"Democrats claim GOP skipped 432 felon voters"
Democrats said yesterday that they've found 432 felons who appear to have voted illegally in November but were ignored by Republicans in their legal challenge to the governor's election.Finally, the Democrats are joining a bipartisan effort to help clean up the voter rolls. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 30, 2005 12:14 AM | Email This
Are they trying to claim these are 'Felons for Rossi' or something?
Posted by: Cliff on April 30, 2005 12:22 AMThat's funny, Paul, because in light of all we've learned from King County there's really no sure proof that Gregoire-ovich won, either. But it sure looks like King County had a lot of ballot-box stuffing and it's a REAL good bet they were x-tine ballots. After all, they didn't send republicans home with reams of BLANK BALLOTS, now did they?
It's actually a reasonable legal strategy. What's dissapointing is that the Democrats have spent four months deriding the proportional allocation, and making claims that looking for felon votes is inappropriate disenfranchisement and publishing names is unethical.
Yet, here they are, using the exact same strategies that they have publicly decried. Why? Because the number of illegal votes cast in a razor-thin race is a solid legal issue to review in an election contest.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on April 30, 2005 12:58 AMAt first this made me go hmmm.....until I remembered that it was the Democrats and Moveon.org that signed the Felons up to vote in the first place! Of course their list will grow! They probably have copies of the original felon voter registration sign up sheets!
Democrats have also criticized Republicans for naming alleged felons without fully vetting the names, saying the exposure violates "common decency."
But yesterday Democrats filed court papers that included a list of 432 people they say "appear to be felons who voted" though the party's investigation is continuing.
And to show that their felons offset voting by Republicans' felons, Democrats will rely on a methodology that they say should be disallowed in the court case.
Wow! What a SLAM at the Dems!!
Berendts must be crying his eyes out over this report! The Dems criticized the Repubs for listing the felons by name - then they do the very same thing! Now the Dems want to use the same statistical methodology on the felon list that they are arguing *against* the Republicans using for the contest!
This is too priceless!! The Democrats have completely lost their minds!
I'd be watching for large withdrawls from their bank accounts and post officers the airport for the sudden attempted exodus...
Well of course they know how many illegal votes were processed throughout the state!! They are the ones who organized the fraud! Sheesh!
Does anyone else see what I'm seeing here? The Republicans - along with the BIAW have had to literally pull teeth for information about felon voters, double voters, illegally processed provisional ballots, non-citizen voters, etc....
Yet the Democrats appear to have *easy* access to this information - and obviously much more information..with regard to illegal votes!
The fact that this revelation from the Dems comes right after the Logan and Huennekan depositions ...just confirms that they are terrified now and this is a pathetic last ditch effort to try to balance the contest evidence....
The Dems may seriously incriminate themselves before this is over.....How far are they willing to take this game?
My vote should be equal to all other legal votes. Every illegal felon vote dilutes all legal votes. It should not matter what any RCW says as the Washington State Constitution takes precedent. The more felon votes found only show how much more legal votes cast were not equal. Thus, if the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory, the dilution exceeds the legitimacy of the final tabulation.
The reason this ruling is incorrect (and, in my opinion, unconstitutional), is this:
Suppose, that we could definitely show that there were 100,000 erroneous votes, but that we could not in any way show that the erroneous votes favored one candidate more than the other. Why should the election results still stand? You see, if you push any "test" to it's extreme, you find the potential flaw in the rule. According to the Judge's rule, what happens if you can prove that 2,799,871 votes are erroneous. That means that Gregoire wins by a margin of 129 - 0.
But wait, you say, YGCM$, the law says that this is the method, and the Judge was just following the law. No. The statutory law the judge was following should be deemed invalid (by the Judge) when placed against the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment. Each of you who voted should not have your vote diluted in any way by an erroneous vote. There is potential for dilution if ther are 130 (or more) erroneously counted votes. *and this is the key, pay attention here, because you'll see 'this' argued before the Washington Supreme Court:* The "burden" at this point (130+ erroneous votes) will "shift" to the other side (the Donkey) to prove that the erroneous votes "didn't" help the winner get elected. (And that will be almost impossible to prove - unless you want to bring in felons, who are totally impeachable, to testify that they voted for Rossi).
