June 06, 2005
Josef Stalin 1, Common Sense 0

Back home from Wenatchee. A disappointing decision to say the least. As I wrote this morning:

Will Judge Bridges side with common sense and rule that election officials can't just keep counting ballots again and again and get different numbers every time without also showing that every ballot has a voter and every voter a ballot? Or will he side with the Democrats and Josef Stalin and rule that he who counts the votes makes the rules and doesn't have to obey any laws?
We now know the answer to that question.

I have to dash off my column for The Stranger tonight. I'll have more commentary later. The punchline: the two things that are most broken and in need of overhaul are: King County Elections and the contest statute itself.

Plus, I'll also post quotes from my post-ruling conversations with Paul Berendt, Nixon Handy, and attorneys for both the Republicans and Democrats!

In the meantime, Dino Rossi's press conference will be streamed live on KING5 at 5pm.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 06, 2005 04:42 PM | Email This
Comments
1. One thing Rossi SHOULD NOT do is concede this election. He didn't lose the election. It was stolen and a judge upheld the theft. If he didn't lose, he shouldn't concede. Don't give the cheating 'Rats any legitimacy by conceding.

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 6, 2005 05:01 PM
2. Listening live on KVI:

Speaking in past tense, doesn't look like he's gonna approve of the appeal.

Posted by: Sailor Republica on June 6, 2005 05:03 PM
3. The Rs need to appeal, but to focus it on the issue of whether Bridges decided correctly that fraud needed to be proved and whether illegal votes had to have an identified voter.

The Rs need to make a simple and clear appear to the WSSC and the public at large: "Can election laws be flouted with no consequence?" The Foulkes case.

Posted by: StephenR from Houston on June 6, 2005 05:04 PM
4. I think it's the smart thing to stop the contest.
Let us, the voters turn out imcumbents.
Dust off the pitchforks, light the torches.
Rise up and take back State Gov't.

Posted by: JCM on June 6, 2005 05:05 PM
5. What a loss for washington state - Mr.Rossi is one gracious gentleman and as of yet, the dems have noone who comes close.

Posted by: kathleen on June 6, 2005 05:06 PM
6. You couldn't have been more wrong in all of your pre decision analysis, could you? You missed it on every single point!

Posted by: Don on June 6, 2005 05:11 PM
7. Did I hear the judge correctly when he said it was credible evidence when the felons testified who they voted for, but when the experts (who are not convicted felons) testified as to how the felons voted, they were not credible?

What a great precedent to set. Remind me never to get mugged in Wenatchee.

Posted by: Doug on June 6, 2005 05:14 PM
8. [Truthful headline, in the minnow's style:]

Common Sense 1, Nazi big lie 0.

Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 05:16 PM
9. Also, did anyone else think it a highly sexist comment coming from his mouth that he was likely to believe that since the felons were male they were more likely to vote against Gregoire "because she was female"?

Posted by: Doug on June 6, 2005 05:16 PM
10. It wasn't sexist, it was stupid.

Posted by: dave on June 6, 2005 05:26 PM
11. I thought it was strange that the judge said the proportional analysis offered by the Republicans experts was not scientifically sound because it relied on assumptions as opposed to facts. Then, Bridges turns around and makes the assumption that felons are more likely to vote for male candidates. Um, where's the scientific justification for THAT assumption, Mr. Bridges?

Posted by: JRR on June 6, 2005 05:27 PM
12. Doug, Dave and JRR:

What the judge said, and what is true, is that gender is statistically more reliable in determining who a person voted for than geography. If I know two things about a person, where they live, and their gender, I can guess at their vote with more accuracy based upon their gender.

Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 05:33 PM
13. How about the assumption that the felons would tell the truth about how they voted? He gave each of those 4 felons a second vote today. Maybe thats the key, get a bunch of people to cast illegal votes, then get them to testify they voted for the other guy.

Posted by: dave on June 6, 2005 05:33 PM
14. JDB, the sore winner, makes Beavis and Butthead look smart.

Posted by: starboardhelm on June 6, 2005 05:34 PM
15. They needed a far better cross of Handcock. I think nationwide the number of felons that are male is far greater than it is in this state. And since the research from the one group that the R's relied on was based on all the nation it was silly to let Handcock use gender for his basis when in fact the nationwide report allowed for even greater number of males. The Judge was seriously duped by the UW prof.

Posted by: Doug on June 6, 2005 05:37 PM
16. dave - "It wasn't sexist, it was stupid."

It was actually both.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 05:37 PM
17. Common sense prevailed.

Running a new election would cost the state a million dollars or more, and solve nothing. It would put one or another person into the Governors Mansion by a hair-thin majority. With half of the voting public screaming it was unfair. We have that now.

A tight election that had no evidence of fraud, that one side wins, is obviously going to generate complaint by the other side.

But complaint is not reason enough to overturn.

