In Thursday's Seattle Times, King County admits that the Mail Ballot Report is bogus:
King County election officials said a key document accounting for absentee ballots in the November election was so flawed it was virtually meaningless.Score! That confirms my suspicions about the Mail Ballot Report that I first reported ... a month ago.The Mail Ballot Report, which showed every absentee ballot accounted for, didn't report the correct number of ballots returned by voters. Instead, it simply added the number of ballots counted and the number rejected to show a perfectly matching number of ballots returned.
The admission that the Mail Ballot Report is bogus is a very big deal. The canvassing board relied on this report to certify the election. If in fact the report deliberately covered up material facts about the election returns (say, that hundreds more ballots were counted than should have been counted) then not only should the election be set aside, but there should also be a criminal investigation.
What King County officials did not say is how many absentee ballots really were returned. That number would shed more light on the mysterious discrepancy of 881 more absentee ballots counted than identifiable valid absentee voters. (hint: check if the total number of absentee ballots actually returned is less than the sum of the total number of ballots counted and the total number of ballots rejected) King County Elections has to know how many absentee ballots were actually returned. It's in the Absentee Ballot Audit Trail, which they have not yet released, even though I've been asking for it for weeks. Anybody care to guess why they're stonewalling on its release?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 07, 2005 01:17 AM | Email ThisIs it because they're a bunch of bumbling crooks?
Posted by: Hoystory on April 7, 2005 01:41 AMIt takes time to doctor up a report. I hear Dan Rather is available to help now that he's no longer on CBS Evening News. He has experience in creating fake Texas National Guard memos, so I'm sure he'd be of great service to King County Elections.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on April 7, 2005 02:05 AMApparently, these 91 voters not only cast BOTH absentee and provisional ballots, but their provisional ballots were counted. I would be willing to bet that their absentee ballots were counted as well.
This would explain a portion of the 881 voterless absentee ballots, since these 91 people aren't on the listed of credited ABSENTEE voters, even though the absentee ballots they returned were probably counted.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 7, 2005 02:06 AMApparently, these 91 voters not only cast BOTH absentee and provisional ballots, but their provisional ballots were counted. I would be willing to bet that their absentee ballots were counted as well.
This would explain a portion of the 881 voterless absentee ballots, since these 91 people aren't on the listed of credited ABSENTEE voters, even though the absentee ballots they returned were probably counted.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 7, 2005 02:06 AMI'm sure Queen G is going to be very disappointed by the sloppy and inadvertent handling of this situation. Who is responsible? Off with their heads!
Remember Ron (the mail man) Sims said, "After reviewing this report, I believe the people of King County can have full confidence in the elections operations."
Run Ron run!
Oh, and remember Dean (O-crat) Logan saying, "These are legitimate voters who cast legitimate ballots. It's just a travesty if we do not include these ballots."
Duck and cover Dean!
Don't forget Paul (handy count) Berendt's quote, "We want every vote to be counted. We are taking steps in the Supreme Court to do just that, and to ensure that every ballot will be treated the same in every county throughout the state."
Head for the hills Paul!
Sam (rubber stamp) Reed may want to revise his statement, "While there were mistakes, at this time there is nothing that appears fraudulent."
So, what is your job Sam?
It's going to be a good day.. Enjoy!
Posted by: Splatter on April 7, 2005 02:27 AMThey can't release what they can't remember, the TRUTH!
Sefan,
LET THAT DOG HUNT!!
With all this OBVIOUS illegal activity, will the court session need go past lunch?
Machine politics is dead, viva le blopshpere!
Ms. Gregoire, your 15 minutes of infamy are up. So to Sims, Logan, and that whole monkey barrel of crooks running King County.
Posted by: Anna on April 7, 2005 05:04 AMAre you people still talking about this? It's over! You lost! Shut up! I'm not crazy, you're crazy! Stop talking about this, or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue! Tom DeLay! Tom Delay! Tom DeLay! AAAAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!!!