Shift the burden, Constitutionally, and the other side has to prove that they actually won. And they can't.... ya know why? because
YourGovernorCostsMillion$
MR. MAGUIRE: Object, it mischaracterizes his testimony from yesterday.
(editor privilege..blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa )
The duplication of records in the file we released falsely reduced that variance number discussed in that
sentence I just read to 1,217. 2
Q Why do you say, falsely?
A Well, because there were -- I don't think I -- I testified about the duplicates. I didn't testify about this reduction in the number yesterday. I didn't testify about that, but I testified about the duplicate records.
Q Understood. And I didn't understand the word, "false" in your answer.
TOO FUNNY!
G-nite..again
Someone is lying here.
And yes, it would depend a great deal on the race of the felon voters who voted here to take this conversation much farther, something we don't know.
Still, these shameless hucksters are spouting so much crap that none of it can be rectified with any other 'fact' they believe. Whatever weasel line of thinking they can come up with to achieve their latest ill conceived desire, they'll say.
But hey, *WE* are the ones that will stoop to all levels to achieve our ends, right 'decapitated one?'
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 30, 2005 06:43 AMYGCM$, has an extremely valid point in that this cannot be done. The only reasonable solution is to require that the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory.
Any highly partisan person in certain positions could be capable of inserting into the system enough vote throw the election. Any votes counted in excess of voters casting ballots should automatically be assumed to belong to the apparent victor.
The key word in our elections is SECRET and as such it is impossible to "prove" the margin would have gone anywhere. Logically it must be assumed that the illegal votes went to the winner.
Posted by: Ron on April 30, 2005 06:57 AMI can only hope that all Legal Voters of this state realize that for every illegal vote counted cancelled the legal one.
After this entire fiasco is over, I wouldn't vote Democrat, even if my Mom was running for office....
Posted by: Chris on April 30, 2005 07:02 AMLet the country see that we are finally serious, not a bunch of "inclusive," ineffective consensus-takers like we have demonstrated in action for many years regarding roads, rail, tent cities and a host of other "Unsolved Mysteries" show topics.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 30, 2005 07:56 AMWhich is exactly why the Democrats have said that "the Right Wingnuts just want Rossi in office and they will stop at nothing to make sure they get what they want."
They know that a new election would mean a Rossi victory because the public can see how poorly the election was conducted and how unwilling Democrats have been to even acknowledge that there were problems and that they make the outcome of the election uncertain. The Democrats have taken and all or nothing approach, which also shows in the trememdous statist overreach of this past legislative session.
This must go to a new election because there is nothing fair or within the law about an election that was falsely certified by elections officers who knew that there were significant flaws. Flaws that could easily swing thhe outcome. RCW 29A.60.600 specifically says both that the Canvassing Boards must VERIFY the results and says that the results must be reasonably ascertained as certain.
When Bill Huennekens, who already knew that two machine counts had resulted in a margin of victory of less than 300 votes, was being told by Linda Sanchez that there were serious problems with provisionals in many preceincts and he and Logan chose to ignore this information and certify the election anyway, they violated the law. They knew reasonably that the results were not certain and they chose not to verify the results, with their only excuse being that they had no time. The law makes it clear that first the results must be verified and certain, and then that they must be certified. The certification deadline matters not if the results are bogus.
The election was conducted in an invalid way, it will be thown out on it's face.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 30, 2005 08:22 AMThis election is like a chess game. Dems recent strategy is pretty good in my opinion (know how your enemy thinks.) Is the GOP paradigm that election vote counts should be pure (100% legally cast with 100% verifiable counting accuracy) and that anything short of that means we should have a redo..? (If this is our position -it will be pretty hadr to defend)
Is the DEM paradigm that all elections are always very contaminated with illegal votes and imperfect counting accuracy - but that these "warts" are usually incidental on both sides and contamination off-sets contamination.?