Posted by: Dave D on June 6, 2005 05:43 PM
18. Gosh, call me na´ve, but wherein lies the similarity between Josef Stalin and the Democratic Party? Is it in their centralized economy, in which nothing is available to buy? Is it in their state security apparatus, that disappears people ratted out by their neighbors? Is it in their establishment of a gulag system to deal with those disappeared, who were treated worse--far worse--than common criminals? Is it in the deaths of millions in the gulags?

The right wing can't have it both ways, you know -- I'm sure you'll remember Edwin Viera's recent, pro-Stalin quote ("He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem.'") Which side are you on anyway? Come clean and tell us if you admire Stalin (like Viera) or don't.

Either way, tovarishch Sharansky, you could certainly do better in your effort to be provocative than to posit such a disgusting and immoral analogy.

Posted by: Nikita Khrushchev on June 6, 2005 05:44 PM
19. JDB, I see what the Judge wants to say, but the correlation isn't as strong with Gender as what it would be with a precinct whose results are known. A stronger correlation than gender would be economic situations. The percentage in evidence that was based on how felons would vote had to include the knowledge that over 90% of the felons are male. Handcock was saying only 75% of our illegal votes were male, hence in this case the difference would have been far better for Rossi than what the R's thought, if Gender was the factor.

I really think if we look at this problem, we would see that male felons tend to vote Democratic in far superior numbers than non-felon males.

Posted by: Doug on June 6, 2005 05:44 PM
20. Judge Earring ruled that proportional deduction was not scientifically sound but then went ahead and allocated all the non-specific illegal votes (1,673 of them) to those 74,725 ballots containing no vote for governor. In other words, he allocated 99.70% of the illegal votes all to tiny proportion (2.59%) of the ballots! In other words, per Judge Earring Christine Gregoire's ass was miracled into office!

Posted by: Far Star on June 6, 2005 05:47 PM
21. Dave:

The Democrats did their work, for the four felons that voted for Rossi they submitted thank you notes from President Bush for their contributions to the GOP and other material that showed that not only their testimony, but their actions long before the vote were in favor of Rossi.

Of course, the GOP and BIAW could have done the same. What were they afraid of? Why didn't they try to talk to one single voting felon?

Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 05:47 PM
22. We need a contest statute that mandates that judges enforce election laws against county and state officials. Right now, our supposed legal requirements are merely suggestions which officials may ignore without penalty, and without even having to fear that an illegally-certified election might be overturned.

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 05:49 PM
23. Herr Stefan;

Enough is enough...just cause you keep repeating the same lies with no proof does not make them true. You are indeed the Tariq Aziz of Right wing Politics. Your Windmill has come crashing down, now move on and find another way to destroy this state. I am sure supporting defunding of everything is a good first step.
The sheep just love.. "No Taxes"...How about a tax for new voting reform and machinery?...sorry no sheep to follow you there.

Posted by: danw on June 6, 2005 05:51 PM
24. Aside from the circumstantial evidence of which party wants to register felons, I think its pointless to study the issue. You simply can't draw legitimate conclusions based on the word of someone intent on defrauding all voters. Thats what they did here, felons most likely IMO defrauded us of our rightful govenor and if not have through their actions left a cloud over the legitimacy of Gregoire.

Posted by: dave on June 6, 2005 05:57 PM
25. Hey danw, here's a radical thought: Let the government fund its basic responsibilities (you know, like elections) first, out of the money we already give them.

Then let them ask for special tax increases to pay for stuff like diversity education and anti-smoking programs and the Leonard Peltier/Mumia Abu-Jamal Museum of the Arts and Sciences.

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 06:00 PM
26. Dan W, with all due respect, what are you talking about? Why don't you make a point rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks. You and your ilk are why there will be a Dem housecleaning in 2006. We might even see some of it in 2005--No New Gas Tax in and Ron Sims out.

Bill H

Posted by: Bill H on June 6, 2005 06:09 PM
27. Let's face it - the Wrong Wing lost because they deserved to!

For all their claims of fraud, they didn't bother to do their homework in an attempt to actually find any proof of fraud.

Call it faith-based litigation...

The Dems actually found some felons who voted for Rossi - and had proof to back it up. Records... Depositions... Thanks you notes from Bush... These were felons, they were Republicans, and they voted for Rossi!

If King County Democrat-machine-sponsored fraud was as rampant as the Republicans claimed, then why couldn't the Wrong Wing offer any real proof?

Maybe because there was no proof to be found?

Maybe because - as rampant as the inconsistancies and incompetancies in King County were - there was no fraud?

Posted by: SPB on June 6, 2005 06:13 PM
28. This is why the 2nd amendment is so important!!