Posted by headless dan nelsonwitz
Posted by: ScottM on April 7, 2005 06:06 AMI do think you've captured the essence ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 7, 2005 07:04 AM
Did King County elections Div. commit civil fraud in the issuing of the report and having the election certified against the people of King County and the State of Washington?
Is this a class action lawsuit in the making at least for a civil fraud case, where maybe Rossi can claim a real and demonstrated monitary loss?
Perhaps the Republican representative (from the County Attorney's office) on the Canvasing Board, and who certified the election was the victim of Fraud. The County Attorney's office?
Oh, my this could get interesting.
It might not be classic "Chicago-election fraud," but it is beginning to sould a lot like...
FRAUD...FRAUD...FRAUD...FRAUD...FRAUD...FRAUD
Hmm. This could get interesting!
http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/203505
Thanks for all the great work Stefan!
Posted by: DanC on April 7, 2005 07:54 AM...Nothing about the Dems 'we-want-6 months' loss
...Nothing about KC firings
...Noting about bogus ballot reports
...Nothing about found ballots
...Nothing about Lt Suits and his missing vote
...Nothing about Jenny and her 'auto test' for voters
...Nothing about the drunken spending spree the dems in Olympia are conducting...
Nothing, nothing, nothing.
But gosh, they covered the death of Prince Rainier and the monthy (weekly? daily? hourly?) liberal drink fest!
Whoa! Little threat of relevance there!
Posted by: Cheryl on April 7, 2005 08:00 AMApparently Ron Sims only looks at polls that he agrees with.
Posted by: Jason on April 7, 2005 09:05 AMPS Tom Delay pulled the plug on his dad. then used his brother the Trial lawyer to sue the company that made the faulty lift. figured he was done sueing, so he changed the laws for the rest of us, so if we get hurt by faulty equipment, we can't go after his base.
How do you guys live with yourselves?....corporate sheep
Hammer the Hammer.
I think that is all most people wanted on this blog, an honest assessment of the election that looked 'suspicious'.
Posted by: Fred on April 7, 2005 09:28 AMBecause that beaver they're using as a shredder is really old and really slow.
Posted by: Jeff H on April 7, 2005 09:34 AMBecause the authors are trying to emigrate to Cuba. Or Canada. And finding that other countries actually screen immigrants.
Posted by: Al on April 7, 2005 09:36 AMLiberal rule #4: When in doubt, create a diversion.
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2005 09:37 AMOh where oh where has my 9 billion gone? Oh where oh where can it be? (sung to tune of "let the eagle soar")
Posted by: danw on April 7, 2005 09:47 AMFDR - WWII
Kennedy - Vietnam
Clinton - Bosnia
What a bunch of neo-cons!
Posted by: Fred on April 7, 2005 10:03 AMHow cute.
Get a job.
Posted by: swassociates on April 7, 2005 10:03 AMIt doesn't matter how many innocent civilians are killed by a brutal dictator. But if one terrorist dressed as a civilian is killed by US troops, it's a war crime.
danw,
You obviously have a difficult time sticking to the topic. I don't know you, so I don't know if it's a serious medical condition (attention deficit disorder) or short attention span caused by too many bong hits.
We're discussing King County and Washington State politics here. If you have nothing useful to contribute.....adieu, okay?
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2005 10:04 AMscored by YourGovernor!!!
Posted by: dkpcowboy on April 7, 2005 10:15 AMIn fact, in case you missed it, Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, of Fla., the floor leader for the GOP on the Schiavo legislation, has admitted that the Chief Legal Counsel on his staff did indeed write the memo and he (Sen. Martinez) did indeed personally show the memo to Dem. Sen. Tom Harkin as the major media all CORRECTLY reported.
So there's been wrongheaded and misleading posting over this all over the right wing blog and radio outlets.
Some are, of course, embarrassed and confessing to being foolish in trusting Republicans. Others are stonewalling.