(Perhaps a good analogy would be acid and base contamination of water. The perfect goal being pH neutral (7). Contamination from the opposing sides would be acid - or base. The "contamination" could neutralize each other. ) This is NOT a stupid arguement - althogh hard to defend if taken to the extreme.
Even though I want Dino in - I think at least politically and rhetorically the Dems are playing a good game of chess. They seem to be saying IF the judge accepts the "felon contamination" arguement they (the Dems)want to counter that that there is "neutralization" of contamination by opposite contamination.
Not a bad strategy.
Either paragim - taken to the extreme will be indefensable. Reality lies somewhere in between.
WE must proove OVERWHELMING contamination from one side - over the other. And we need to prove it in court. Meanwhile the dems are going to be saying - and trying to prove that all is fine & normal and that its pH neutral
PS - if a judge declares DINO the winner (without a redo election) which a judge could certainly do - I for one think Dino should accept the position. If he is morally bound to have a redo election - let him push for it from the governers seat.
Posted by: Roofdoggie on April 30, 2005 09:49 AMSo, the D's strategy is to say the pool of ballots is so contaminated that its impossible to determine who won - hence, capitolizing on Bridge's position that errors alone will not carry the day.
When Barent was asked on KVI if he would favor re-registration to eradicate the contamination, he said no because it would disenfranchise elderly, minorities, and, besides, he said, "why should they have to do that for Rossi?" The fact is the D's want to perpetuate the contamination because they benefit from it.
BTW: I've appeared before many judges but cannot recall one male superior court/appellate judge who wears an earring. If you haven't noticed from his photos, Judge Bridges has an earring. I wonder if the earring is some sort of fashion statement, lifestyle statment or political statement.
Posted by: Newman on April 30, 2005 10:09 AM
Meanwhile, where is Chris Vance? Is he resting on his laurels, feeling confident his team will win? I'm not saying he is doing nothing. I'm just wondering why he isn't being an aggressive fighter. I'd hate to see the crybaby win by default! Our party needs to be really aggressive because we have everything to win.
Posted by: lksimstrailgrammy on April 30, 2005 10:11 AMI personally believe that this goes way beyond contamination and a comparison between effects of contamination.
This is wholesale manipulation of the system at all levels to achieve agendas against the will of the people. There are apparently illegal activities, apparently uncoordinated 'grass roots' illegalities, manipulation through definitions, and a whole lot of untoward things happening.
Thankfully, the legislature is FINALLY out of session. We don't have to worry about any more taxes until the special session that CG is going to have to call to fund the lawsuit on backpay the state just lost. (Wonder who was the AG when those decisions were made?) So, our tired representatives are back in the home districts, catching their breath, assessing the public's mood about all the agenda items they forced on us, and evaluating what other things they can get away with when they come back in session in June.
Bring in the Feds, arrest them ALL. And arrest all of their supporters!
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 30, 2005 10:15 AMWhen did Judge Bridges rule on the issue regarding proof of suspect voter’s selection?
That is to say that it's not enough to just show that there are more erroneous votes than the margin of victory, but that they must show that there is a probability that the erroneous votes appeared to favor the winner in a way that put the winner over the top.
I wasn’t aware that any such ruling was made.
It seems to me that this is irrelevant where a prima facie showing of over-all electoral failure exists, and it simply begs for another conjectural “horse-race.”
I heard or read that at least one Whitman Co. voter was double voting in Whitman and King. I wonder how if this was fully investigated and whether more were investigated or found.
I heard from people I know in Pullman that they were aware of much more of this going on and that certain campus groups were actually promoting it.
Posted by: deadwood on April 30, 2005 11:07 AMHow?
The dems had an opportunity to contest the outcome of the election at the same time that the Republicans did. The Republicans chose to contest, the dems didn't. The election contest is between the Republicans and the State of Washington, NOT the democrat party.
It will be interesting to see what latitude the dems have in introducing "evidence" when they are only tangentially a party to this contest.