Posted by: TimmyO on June 6, 2005 06:17 PM
29. I just got home after a 11 hour day trying to keep my business afloat after we pay for all those King Pierce and Snohomish jerkoffs I'
m so pisd I could scream but I guess I should have expected it. Soon as I saw that libs earing I said to my wife that We the people were in trouble I think we should kick above counties out and take back our state by force if need be> I thought all those jerks were moving to canada after GWB got re-elected

Posted by: DR on June 6, 2005 06:20 PM
30. I just got home after a 11 hour day trying to keep my business afloat after we pay for all those King Pierce and Snohomish jerkoffs I'
m so pisd I could scream but I guess I should have expected it. Soon as I saw that libs earing I said to my wife that We the people were in trouble I think we should kick above counties out and take back our state by force if need be> I thought all those jerks were moving to canada after GWB got re-elected

Posted by: DR on June 6, 2005 06:20 PM
31. Bill;
What I am talking about? Stefan this entire time has only used conjecture and Hokie Graphs to accuse the Democrats of Fraud. He could say it here, cause he never had to prove it in court. So he was only playing to the court of public opinion.
That is why I compare him to Goebbels so often. The bigger the lie, the more you have to repeat it. He has won in the court of public opinion, cause he has sheep like you believing there was some sort of executed fraud by the Demos. All his Charts and lies do not help in court. The Judge even saw this when he dismissed "With Prejudice".
So you want to see who was more honest about this whole mess, go back and read HA and SP for the past months and see who posted more facts that the courts could rule on. It wasn't here.

I know you hate to hear us talk about Florida and Ohio, but if you wanted proof of illegal activities go read the demons lists there. Florida is the reason we have HAVA. Herr Stefan has been using a Carl Rove projection on this Blog for months.
I know we do it, therefore you must do it.
Personally I hope we learn from the GOP and quit playing like nice guys.
My first recomendation for a Democratically controlled state is to gerrymander the heck out of this place like Tom delay did to Texas.
Then let's stuff the heck out of the ballot boxes so there will never be need of a recount.
Like that Idea?...well that's how we feel about Diebold.

Posted by: danw on June 6, 2005 06:28 PM
32. Stefan!

I was looking for you in the courtroom as the Judge made his ruling....I couldn't find you in the camera shots..
I know how hard it was for us to watch the outcome on TV - it must have been worse to be in the courtroom! We all felt for you!

I can't wait to read your post-decision conversations with party representatives from both sides!

Thanks for being our fly on the wall!

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 06:34 PM
33. Well, this farce has ground down to its inevitable end. Fraud cannot be proved because ballots are secret and cannot be tied to the voter. With this decision, virtually no election fraud can ever be found as long as the ballots get into the general pool and no one has the guts to do a criminal investigation. And the only person to actually do the work that proved this election was stolen is a private citizen (Stefan).

And what did the R's expect? A private party doing the work that should have been done in a criminal investigation. Some wimp in a suit talking to a felon who voted? Give me a break. How about 2-3 King County Sheriff deputies or State Troopers interrogating those lawbreakers. Same for the KC elections workers...they should have been interrogated by criminal investigators. Big difference when one is questioned by a suit as oppposed to a man wearing a badge and a gun.

Will we see Logan, et al prosecuted for their false certification? Republicans hold both the King county and state prosecutors offices, so party loyalty--always stronger with 'Rats--aren't an issue.

But we will not see any such thing. Because R's are losers. Big time. Imagine that party hack, Gregoire, in the same position. She would have sent state troopers through every precinct in King County determining who committed vote fraud. McKenna was probably off having coffee with McKay chuckling about a juicy sex scandal while studiously ignoring a stolen election.

WA state R's will not see another penny from me until they demonstrate the will to win (tell Reed he will not see another penny in this life from R's, put the same pressure to McKenna and Maleng regarding prosecution of Logan, Hunnykin, and Way, etc.). I expect to save a fair chunk of change, since the R's would rather "take the high road" and avoid real confrontation than actually fight to win.

Posted by: iconoclast on June 6, 2005 06:39 PM
34. Well now that the rats stole this election and cantwell stole hers in 2000 by king co no less I'm going to cut my work load of 23 employees and get back to maybe 6 or 7 so I can weather this tax hike hurricane till we can get them out I hope all you rats get the same treatment.

Posted by: DR on June 6, 2005 06:39 PM
35. JDB is full of crap as usual. He says he can determine how someone votes by gender better than where they live. Oh really? If you had two men, or two women or a man and a woman, and one lived in Seattle on Queen Ann Hill and the other lived in Sammamish are you saying you can better predict how they would vote by gender? I say BS.

Also, regarding the four felons the Dems presented that said they voted for Rossi. Is that the best the Dems could do? I mean, they supposedly had over 600 felon votes to choose from as well as over 700 listed by the GOP... and all they could come up with was four lousy votes? Wow, I'm impressed.

You left-wing nutballs can gloat for now, but one battle won does not determine the outcome of the war. Looking across the USA I see more battles being won by the GOP than the Dems.

I suppose you guys are really proud of Howard Dean and his rants. Frankly, I love him. He's done more and will do more to bolster the GOP than anyone out there. Keep it up!