When will you characters finally admit here that you're all wet also about this election? It was a close race. Gregoire won, Rossi loss.
We'll be waiting for you to admit being embarrassed over the phony controversy and confessing to being foolish in trusting Republicans.
We know now that the national Republicans are phonies and lie all the time. (Martinez denied for weeks that his office had anything to do with that memo; now he finally admits it and says the guy who wrote it -- his head lawyer! -- has resigned). Why should anyone believe the local people? They're cut from the same cloth.
Posted by: Nelson on April 7, 2005 10:26 AMDo you actually read the topic before you start posting or are you just the devil's advocate to the end? King County screwed up they admitted it, they are going to sink in this pile of lies they created. So what is to debate?
Posted by: Adriel on April 7, 2005 10:36 AMUnfortunately their take on the fiasco was slightly negative. California Republicans down here they feel that the Democrats have a good chance of stopping the challenge in Supreme Court because of their past experience of California judges, most recently last years governator race with Arnold!! They wonder if the WA Democratic Supreme Court will be impartial.
So California radio talk shows are covering the issue. I didn't have a call in number to ask if they read the Shark's blog.
NUFF SAID!!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 7, 2005 10:37 AMAttempt to change the subject when the argument can't be refuted with logic and facts.
KC bungles the election, threatening the legitimacy of your fraudulent governess? Then chat about windmills and wind direction.
Posted by: Shaun on April 7, 2005 10:41 AMWe have been GreGored: Steal the election and tax 'em to death.
"Anybody care to guess why they're stonewalling on its release?"
Because first they have to "Loganize" the report.
Posted by: JG on April 7, 2005 10:43 AMPS Tom Delay is going to burn (sorry it slipped out) I am sure he has been to the "sound". some sound, any sound.
Posted by: danw on April 7, 2005 10:44 AMIs that you again Nelson,
It's really comical how all of you silly liberals get yourselves in an uproar over an issue that over, done & closed.
Schiavo is dead, moveon.u (God rest her soul)
Posted by: Doc Right2life on April 7, 2005 10:47 AMThe words are misleading. Most people would read them to mean that the number accepted as valid equals the number on which the votes were counted.
564,222 is simply the number of absentee ballots that their final tabulation showed had gone through the vote count.
It is not equal to the number of absentee ballots accepted as valid.
When Logan's Nov. 15 report of absentee ballots accepted as valid and counted contained an error, they had to know that something was badly wrong.
They reported a cumulative total of absentee ballots counted which was 4,326 more than the cumulative total in the previous report on Nov. 12.
But, the number of ballots added to the vote count which was reported in that Nov. 15 report indicates they counted the votes on 4,675 absentee ballots -- not 4,326.
Logan simply stopped including the cumulative total of absentee ballots included in the vote count after that Nov. 15 report.
As is now apparent, the numbers for regular polling place ballots, provisional ballots accepted as valid and included in the vote count, and absentee ballots accepted as valid and included in the vote count were all incorrectly reported by Logan's gang.
The Mail Ballot Report was not an accurate statement.
The Provisional Ballot Report was not an accurate statement.
The report released on Nov. 3 which stated that 305,380 polling place ballots were cast and counted was never changed -- yet it, too, was not an accurate statement.
Someone needs to grab every piece of computer equipment in that place and go searching for the numbers that will show how many valid absentee ballots there were.
Logan's gang didn't include the number of absentee ballots accepted as valid in that mail ballot report. I suspect they omitted that number for the simple reason that it is less than the number of absentee ballots that went through the vote tabulation process.
So far as I can tell, the computerized record system may be the only place the truth (or a lingering hint of it) can be found.
Posted by: Micajah on April 7, 2005 10:52 AMNah...not interested in what the trolls think of anything, quite frankly, since it would dove-tail with what they think of KC. It doesn't matter as long as the Dums are in charge.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on April 7, 2005 10:56 AMNormally I don't comment on someone's spelling, syntax, grammar, and punctuation, because I assume that minor slip-ups happen when people are upset and posting.