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 30, 2005 11:09 AMAnd finally remember we're fighting this whole thing in court...and courts haven't been the most friendly to those trying to follow the rules! (state or federal constitutions)
Victor
There is mounting evidence that puts the outcome of the Cantwell - Gorton Senatorial race in doubt, but we will never know for sure because Slade chose not to contest.
I also agree with Roofdoggie's assessments, with the exception of his final postscript - Although I doubt that any judge would invalidate the election results and award the chair to Rossi, Rossi has stated that he would never accept it that way. For him to change position on that at this point in the game would prove to be a disaster.
The issue with the provisional ballot problems in other counties, on the other hand, won't end up amounting to much. Improper processing of the ballot is not enough. It has to be proven with reasonable certainty that the ballot was not cast by a legal voter. That can be done by (1) proving who cast it and that such person was not legally registered (or had already voted), (2) proving that the signature was not that of the purported voter, or (3) proving that it was a phantom voter (i.e. voterless ballot).
Several of the strongly pro-Rossi counties didn't check provisional ballots signatures. For the Democrats to gain anything from this, they will have to get handwriting experts and compare all of the ballot envelopes with the voter's legal signature. They will then have to disclose the name of each voter who allegedly didn't match. The GOP can easily rebut this expert evidence by having the voter testify that they really did vote that provisional ballot envelope. One hell of a lot of work and zero expected gain for the Democrats.
For example, Whitman County (home of Wazzu) processed 783 provisional ballots without checking signatures. How many of these would a handwriting expert say really weren't matching the voter's signature on record? And if the Dems find a few, then the GOP can produce the actual voter to say they really did cast that envelope (just as would have been the case had Whitman County followed normal procedures, and the voter been contacted and given a second chance).
Probably most of Whitman County's 783 provisional ballots were cast in the Democrat leaning precincts filled with Wazzu students in Pullman, and not by overwhelmingly GOP voters in the remainder of the county. And these more Democrat students are less likely to be located to verify their signature if an expert declares a mismatch. The Dems could even lose ground by investigating Whitman county.
(In my humble opinion, almost none of the mismatched signature ballots were fraudulently cast by someone else. But signature checking is a necessary evil to deter such fraud. The system does have checks and balances to attempt to give voters casting rejected ballots a second chance to verify their signature.)
If proportional analysis is done at the precinct level, the 432 felons found by the Democrats in Rossi country might not help Gregoire's cause all that much.
For example, the Dems found 55 felon voters in Yakima County -- which went for Rossi by almost 64% to 34%. If proportional analysis is applied at the county level, then that is about a 16 vote boost for Gregoire.
However, I am willing to bet that those 55 felon voters in Yakima County, are not randomly distributed throughout Yakima County, but instead are more heavily concentrated in lower income urban precincts. These precincts probably went for Rossi much less heavily than Yakima County as a whole, and Gregoire might have even carried a few of them.
Precinct analysis would likely turn a 16 vote Gregoire boost into only a 2 to 5 vote Gregoire boost from Yakima County -- just like it has turned about a 100 vote Rossi boost from King County into about a 200 vote Rossi boost.
I would just like to see justice done. Each side should be allowed to present all the errors they claim -- which will provide a fuller pictures, since each side will act in its own self-interest. If the judge decides the legal issues correctly, and applies this legal decision fairly, then we will have justice (regardless of who wins or loses).
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 30, 2005 11:58 AMThey could have prevented this whole fiasco by simply voting for smaller government, rather than wasting their votes on Ruth Iforgethername.
60,000 Libertarian votes were cast in the governor's race.
What did the Libertarian voters get for their votes? A governor who has already cost us million$ before she even took office.
Why will future elections be different for Libertarian voters? Because, under the new primary (which I think is illegal, but I digress), only the top-two vote getters will appear on the general election ballot - very likely that Libertarian candidates won't make it to the general election.