Posted by: Tucker on June 6, 2005 06:42 PM
36. Well it's happened again. Guess which side started calling people like Nazi and so on. An immediate red flag as to the weakness of their position!
But hey! They have no shame that their Queen and her Drones won by very suspicious circumstances.
Of course now the machine will really ramp it up to manifacture "landslides" and "mandates" on everything they can. They feel invincible and it's going to bite them in the equine postierior!

Posted by: Victor on June 6, 2005 06:48 PM
37. Someone in another thread suggested Dino Rossi for KC Executive....

You know? This wouldn't be a bad idea at all!
He could un-do much of the bogus CAO, Trail nonsense and taxes that Sims put in place. He could clean up the elections and bring King County together again....
Then he could run for Governor in 2008!

Someone tell me why this would not be a good thing?

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 06:53 PM
38.
Of course felons tend to vote democrat by almost 3:1--like recognizes like.

Posted by: iconoclast on June 6, 2005 07:02 PM
39. The WA State Republican site says Chris Vance will be issuing a statement tomorrow.....

Hmmm.....

I see some other strategies here..that could....change the dynamics of this state from the inside out.....
If we are successful in the No New Gas Tax initiative...and are able to place a Republican into the KC Exec. office........we will have seriously cut the liberal legislatures purse strings and KC's ability for future election fraud.........Imagine all of the possibilities!

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 07:10 PM
40. iconoclast - "Fraud cannot be proved because ballots are secret and cannot be tied to the voter."

I'm going to say this one more time (not to you, but to the general audience), just in case this counterintuitive idea didn't click: It is mathematically possible and practical to contruct an encoding system that allows secrecy, and still maintains an audit trail. That is, you can create a system that allows verification that a ballot came in a valid envelope, without being able to determine which ballot came from which voter.

It's too late for this election, but it is possible to manitain secrecy, while allowing a ballot to be traced to its envelope. This does not have to be a fundamental dilema, if procedures are properly constructed.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 07:12 PM
41. Stefan--
Great job--this whole undertaking wasn't easy for you, but worth it for all of us (legal) citizen-voters in WA. Thanks again to you & your supportive Family.

I won't let this fade into history. If I can be a burr in the lib's saddle, so be it. The mosquito you can't swat. Yes--I forgot my Home Training. My favorite quote? "accuracy any bank would envy!" I heard that Sims sound bite again and loved the explosive laughter caught on tape.

Re-register voters now. Citizens only. Photo i.d. to vote. Enough of the back-alley crap shoots we call WA elections.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 6, 2005 07:14 PM
42. JDB is an idiot - he agrees with Judge Bridges that we can't make assumptions about statistical inferences, then makes a gender-based argument on how felons vote. Earth to JDB - all statistics rely on assumptions - even yours.

At least JDB can spell and form proper sentences, unlike danw. There's a hateful and bigoted idiot if I've ever read one.

They're laughing now, but they haven't commented on the fact that Washington is a battleground state. I thought it was blue a while back. Not so much any more.

So if illegal votes are actually legal, as the Democrats say, why don't we all vote 10 times? I'm going to! Why not? If it's not illegal, then it must be okay. When do we start playing by Ron Sims' and Dean Logan's rules?

Posted by: Larry on June 6, 2005 07:15 PM
43. Tucker,

You've just explained why the judge couldn't apportion felon votes -- WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THEY VOTE. When there isn't enough information to make a reasonable assumption, you don't overturn an election.

Nice job scoring an "own goal," as Stefan likes to say.

Posted by: the radish on June 6, 2005 07:18 PM
44. Bridges' finding of fact has found 1,678 illegal votes cast in the November election. While Republicans failed to prove that those illegal votes would have reversed the election, it is clear that those votes have left the outcome of the election unknown and forever meaningless. Absent an Election Contest law that provided Bridges the authority to act (his interpretation), it is clear that we have an illegitimate governor that just as easily could have been chosen by a flip of a coin.

As a result of these illegal votes, nearly 3 million Washington voters were denied their right to a fair and decisive election outcome. I can think of no better reason now for a federal investigation of the facts surrounding the corruption of this election by 3,000 illegal votes (including ballots without voters).

People should lose their jobs and an independent investigation must be carried out to correct the mess we're in, or we'll never have another uncorrupted election again.

I believe that Republicans, while accepting the futility in further challenge of this election, should resurrect their calls for a federal US Attorney investigation into the circumstances surrounding the denial of every voter's right to have their votes counted, illegal votes discounted, and a letigimate election conducted to elect a legitimate governor. With the finding of facts by Bridges, the question of thousands of illegal and invalid votes is no longer in question, and the consequences of this distributed fraud has denied the citizens of Washington a clear winner in this election.

Even in power now for 3 more years, every act by Christine Greqoire will be made in the shadow of clear corruption of the election in which she ended on top by a margin only a fraction of the illegal and invalid votes that were counted. The illegal and invalid votes, perhaps resulting in the legitimate election of Gregoire if they could have been removed, has potentially denied her her right to govern in legitimacy as Republicans believe Rossi was denied. The illegal and invalid votes of roughly 3,000 voters, and the posssible collusion of election officials to allow them to be counted, is far more serious a situation that a failed election contest would leave it.