I feel compelled to in this case, though. Where did you go to school? Did they teach you proper grammar?
Reading your comments is like driving through 18 miles of construction work. Your lack of proper grammar, syntax, and punctuation seriously impedes your ability to communicate your illogical ideas.
An answer to your question - the fraud committed was for FAR MORE than 129 votes. It was at least 420 (the first margin) plus 129. The answer is that the fraud was probably in the thousands or tens of thousands of votes.
Your question makes about as much sense as asking why Jason Giambi took steroids to help the Yankees win 5-4? He was taking them all along, and the margin just happened to fall at that level. But the fraud committed was on a much grander scale.
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2005 10:58 AMHow many screw ups does it take to be Incompetance? or better yet how many for fraud? I just want to know so that when it hits that magic number I can call it what it is. Thank you for your absolute God-like insight into this matter, if only we could all close our eyes and hope for things to be perfect and not see imperfection in this fiasco. Danw joins the ranks of ignorance with HeadlessLucy.
That's an easy one, Dan W.....
The Dem's thought that they would win the election with the 'normal' amount of fraud in the beginning. Their confidence was too high. They didn't bother to overstuff what they were going to win anyhow. It's expensive and an unnecessary risk. Additionally, when the polls forecast a close election, it's bad form to overstuff the ballot boxes when you expect to win anyhow.
Bottom line: Bad pre-election forecasting by the Dems.
When they lost the first count (and boy were they surprised), they had to pad just enough to win the second- you can't have a huge upset in the recount. However, murphy's law intervened, and somebody, somewhere, screwed up in padding the recount. Damn. You just can't get good help these days. Somewhere, George Soros (or his Washington State equivalent) was shouting, "You're fired!" to a luckless campaign worker.
Now forced to a third count, the Dems had to be extremely cautious. Just enough to declare victory, but with the least amount of exposure possible - too many votes in the opposite direction makes it clear that the fix has been put in. Not enough makes it possible to demand another recount. How many are enough? Better make it at least a hundred, but not too many over a hundred. Never make it a round number, too neat is too suspicious. 114? Too low. 143? Where'd THOSE come from? Compromise: 129. Agreed.
However, even this raised suspicions. Perhaps they should have gone with 79 like somebody suggested.
Clear now?
with many a winding turn,
that leads us to who knows where
(who knows where).
But while we're on the way to there
why not share? (Why not share?)
Pat Boone from, "He's Not Heavy , He's My Brother"
So, I'll share this with you: Richard Pope is right. You'll all look pretty foolish when the story comes out that your supposedly brilliant expose' is more like a Laurel and Hardy short. Who'll be the Dem. to swat the Republican Laurel in the head while exclaiming: "You idiot!! You've gone and done it again again!"
I hope it's me.
Posted by: headless lucy on April 7, 2005 11:02 AMPS Tom Delay is going to burn"
Interesting post DANW! The first part is demanding proof. Your PS has no proof attached. Lib consistency in action!
This blog is trying to find the truth, giving opinions and helping find info for heading to court for a legal answer. At least there are data here for the election (that means numbers, statements, and other hard data most of which comes from the "system" itself). What data, not quotes from unsubstantiated sources (NYT) or hearsay, do you have for Delay?
Posted by: Fred on April 7, 2005 11:05 AMWhy does Rossi even have to mention Delay? Were they buddies? What's Gregoire going to say about Clinton and Whitewater? What's Gregoire going to say about Terry Shiavo?
Moot: So hypothetical as to be meaningless.
Here's the real question for you: If there's a vote again this November, what will Gregoire say about Dean Logan? What will Gregoire say about the 'model election'?
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2005 11:23 AMIt's the complete reverse of when a person is left/lib/democrat, where even a smoking gun is not a smoking gun. 'course, if you leave the reservation, you become worse than a con/rep.
In either case, facts matter less than demographics and affiliations.
Posted by: scott158 on April 7, 2005 11:30 AMThank you!