We need to be selling this point to the silent 60,000 Libertarian voters. Write letters to your local papers. Even go to a Libertarian party meeting. Certainly Libertarian voters don't want what Chrisgregoire is giving them right now.
YourGovernorCostsMillion$
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on April 30, 2005 12:15 PMI believe this would be a brilliant strategy for Dino! He could take office as the Governor - call for a new election - (as he promised) - and at the same time slow this rabid Democrat money taking machine in Olympia! He would win by an even larger margin in the new election! There would be absolutely NO WAY the liberal MSM could paint him as anything other than a hero to the people!
No one is listening to the Democrats rhetoric and propaganda on this election contest anymore. They lost their credibility with the new gas tax and sin taxes and business losses!
The people are furious!
Posted by: Deborah on April 30, 2005 12:20 PMYou stated:
"If you want to bring the Feds in them make it a FEDERAL issue. How might the flaws in this election have effected FEDERAL races? Does this possibly undermine the cregibility of members of Congress?"
It doesn't have to be associated with federal level elective offices. It need only be associated with constitutional issues such as the 14th Amendment equal protection under the laws, or election-tampering is also a federal crime.
In my view the Feds are waiting until after the Chelan court has decided to intervene under federal statutes.
What sleeze bags!
How can ANYONE vote Democrat??? I talk to friends of mine who are Dems and I just cant seem to change their minds with the truth, there is no awakening them. They obviously have a very tainted view of the things (of course its what they've been fed by the Democrat Party Machine). ie Republicans are for Big Oil, Big Business, the Rich, are Racist, "Dont care about the environment at all" etc etc and of course all the worlds problems are the fault of the Republicans.
Its all very disheartening.
Libertarians voted as they did because they wanted to. The beauty of our system is that people are allowed to vote for whomever they wish. Those who voted for the Libertarian candidate made informed choices. Better to decry the large percentage of voting-aged citizens who ignored the election.
Posted by: Darrell on April 30, 2005 04:22 PMI would strongly suggest that the Rossi campaign should run a verification check on all of the votes that the Democrats find, because I am sure that they did not cross check them and some of the felons have had their voting rights restored - you know, just like the Democrats and the MSM checked the Rossi campaign's and Stefan's collection of alleged felons. The left is not to be trusted and their is likely some fraud embedded in their uncovering alleged voter fraud, so hopefully the Rossi people will do their homework and be aggressive in the courtroom.
So, hopefully the Republicans/Rossi people are paying attention here. It seems like the 55,000 enhanced ballots should enter into the mix as well as the illegal provisional ballots that were stuffed in the voting machines in King County - the move.org ballots. The standard that Judge Bridges sets will obviously be important and hopefully he will see enough contradictory evidence to realize that Rossi is the rightful Governor.
Posted by: KS on April 30, 2005 04:38 PMFurther, Darrell, answer me this: who will the Libertarians vote for when their candidate is not in the "top 2" after the (new) primary? They can either "write in" a name, or can vote for smaller gov't with the Republican who is on the ballot. In light of the 2004 election, I'm guessing that some of them will vote Republican.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on April 30, 2005 04:48 PMHey, like you, I WISH 140 of them had voted for Rossi instead of whatsername, but they made their own choices. The time to argue with them is before the election, not after. I'm happy for their participation, and don't begrudge them the right to make their own choice for their own reason.
Posted by: Darrell on April 30, 2005 05:44 PMA more interesting proposition is that under the GOP's proportional vote strategy, it could very easily be seen that legally, for determining the validity of the election, one vote should be lost for Gregoire in KC, and one vote for Rossi in WC, and all for the same voter! (well, percentages of votes, but you get the idea).
I think the real question is in the end not going to be about which method gets used, although that will be influential, but on what level of burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, etc.) Bridges uses. Rossi's "we can't know who really won because it's such a mess," the theory that the Dems seem to be supporting with this news, seems to call for a lower level of proof but rather simply clear uncertainty.
I for one hope that's how Bridges decides--I don't want a judge putting Rossi in office but rather want another shot at proving via public elections (untainted this time) that the winner of the first two vote counts really was the winner. Otherwise, Rossi could be the Gerald Ford of Washington gubenatorial elections.