Republicans and Democrats should demand an investigation based on the finding of facts, and all voters deserve to know what happened and those responsible held accountable. Should Democrats refuse to join Republicans in such a call, it shall only make their real involvement in this fiasco more evident.

Posted by: Mike on June 6, 2005 07:36 PM
45. Nikita:

Very good points. How come all these right wingnuts are always quoting Stalin. I never hear liberals quoting Hitler? (And, please, I know some idiots call people Hitler, but quote him?) What is their love of totalitarians? I expect we will get Mao next. "There is chaos in heaven, and the situation is excellent."

Dave:

Do you really think that the 1000 or so felons went into the voting booth thinking "Hey, I'm sure the election for Govenor will be so close that I am going to vote illegally and change the outcome?" I think that most thought "Hey, I finished my parole, and they gave me a voting card when I signed up, so I get to vote." At best, maybe a few thought "Hey, I know I can't vote, but I'm going to anyway," but I doubt a single one thought that they might change the election. It wasn't fraud (as the Judge ruled), so unless you can show it changed the election, you don't throw it out (that is what the law says).

Iconoclast:

You are right, the WaSt AG and the King Co. Prosecutor are both GOP. So why won't they prosecute, more or less investigate? It must be that there is a grand conspiracy. It couldn't be that there is no case. But go ahead, encourage them to waste their budgets on investigating all those terrible ballot crimes. Heck, maybe like Deborah's super secret federal investigation, they are already going on.

Deborah:

Rossi for KC Exec is the one smart thing I ever heard you say, and probably your only shot in KC of a win.

Victor (and isn't that irony for you):

Don't you feel a bit silly, given that you are posting that in a thread that compares Judge Bridges' ruling with Josef Stalin? Don't you wish you had thought one second more before hitting "post?"

Posted by: jdb on June 6, 2005 08:00 PM
46. >I just got home after a 11 hour day trying to keep my business afloat after we pay for all those King Pierce and Snohomish jerkoffs I'
m so pisd I could scream but I guess I should have expected it. Soon as I saw that libs earing I said to my wife that We the people were in trouble I think we should kick above counties out and take back our state by force if need be> I thought all those jerks were moving to canada after GWB got re-elected

Wow, DR, thanks for your erudite and eloquent insight. No, we jerkoffs over here didn't move to canada (sic) yet, because we're too happy with the education system your tax dollars are providing us. By the looks of it, you could use a bit of ejumacation too... Bet you're a card-carrying NRA member, and a Christian to boot, right?

Posted by: Mr. Grammar on June 6, 2005 08:17 PM
47. JDB, you make me feel good about my firm belief that until all Dem's are either jailed, hanged, or banished we have a lot of work ahead of us.

You tautological son of a bitch--of course nothing can be discovered if there is no investigation. Will Maleng or McKenna prosecute for the known crimes--filing false reports with the SoS? Of course they should, despite the outcries of the MSM and other promoters of election fraud. But like too many R's, both Maleng and McKenna have the completely mistaken idea that if they go along with the crooks (that is, Dems) they will be allowed to continue in their little elected offices without undue pressure. So while Logan et al should be doing the perp walk (along with most 'Rats), those two patsies will let them slide in the vain hope that the WA state apparatchiks will steal their elections last.

Posted by: iconoclast on June 6, 2005 08:31 PM
48. Ahh, making fun of spelling. Truly the last resort of the philosophically incoherent and fatuous.

Iconoclast--NRA lifetime member

Posted by: iconoclast on June 6, 2005 08:37 PM
49. Hanna: This is the OJ of elections.

While I had hoped for a more rational decision, it ended as I expected a Democrat controlled Washington State election contest would end. Heavy on politics and light on justice (i.e. no justice). Remember all the names on the Wall of Shame the next time you vote, including "Republican" SoS Reed.

Remember all the "Republicans" that voted for the gas tax. Time to clean house, starting with so called "Republicans" first.

ReElect Rossi!

Posted by: otto on June 6, 2005 08:42 PM
50. JDB

I DON'T CARE what the felons were thinking. They were not supposed to be voting, and it was THEIR responsibility to know that. It was fraud, it just wasn't proved to be fraud in favor of CG.
You and I both know there was plenty of fraud in this election, we just don't know who, if anyone it benefitted. I even concede there is a possibility it favored Rossi. Now we are left with a majority thinking was have an illegitimate Gov and a legal precedent to stuff em if you got em.

Posted by: dave on June 6, 2005 08:46 PM
51. Let us compare the rumblings of various trolls and some statements by politer guests with one interesting fact:

[*]Bridges' finding of fact has found 1,678 illegal votes cast in the November election.[*]

This is not interpretation, this is not Stefan's claim, this is a finding in a court of law. So, although there wasn't enough evidence to convince Bridges of fraud, there is clear evidence that the number of illegal votes (and sloppy election-running) show a bit of a problem.