Looks like heads will have to roll.
Posted by: Greg M on April 7, 2005 11:36 AMMust be starting to hurt...you fools are sounding desperate. Ohio and Delay indeed.
Posted by: iconoclast on April 7, 2005 11:37 AMBack on topic; (please stop moving off topic you guys)
Thank you Lokki;
That is perfectly clear, that is the best scenario I have seen. would make a good movie.
Larry; I'll work on the Grammer for you, thank you for weeding through it. 18 miles?
Exactly the point I was going to make. They have grown deathly silent. I have posted over there to try an stir it up. We'll see what kind of excuses they come up with to explain this away, as to keep their "Model Election" fairy tale alive.
Posted by: Chris on April 7, 2005 12:01 PMAnd don't say you did it on purpose. You're not that bright.
Posted by: jimg on April 7, 2005 12:05 PMAt least he wasn't impeached and disbarred, but then again the 'poor conduct' bar was set pretty high by Clinton for anyone to beat!
So politicians are not angels on either side, but the relevance here is what again?
Posted by: Fred on April 7, 2005 12:17 PMTom
Posted by: Tom on April 7, 2005 12:20 PM(Read the Markey quote in the second-to-last paragraph.)
Posted by: ScottM on April 7, 2005 12:51 PMIf I understand the process correctly, 91 voters
mailed-in an absentee ballot, and attempted to
cast an absentee ballot. Since the ballots are
not suppose to be seperated from from the
envelope until after that vote has been found
legitimate, a subpeona of those 91 ballots will
answer the question as to whether, or not, those
ballots were counted twice.
If King County can produce the sealed absentee,
or provisional ballots, they were not counted
twice. If they cannot, the ballots were counted
twice.
If you want to talk about Delay and the travel expenditures, then here we go. Delay accepted a trip from KORUSEC to Asia which lsted itself as a "nonpartisan, not-for-profit group that provides insight on various interests." This was not illegal. Less than a week before taking the trip, they changed their status to a foreign agent which is not allowed. Of course, the paperwork for the change in status didn't get through the system until after his trip.
So actually, we should be looking into all members of congress that accepted these trips AFTER the filing was noted. This would include 9 democrat members including Nancy Pelosi and our own Jim McDermott. So I guess I agree that we should have a FULL investigation of ALL members that took those trips and not just Delay. What say you now?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pfeiffer200503150957.asp
Posted by: Ken on April 7, 2005 12:58 PMYours Truthfully,
Howard "I hate republicans" Dean
"undisclosed"??? You might want to read those articles again. The only reason they know about the payments to his family and the trip to Russia is because the information was disclosed on his financial disclosure forms. No attempt to hide them as you insinuate.
You might want to work on your accuracy along with your spelling and grammar.
Posted by: Jay on April 7, 2005 01:11 PMElections-office spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said absentee-ballot facility chief Nicole Way didn't correctly account for ballots, but they don’t know why. Former Elections Manager Bob Bruce says "Oh, she knows better than that," referring to Way, and then says “I don't think any of them [referring to the suspended elections workers] would even have thought of doing that." [obviously referring to intentional misbehaivor] Obvious obfuscation. --Paraphrase of Seattle Times article Slade Gorton calls for criminal probe of election, April 7, 2005.
It is understandable, that they might need to "put a lid" on this thing until they "sort it out." However, simply saying "We welcome any authorized investigation," after months of misdirection and stone walling just makes it look more and more like what it probably is--fraud. Today Slade Gorton called for an investigation, State Democratic Party attorney Jenny Durkan called this "hypocritical beyond belief," and the elections office continues to cover it all up.