Posted by: Marc on April 30, 2005 06:40 PMThe problem with a new election is that we have the same bunch of incompetent boobs running the elections office in King County. We have a heavily Democratic state government that has declined to make meaningful change to election laws. By some analysis I've read, they've actually made it easier, not harder, to cheat the system.
I'm convinced that the election was tainted and should be tossed out, but I am not at all sure what I expect to happen after that. The state legislature may be in the position to determine who "really" won, and we all know how that would turn out.
Posted by: Darrell on April 30, 2005 08:49 PMDid anyone find the source list the Democrats used to zero in so fast on the felon and provisional messes outside of King county. is it from Moveon or is it from the Democrats voters lists? Is this how the Democrats easily determined the number of underage felons on the Republicans list of potential felons?
Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 30, 2005 09:17 PMWhat say you all?
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 30, 2005 10:11 PMI think this was addressed in SAm Reed's piece otherwise listed here on SP. The law clearly needs some updating.
You'd think that having several hundred more ballots than voters would be enough to throw this thing right out.
Posted by: Michele on April 30, 2005 11:08 PMIf I have been following things correctly (and with all the information flowing around, that may not be the case), the reps are going with an 'easy' to prove part of illegal voting. Sure, the rest would be easy to prove and they may be holding that part back so the dems aren't able to see their whole case before the trial starts.
Then again, this could just be wishful thinking.
BTW, and I am really worst-case scenarioing things, couldn't we do a 'recall' on the queen if the courts fail? Just planting ideas.
Posted by: recently relocated on April 30, 2005 11:11 PMMark,
Those are defintiely questions that are burning in the minds of many this weekend....
How DID the Democrats get this felon voter information so incredibly fast? We all know the Republicans weren't allowed their information until it was accidently sent to the Seattle Times...From there - the Republicans had to practically sue for it! Then there were immediate challenges to the validity of their lists...
The Dems don't seem to have experienced any of these hold ups...
How DID the Democrats get the felon voter information so fast? And if it's accurate...how could it be? They must have some centralized base of information...and that means they have ties to those who would have collected Felon voter registrations..(Moveon.org)....
The implications here are enormous!
No, we can't recall her unless she breaks the law while in office. Unfortunately, this state is not like California where you can just recall someone becasue they're doing a lousy job. I don't know the exact RCW, but I do know once she's sworn in, she can't be recalled short of committing a crime while in office. If the election contest isn't successfull, then we're pretty much stuck with her until '08.
I can feel my wallet getting lighter already.
Posted by: Mike H on May 1, 2005 12:34 AMThe truth is the Dems sat around for months criticizing BIAW and the R's. When it dawned on them in March that the R's had something with legs, they began to feverishly scramble. All you have to do is look at the trail of Dem public record requests to know.
I too find it interesting where the Dems received information to identify and validate/disqualify felons. Was all the information the Dems relied on LEGALLY OBTAINED????
In addition, Dems have conveniently omitted ALL names of their alleged Felon "findings". They are trying to drag this out and out and out...
Watch for the stalls & delay (no, not Tom) tactics.
Bleed them with a thousand cuts. It's clear that every time the Rossi camp gets traction, they fall all over themselves driving to Eastern Washington to dig up counterinformation.
Keep them scrambling, make them burn gas, and cost them money. And let the preponderance of the evidence sink them.
And, imagine the fun we would have if they really did have to go hunt down these post office box places in Dayton, Tokio, Davenport. As compared to the population of them here in Pugetropolis.
Oh, and since I haven't mentioned it, Bring on the Feds! Arrest them all!
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 1, 2005 08:33 AMThe sheer numbers of invalid/questionable ballots alone is enough to invalidate the election. Proportional distribution would provide a built-in advantage to those who endeavor to abuse the system, and these revelations are signs of the democrats’ resolve to effectuate this very advantage.