Now, for the comparison:
JDB:
"Common Sense 1, Nazi big lie 0."
"Common Sense" must also include this number of proven illegal votes, must it not? Is this common sense, to favor an election with the number of proven illegal votes exceeding the margin of victory? You make no sense, sir...

Dave D:
"A tight election that had no evidence of fraud, that one side wins, is obviously going to generate complaint by the other side.
But complaint is not reason enough to overturn."

Bridges didn't find evidence of fraud, but what shall we do with these illegal votes and other bad Election running practices? Why do you choose to overlook them in favor of unproven fraud?
Shall we just accept these practices as the status quo because they happen to benefit the political party we favor?


SPB:
"If King County Democrat-machine-sponsored fraud was as rampant as the Republicans claimed, then why couldn't the Wrong Wing offer any real proof?"
Maybe because there was no proof to be found?
Maybe because - as rampant as the inconsistancies and incompetancies in King County were - there was no fraud?"

So, we should just ignore these inconsistencies and incompetencies just because there was no fraud proved in a court of law? That sounds like really nice way to run a democratic society, now, doesn't it? Or does it only matter if the inconsistencies and illegal votes don't go the way you want them to go?


Posted by: Pseudotsuga on June 6, 2005 08:47 PM
52. Will Judge Bridges side with common sense and rule that election officials can't just keep counting ballots again and again and get different numbers every time without also showing that every ballot has a voter and every voter a ballot? Or will he side with the Democrats and Josef Stalin and rule that he who counts the votes makes the rules and doesn't have to obey any laws?

you left out: stand by the law.

sicko.


Posted by: jdm on June 6, 2005 09:01 PM
53. JDB

Please enlighten us as to why 68 percent of the felons in Miami-Dade County are registered Democrats but in Washington they vote Republican.

Posted by: JC Bob on June 6, 2005 09:03 PM
54. danw

Are you aware that Diebold wrote the DIMS software for King County that stole the election to CG?

Posted by: JC Bob on June 6, 2005 09:07 PM
55. Nikita Khrushchev

You may recall what Uncle Joe said about elections:

It matters not who votes. Who counts the votes is all that matters.

(or words to that effect)

And we know who counts the votes in King County.

Posted by: JC Bob on June 6, 2005 09:13 PM
56. JC Bob - "why 68 percent of the felons in Miami-Dade County are registered Democrats but in Washington they vote Republican"

That has to be the most preposterous thing that Bridges said, when he implied that felons in Washington are inclined to vote Republican out of sexism! Un@#$@#$believable!

Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 09:14 PM
57. TAKE THAT YOU CLOSED-MINDED BIGOTS. TRUTH WON OUT AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. MIKE MCNAMARA

Posted by: MIKE MC on June 6, 2005 09:16 PM
58. voter-counters: before you all go throwing around the 1678 illegal votes being 13 times the margin, please don't forget that the judge arrived at that tally by aggregating the illegal votes entered into evidence by petitioner and intervenor alike, from all over the state, not just one county. There is plenty of sloppiness around the state, just none of it sufficiently clear and convincing to change an action of the institutions of this state carried out pursuant to the state constitution. The standard is clear. The petitioner didn't meet it. Their evidence wasn't sufficient, and it was rendered more doubtful by evidence submitted by the intervenor. Pretty simple, really.

Posted by: protagonist on June 6, 2005 10:09 PM
59. Mike MC...

You are disturbed.

Drugs do that.

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 10:41 PM
60. Deborah, So does being a democrat.

Posted by: dave on June 6, 2005 11:00 PM
61. I am furious right now. But for a different reason, and non-political.

Though I admit a bias for Rossi, I don't really care who finally prevailed. Most of them are crooks in both parties, sadly. BUT>>>

What really makes me mad is that the judge just told us that it is okay to violate 4 or 5 specific WACs, conspire to do so, publicly admit it in court (!) and it is okay, no problemo.....

What the hell? The LAW is very specific and yet can be read by any semi-literate adult to understand what "shall" means!! (i.e., shall properly credit, etc.)

Where is the LAW in all of this. How can any judge interpret these statutes incorrectly. The WACs referred to do NOT require any evidence of fraud, only fact. And they were admitted in court, for cripesakes!

I have lost all respect for the court in this one.
We ALL lose.

Posted by: Elmo on June 6, 2005 11:17 PM
62. Larry:

I am not saying anything about my own beliefs. I am stating what Judge Bridges found. He stated that based upon the testimony of the experts in his court, gender was a better way of determining how a person voted than geography. That is what the testimony in court showed.

By the by, I can't spell either. Actually, I can, but when I type on blogs, I type fast and don't care. If you want something that looks good, you can pay me for it. Otherwise, I don't have the time.

iconoclast:

Oh boy, is your bark way worse than your bite. Have the courage of your convictions; start agitating on this board for protests in frond to the King Co. Prosecutor's office. If a law was truly broken, surely they will want to do what is right? Are you really saying that Norm Maleng and Rob McKenna are Democrat puppets? Wow, if that is true, you have no chance. Put up or stop your sobbing.

