead" Republicans is that it has a "tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail," Dean told the semi-annual meeting of Democrats Abroad, which brought about 150 members from Canada and 30 other countries to the Toronto for two days.
Yeah, it takes much longer to create than BS than simply level with the people. I have noticed that here in all the liberal "explanations" of the cover-up and Gregoire facade.
REVOTE.
PS. Also,pleasepray for Terri Schiavo that the truth can finally be told in this case and htat the radical judges here in Floridafinallyget their just "rewards".
I wonder if King County Elections checked the signatures of these 15 individuals, after the fact? (They checked the validity of the famous 348, so why not these 15, and others like them?)
Posted by: Tim B. on March 21, 2005 02:42 AMWith a complete lack of adequate internal controls and reconciliation procedures, it was easier to stuff these ballotboxes than making Paul Berendt cry WAAAAAAAAAAH!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 21, 2005 05:41 AMHowever, with that said, where was the Republican oversite when people were voting and afterward. Most places allow for a Dem and a Rep representative to view the voting process. Where was the organized Republican effort to insure that the voting was accurate?
Were the Washington Reps too stupid to see what was going on? If that is the case, then I think that they deserve to lose for being stupid. While I admire the work you do on this website, don't you think that the Reps should be so skilled on the day that the election takes place?
Especially since it was obvious that before the election the Dems would say anything and do anything to win.
JMO.
David
Posted by: david on March 21, 2005 07:10 AMTo your point, I'm sure they could have been more vigilant.
Posted by: Fred on March 21, 2005 08:41 AMIn fact, now that I think about it, if the Reps had done their job during the election and saw the lengths to which the dems wanted the Wash govs office and the presidency then they would have had as many people trailing the dem observers as possible (24/7). And not just "people" but trained people that are alert and suspicious.
The problem with the things that have been uncovered at this site is that these things should have only been a verification of a coordinated reporting of the Republican representatives a day after the elections.
These numbers should have been reported on Nov 3rd by the Rep in charge of making sure the election was honest and accurate. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that the Wash election should stand as a lesson to Republicans that stupidity is unacceptable.
Even small changes in the election process (different colored provisional and absentee ballots) would have gone a long way to correct these problems. How about provisionals that are a different size that will not go through the machines? The Reps, though a minority, are still in a place to insure accurate elections.
However, to be blunt, they dropped the ball and brought all this on themselves. No wonder the Wash Reps are not getting any "love" from the national party (lip service only). Stefan should be being paid handsomely by the national party for his work in uncovering the stupidity of the Washinton Republicans.
However just the cause, no one likes to back the stupid. Even if they are right, they will always find a way to screw up the results.
Again, JMO.
david
Posted by: david on March 21, 2005 09:08 AMThere's only two explanations for reporting false numbers: An attempt to Cover them up or incompetence, take your pick.
This is a BIG story. But, Logan has of course been given a free pass by the local MSM.
I have written numerous letters to all council members on this issue of false reporting since the release of the binder document. Receiving only three replies (Hammonds, Lambert, and Irons). Irons has informed me that Larry Phillips will not call Logan back to answer these questions.
In a perfect world your assertions would make sense. But believe me, Seattle and King County are not perfect worlds, especially on election day.
A few things to consider:
* Downtown Seattle (where most of the ballot-stuffing occurred, as opposed to rural King County) is a Democratic stronghold. This place votes 80% for Jim McDermott consistently, if that gives you any idea. Finding enough Republican volunteers to cover every polling place is very difficult. I was a poll-watcher and a poll-observer for a polling place of four precincts. And the Republicans only used voluteers, unlike the paid mercenaries of moveon.org.
* Just because something strange could have been reported, what makes you think anyone from King County would have listened? Sure, lots of Republican poll observers saw strange things. These we documented for the PARTY, not the county. Do you know what would have happened if all of these things were reported to the county administration? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. So the Republican Party knew about them, but had to sit on them until the election was actually stolen. The Democrats and the Seattle Mass Media literally didn't give a hoot.