"The six Republicans on the Metropolitan King County Council on Monday asked U.S. Attorney General Albert Gonzales to order an investigation of the election. The seven Democrats called for an outside audit of the elections office."--Quote Id
What this all adds up to is another situation where the democrats will simply stone wall, delay (not Tom Delay DanW), and obfuscate their way out of responsibility for their crimes. Their offer of an outside audit while nice, is another way to avoid the truth. If any election was ever seized by a Republican in Washington State, the Clinton Administration would have had Janet Reno, the ATF, FBI, and Society for Ugly Amazon Mothers Against Drunken Fathers crawling all over the place. A Kerry administration would excecute a similar sceniario managed by Attorney General Patty Murray.
It is time for the feds to step in, force a large stethiscope up the corrupt democrats a$$es and resolve the damage caused by their criminal activities.
Principle and law mean nothing; liberal democrats couldn't care less about this so long as they appear to be winning.
Otherwise, THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS IS DIRECTLY AT STAKE HERE.
You are the one who is wrongheaded and misleading.
Senator Martinez did not know about the memo because his aide never said anything about it. So the only one guilty of lying is the Senator's aide, who has now paid for his indiscretion.
Harkin was wrong to distribute it to anyone because it was not on official letterhead, was not signed by anyone and he did not confirm it with anyone.
From the Seattle Times:
"The senator said aides had assured him earlier that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."
"In a statement last night, Martinez said Harkin asked him for background information on the bill and that he gave him what he thought was a routine, one-page staff memo. "Unbeknownst to me, instead of my one page on the bill, I had given him a copy of the now infamous memo," the statement said."
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=schiavo07&date=20050407&query=martinez
Posted by: David R on April 7, 2005 01:39 PMMaybe he did know about the (Rush Limbaugh and the rest forged) memo?
http://www.civicactions.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Alexander_Strategy
Memo released by former Delay staff member.
Does this guy do anything that isn't disgusting?
If these guys want control of the judges as well, then Zeig Heil.
These Delay things are much more easy to trace than your KC Fraud.
Posted by: danw on April 7, 2005 02:12 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/delay_040605.html
TICK TOCK
Posted by: danw on April 7, 2005 02:20 PMI hope we get some real reform here. And I really hope that Amused by Liberals is not a doctor: that is NOT what you do with a stethoscope...
Posted by: ChrisW on April 7, 2005 02:50 PMMaybe this will be the thing to get the "it's too late" republican crowd to swallow their pessimism. It's crunch time!
Posted by: Mark WWU on April 7, 2005 05:51 PMWashington, if you are not careful, you might surpass Louisiana as the most politically backwards state in the union. And considering that they once had an election with the campaign "Vote for the crook: it's important" that is saying something.
But on a serious note, last year was the first time in my life i voted straight party. I never did that before almost on principle. But this time, the Democrats demonstrated such a craven desire to win at any cost--even to the soundness of the republic itself--that i felt they had to be punished. It looks like I will have to pull the lever again and again, until the Democrats get the message that some things are simply out of bounds.
P.S.: Maybe the proper route for Wash. State is to say "screw the courts" and go to the legislature and try to impeach and remove Gregoire. Mind you, i don't know how possible that is, but even if she ends up being replaced by another Dem, at least it will send a message.
Posted by: A.W. of Freespeech.com on April 7, 2005 09:04 PMAnd if any bad conduct is found, i would argue for brutal sodomy as the punishment.
Posted by: A.W. on April 7, 2005 09:06 PMGet out of Seattle - and King County if you can. I am having serious doubts as to whether that city will be with us by the end of '05.
Not looking to get flamed here - just doing my kingdom duty for Christ. You have been warned as I was in two dreams.
As for you Feds reading this - I'm sure with a little work you will realize that I'm no terrorist and I never even took physics in high school, but if you want to talk to me I'm sure you'll track me down - and then when/if the event happens some blogger will post this with the minimal undead media coverage that it was given when you questioned me. All in all your entire ridiculousness will with my testimony for Christ hopefully help to strengthen the faith of many and save a few others.
I know this was off topic, but hey I figured at least some of you might be interested, even if it is only one - after all there was only one righteous one in Soddom too.
Posted by: Jericho on April 8, 2005 11:45 PM