Doug F:

No one is arguing that there were not mistakes, or that problems should not be addressed. The system can be made better.

I do argue that there was no fraud, and that, as the judge found, the mistakes did not effect the election in any particular way. I also am realistic and realise that, no matter what the ideal, in any highly human endevor, there will always be mistakes. That is common sense. And do you think (as you now imply) that Judge Bridges is a fellow traveler of Stalin?

Dave:

But, don't you see, if you are going to claim fraud, you do have to care about what the felons were thinking. Mistakes do not equal fraud; illegal does not equal fraud. Fraud requires intent.

No, we do not agree there was plenty of fraud. Maybe the few dead people who voted, but I'm not sure there is any way you could prevent those very few votes, and what proof we have, they favored Rossi. Even so, they were far underneath the margin of difference. The rest, while improper, and some times illegal, votes were not fraudulent by any legal standard based upon everything known.

That is exactly what the Judge held. That is exactly what the evidenced showed. The GOP's attorneys, even Dale Foreman, knew what was legally required to show fraud, and didn't even try to put on any evidence of actual fraud. Rossi got all his evidence in, Rossi was allowed to present his evidence of fraud, and yet Rossi lost on every single issue. There was no fraud.

I bet the next time they ask who won the election, you might be very surprised that the % change, especially if it is a neutral poller, not a GOP firm like Strategic Vision. And there is no precedent for vote stuffing. You keep forgetting that there were poll wathcers and attorneys for both parties at every step of the process, and there will still be.

But lets work on making the system better. I think that is a good goal.

JC Bob:

Because Miami/Dade has a very different demographical population (especially when it comes to felons) than the State of Washington. Or do you think I can guess how you voted based upon the average voter in Miami/Dade?


Elmo:

First of all, no one admitted to conspiring to do anything. No one said it was ok that WACs were not followed.

However, and this might be helpful to many here, the WACs are not the law, they are administrative regulations. In this case, they are regulations by the state telling everyone how it should operate. That is not an excuse for not following them, that is best practice, but you are not necessarily violating a law because you don't follow a regulation. And a violation of an administrative regulation is hardly a grounds, without a showing of some change, for overturning an election.

However, like iconoclast, have the courage of your convictions and start petitioning the Republican Attorney General or the Republican King County Prosecutor to prosecute. If laws were actually broken,surely they would do so.

Posted by: jdb on June 7, 2005 12:47 AM
63. JDB,

Yep the judge said its not fraud if you're not caught.

Posted by: dave on June 7, 2005 06:32 AM
64. Hi, I've just arrived from 2001. Do you guys know where I can get one of those hilarious "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers?

Posted by: Clambone on June 7, 2005 06:55 AM
65. One thing is for sure, Dino is a real class act.

I listened to his press conference last night and was extremely impressed with him.

This man has a bright future.

Posted by: jaybo on June 7, 2005 06:57 AM
66. Michelle Malkin has a great recap:

Washington State Election Watch

Posted by: starboardhelm on June 7, 2005 07:43 AM
67. danw,
I can hear your desperation and I can understand it. The Democrats are moving, nationwide, to an "also ran" party. The way things are going, the only way Democrats will be able to win elections is to, as you say, "stuff the ballot box". I am not a Republican, but there are now very few Democrats I would ever vote for. If the Democrat Party goes the way of the Whigs, that could be a good thing--perhaps some version of the Libertarian Party will become the second political party. It will be interesting to watch over the next few years.

Bill H

Posted by: Bill H on June 7, 2005 07:44 AM
68. GOP governors association calls for Gregoire to resign

THE OLYMPIAN

The Republican Governors Association found positive news in Monday's Chelan County ruling in the challenge to Gov. Christine Gregoire's election victory and issued a call for her to resign.

The group's executive director, Mike Pieper, said the court decision confirms that Christine Gregoire's election was tainted by illegal votes.

"We now have a court decision declaring 1,678 votes cast in the election as illegal," he wrote in a news release. "Because this overwhelming number of illegal votes far surpasses the 129-vote margin of Mrs. Gregoire's victory, I encourage her to do her part in re-establishing the legitimacy of the governorship of Washington by resigning and calling for a new election in November.

"Without a means to determine for whom the illegal votes were cast, the voters of Washington state will never know who truly won and should be given the opportunity to participate in a new election."

--------------------------
Think she'll do it? Har!

Posted by: starboardhelm on June 7, 2005 07:51 AM
69. Of course jdb views this as an opportunity...an opportunity to steal more elections. Let's add more WAC codes to ignore...Like poll watchers kept across the room. Or unsecured ballots added to the vote when found.

As for no conspiracy, only a nut job or a 'Rat criminal would believe that there wasn't a conspiracy to file a false certification.