So your feelings may be appropriate, but they are a little bit naive. Thinking that all of this stuff could have been reported on November 3, and that King County and the media would have done anything about it, is simply not the case.
Posted by: Larry on March 21, 2005 09:52 AM1) Color code the ballot types.
2) Have a 'fake race' on all of the ballots, with two marks pre-printed on provisionals to get the polling place Accuvotes to always reject them as double-votes.
Like '• The provisional ballots would still be machine countable - ballots with overvotes for dogcatcher can still be valid votes for governor. Just that the _polling_place_ machines aren't the place for the provisionals to enter the system.
I'd put a dot on absentee ballots, forbid ANY marking on an original ballot, put human readable serial numbers on ballots, and have a fourth type of ballot marked 'RECREATION of ballot #xxxxx' for each and every ballot that would otherwise need enhancement. (By doing this, you can prevent ALL marking implements from counting rooms - the board has to do the recreation.)
It could also stem the insanity of bizarre records-keeping. The accuvotes just won't accept absentees, provisionals, or recreations because of the double-vote in the fake race. So they _all_ go to headquarters in the 'bag'... which I would turn into a locked clear box-with-slot standard everywhere.
So a polling place end-of-day record sheet would say "57 signatures, handed out 58 polling place ballots, handed out 5 provisionals. Ballot # 5103 was spoiled & shredded and was replaced by Ballot #5109. 54 ballots recorded by Accuvote, 7 ballots in transparent box."
Reconciliation would show that the three missing ballots were in the clear box, as well as 2 absentees and 2 provisionals.
Posted by: Al on March 21, 2005 10:02 AMYou state that you saw each poll book in the precincts using Aki Kurose as their polling place, so could you please tell us (or show us with digital images) what notations were made on those cover sheets?
If done like the Bothell Regional Library polling place, in the lower right hand corner there would probably be: a "WANDA" number; numbers next to the pre-printed "Signature," "Computer," "Spoiled," and "Special" lines; and a handwritten "no label" number. There is perhaps also a number showing by how many the precinct was "plus" or "minus" in the net for ballots in the box compared to signatures for regular ballots in the book.
Posted by: Micajah on March 21, 2005 10:05 AMFirst, poll site observers are volunteers. They are ordinary people taking time off work or school, or retirees. Many of them have more than one poll site to cover (with each poll site serving several voters at once), and in some cases they also serve as pollwatchers, checking the list of known GOP voters against the poll site list to aid GOTV efforts. (If you want the GOP to have hundreds or thousands of highly trained observers on duty from 7 AM to 8PM at every single polling place in King County, then write a check to pay for it. In your fantasy world, perhaps this can all happen for free, but in the real world, it would be very expensive indeed.)
It is absolutely unreasonable to expect the observers to catch all of these violations. It is simply crazy to say that "These numbers should have been reported on Nov 3rd by the Rep in charge of making sure the election was honest and accurate."
Second, poll observers are not law enforcement officers. What exactly were the observers supposed to do beyond documenting anything which didn't look right? Had they attempted to interfere with the election workers, they would have been expelled, and possibly arrested. No, they write down what they see and turn it over to the party for the party to use if legal action is necessary. That, of course, is what's going on right now.
The idea that imcompetence or malfeasance by election workers can be blamed on the "stupidity" of Republican volunteer observers is idiotic and offensive (and no, I was not an observer on Election Day, but I know a lot of people who were).
Posted by: ScottM on March 21, 2005 11:27 AMYou say: "The idea that imcompetence or malfeasance by election workers can be blamed on the "stupidity" of Republican volunteer observers is idiotic and offensive (and no, I was not an observer on Election Day, but I know a lot of people who were).
Aren't all of the 4000 "election workers" essentially volunteers also, who receive a nominal amount to come out every 2 or 4 years. Shouldn't we cut them some slack also as fallible human beings who couldn't do everything perfectly?
Posted by: chew2 on March 21, 2005 11:45 AMWhich is not what I said. However, you prove my point. Putting volunteers at multiple sites in King County, who are not trained to look for serial corruption is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Not spotting the corruption was not their fault. It was the party officials who thought everything was going to be OK.