Extrapolation of proportional representation will only be appropriate where it can be fairly assumed that the questionable ballots are representative samples of the whole. This mess includes too many unanswerable questions to permit such an assumption.
Where iniquities appear on multiple fronts of a question, it is absurd to abide by a speculative offset of unclean hands.
Given the evidence of raw numbers now available, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the outcome of the election is dubious. By any reasonable measure, this election should be thrown out regardless of further considerations, and a re-vote commenced. All other solutions are inveiglements by the perpetrators and/or their dupes.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 1, 2005 11:09 AMThe election counting process contains a natural error rate. This error rate is very small, but when there are a large number of voters this error is significant. The natural error is +/-300 votes for a state wide Washington election. This means that all three of the counts were a statistical tie. It did not take all the effort that Rossi put into this to prove the election was and still is a statistical tie.
Posted by: GR on May 1, 2005 06:13 PMSome of this will get tough for you so go to the library and get out a dictionary.
Try real hard to focus (focus means deliberately consider) here GR:
The difference between a "statistical tie" and "outcome unknown" is that the word "tie" means that neither candidate has won the election and “outcome unknown” means precisely what it says – nothing more, nothing less. Absent official incompetence, and fraud, (and possibly other unspecified things) no one actually knows who was legally elected.
I understand that this is difficult for you GR, but this election is not even close to being “resolved” – yet, and won’t be until Dino Rossi is legally elected and sitting in the Governor’s office.
By the way, “resolved” – in this context – would mean that the “outcome” of the election is “known” and not a "statistical tie," or some other invidious liberal equivocation. Get it? I doubt it.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Mary Lane says the outcome is unknown and she is right. If by some divine knowledge we knew the actual vote to be an exact tie, the counting error rate alone might allow us to count 50 or more times and never get the same result twice. Tighter controls does not fix this problem. If we vote again with perfect controls, we could get the exact same vote counts as we got in the last three count. Rossi could win the first two and Gregoire could win the hand, or any other combination. Tighter control is enough. It is not possible to name Rossi the winner last time or to name Gregoire the winner last time. It was only luck that made Rossi the winner after the first two counts and luck that made Gregoire the winner in the last count. Even if we accept all the work of Rossi's team as accurate and real, Rossi did not move the count outside the 300 vote margin of error. The only thing that made Gregoire the "winner" was that state law said we stop counting after three tries.
Posted by: GR on May 2, 2005 08:14 AMMary Lane says the outcome is unknown and she is right. If by some divine knowledge we knew the actual vote to be an exact tie, the counting error rate alone might allow us to count 50 or more times and never get the same result twice. Tighter controls does not fix this problem. If we vote again with perfect controls, we could get the exact same vote counts as we got in the last three count. Rossi could win the first two and Gregoire could win the hand, or any other combination. Tighter control is enough. It is not possible to name Rossi the winner last time or to name Gregoire the winner last time. It was only luck that made Rossi the winner after the first two counts and luck that made Gregoire the winner in the last count. Even if we accept all the work of Rossi's team as accurate and real, Rossi did not move the count outside the 300 vote margin of error. The only thing that made Gregoire the "winner" was that state law said we stop counting after three tries.
Posted by: GR on May 2, 2005 08:14 AMThe WA constitution says ties are resolved by the legislature and RCW says they are resolved by lot. I'm not sure how to reconcile these, but in both cases the priority is on getting an indisputable result. This is also the reason why the RCW calls for improperly registered voters to be challenged before, rather than after, the election.
This doesn't excuse mistakes or deliberate fraud. But our system, for good reason, sometimes assigns a higher value to getting a stable government (I know many of you will insert clever wisecracks here) than to chasing the elusive goal of perfection, or even the goal of a margin of victory that exceeds the margin of error.
If you're disappointed that these values worked against your candidate this time, try to see the bigger picture (hey, you won Bush v. Gore). If you disagree with these values, try to change the system -- that's a legitimate position. But recognize that these values have been deliberately built into our system over the years. When you act like they're just a conspiracy against your candidate, you discredit your position.