Posted by: iconoclast on June 7, 2005 08:36 AM
70. Dave:

No, the judge ruled there was no fraud. Were you not paying attention yesterday?

stardboardhelm:

Wow, talk about being a day late and a dollar short.

iconoclast:

If you really believe that, then I expect to see you protesting in front of Maleng's office tomorrow. But we know it is all hot air from you.

And, lets face it, if you and others like you who think there was fraud and criminal misdeeds really belive it (as oppose to just repeating the bad rhetoric you pick up at sites like this), shouldn't you be made at the BIAW, GOP, Chris Vance, Dale Foreman, Davis Wright Tremain, the minnow, etc. for either lying to you or totally mucking up your case so that a conservative judge in Wenatchee found against you on every issue, and said there was absolutely no signs of fraud? Yell at me all you want, you know I have been right all along. It is the above list of people that has lied or sold you out, not me.

Posted by: JDB on June 7, 2005 09:26 AM
71. >Ahh, making fun of spelling. Truly the last resort of the >philosophically incoherent and fatuous.

>Iconoclast--NRA lifetime member

So are you trying to prove that you're eruditer (sic) than me, Mr. Ikonoklast? I suppose you can make a judgment about someone's philosophical coherence from a comment on someone else's total lack of philosophical coherence (or reasoning, for that matter). That is, shall we say, presumptuous in the extreme.

Let's see whose ideas are more intellectually bankrupt:
"Of course felons tend to vote democrat by almost 3:1--like recognizes like."

What proof can you offer that Democrats -- and of course you are generalizing -- are somehow like felons? Surely much more ample proof can be given about Republicans and felons. Nixon? Reagan? DeLay? Bush II?

Posted by: Mr. Grammar on June 7, 2005 09:55 AM
72. So what can we do to feel better. I for one am going to re-read "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead" and quite possibly "Anthem" all by Ayn Rand. I would encourage everyone, even liberals to also read "We the Living" by Ayn Rand to see the end result of what Washington just did to itself.
Republicans can send a message and starve the beast by refusing to participate in this cash hungry government. Don't participate in lotteries, don't go parks that charge fees, don't buy a new car just yet, and stand in the way of all liberal legislation via inititative or referrendum. Don't vote for any new taxes for anything, no matter how "good the cause". Call or write your representatives and insist that they stop voting with the democrats(or "democrates" as JDB calls himself). Let's see how Fraudoire rules without ANY support from those she disenfranchised. Tea anyone?

Posted by: Scott C on June 7, 2005 10:12 AM
73. Scott C, do all the things you suggested, and more. One more would be to have the so-called Republicans in Washington DC exercise their political muscle a bit. No more welcomes and feting of Fraudoire at official functions. If that means getting things done privately rather than meetings with the governor's association, so be it. That may seem petty, but why legitimize an illegitimate "governor" by extending the courtesies due an honestly-elected governor?

Second, deny the 'Rats their toys. Cut off all the dollars they are currently slopping from the federal trough. If they send Fraudoire hat in hand begging for WA state's "share" of federal largesse, tell the 'Rats, tough, send a legitimate governor to make your case.

In the Senate, tell brainless Murray and CantDoWell to stuff it whenever they bring up any legislative initiative. Offer them meetings with the WH gardener or restroom attendant for "high level" meetings. Make it clear to the 'Rats that cheating will have consequences.

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 7, 2005 11:04 AM
74. Interested Observer - You missed the most obvious one: Gonzales needs to give McKay a swift kick in the pants and empanel a grand jury. Everyone who violated the law needs to be prosecuted. Everyone.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 7, 2005 11:21 AM
75. Dogbert, Gonzales should probably do what you suggest, but I overlooked it because of what I said earlier about having lost all faith in the judicial system of this country. So they empanel a Grand Jury in King Co. to "look into" things. I have no faith that a corrupt judge and a corrupt judicial system wouldn't give the same shaft to the Feds that they gave to Rossi.

In the meantime, do what Scott suggests above, and what I said. Also give serious consideration to the State of Eastern Washington idea. A new state like that would have some kind of clout. The Seattle 'Rats start acting up, turn off their lights, or make them run off their blow-hard windmills.

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 7, 2005 12:00 PM
76. I am thankful that Dino Rossi filed this election contest I belive that took courage! I hope Dino decides to run for Governor in 2008.
I think we can take some comfort in discovering
that initiative 912 did win it's court challenge.It should be ready soon.Thanks to Stephan for his efforts on this blog!!

Posted by: Laurie on June 7, 2005 02:04 PM
77. Scott C

You really shouldn't make fun of my spelling/typing. At least I don't come up with a gem like "don't go parks that charge fees."

But go ahead, throw a fit because you lost and try to destroy this state. That will really get everyone on the GOP's side. However, I think that people are starting to catch on that you keep cutting road taxes, and the roads get worse. Think about it, won't you?

Posted by: JDB on June 7, 2005 04:25 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?