It only proves that the Rep party officials are idiots and deserve to lose. Next time, take election accuracy seriously and expect that the dems are going to try to cheat and then maybe the Reps will not only win, but deserve to win.
david
Posted by: david on March 21, 2005 12:07 PM
"Some slack"? There were more than 75,000 individual "mistakes" made. Count them as one for every incorrectly managed ballot. What is the number of "mistakes" that we are to accept. Just give us a number. If I, or I hope you, made that many mistakes in our job we would be fired on the spot. Why not fire the ones that were supposed to manage the training of all those volunteers and failed miserably?
Posted by: Mike on March 21, 2005 12:27 PMA polling place that only handed out 168 blank ballots managed a 15% error rate. The fundamental instructions for the poll workers just aren't that tough. I'm sure there's 200 pages of _other_ rules that don't have anything to do with the fundamentals of voting. That's just the way a bureaucracy works.
But you should be able to digest the key rules to a single sheet and formally ask "You can't be a pollworker if you don't understand and won't follow these rules, do you understand and will you follow the rules?" And if their poll is screwed up, there _is_ someone to hold accountable. IMNSHO treble damages are not out of order.
1) You've received a green-bound-book of numbered perforated poll ballots, and a red-bound-book of numbered perforated provisional ballots with instructions.
1) For a _green_ poll ballot, your name MUST be in the ledger. (If your name is not in the ledger, recheck your polling place or ask for a _red_ provisional ballot.
2) For a _green_ poll ballot you must sign in the ledger and it must match. You get the next one sequentially, no exceptions.
3) If a _green_ ballot is illegible (spit out), ask the voter if they'd prefer to remake the ballot, or send it directly to the canvasing board.
4) On a spoiled _green_ ballot, stamp it 'spoiled replaced with ballot #xxxxx', note the replacement & spoiled ballot's numbers in the logbook, and give the voter the next sequential green replacement ballot.
5) This clear locked box is going directly to the canvassing board. Absentee ballots may enter in their blue envelopes, Provisionals may enter in their red envelopes. Poll ballots may go in with no envelope if the voter can't get the machine to accept it.
6) Provide the next _red_ provisional ballot in the book, instructions, and the red provisional envelope to anyone who asks.
After all, they do ask people in airline emergency exit seats (volunteers all!) if they feel capable of the duties it entails.
7) When the polls close, bar entry by locking the doors.
8) When the last voter has voted and left, relock the doors.
9) Sign the first _unused_ ballot in both of your ballotbooks.
10) With the observers, search the polling place for ballots. A written explanation must be included for each and every ballot found in this manner.
11) Search the polling machines similarly - other than the main locked door.
12) Lock the voting slit in the clear box.
13) Finish the summary sheet and certify that you've searched and sealed everything.
That isn't _that_ long. For 168 voters in a 12 your day you practically have time to reread the entire thing for every single voter that enters! It gets simpler if you have a large enough precinct to have multiple pollworkers. "I only do regular ballots & your name isn't in the book, stand in that line".
There's practically that many instructions for being in the exit row of an airline - yet the airlines are comfortable just getting a verbal "I got it, thanks, I can handle it." pointing out that the vast majority of people are at least minimally competent.
Posted by: Al on March 21, 2005 01:58 PMI still await Nellie, chew2, unkl witz, headless lucy and s-choir's condemnation to us on the brick being tossed by one of their friends. I have looked high and low (mostly low) and it nary be here on the blog.
Until these people say they condemn it, YOU ALL HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!!!!
Nuff Said!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 21, 2005 04:00 PMHow many polling places are listed in the reconciliation summary prepared by King County to explain the contents of the big binder? 531
How many polling places are listed in the big binder itself?
Posted by: Micajah on March 21, 2005 10:32 PMThat was not a rhetorical question.
How many polling places are listed in the big binder?
Posted by: Micajah on March 22, 2005 09:40 AM