It's important to remember that Judge Bridges dismissed the election contest petition on the grounds of "no evidence of X", which is not at all the same thing as "evidence of no X", of which there was none. This is not a reflection on the legitimate allegations that the election was illegitimate, but a reflection on the absurd burden of evidence. For example, from the ruling:
There is no evidence, however, in this record that Ms. Gregoire received any illegal votes.It stretches credulity that the finding of "no evidence" necessarily means that 0 out of the 1,678 illegal votes went to Gregoire.
Unfortunately, because of the perversely high burden of the election contest statute, the petitioner is nailed by "no evidence", while the person whose election is being contested has an almost impermeable presumption that the election was performed "honestly and carefully", no matter how many laws the election officials violated.
Just as a thought experiment, what would the judge's ruling have looked like if Gregoire and King County had to meet even a minimal threshhold of evidence that the election was valid --
This court finds ...Of course that's how an election and election contest should be conducted. Why is that too much to ask? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 07, 2005 12:04 PM | Email This... no evidence that not a single of the illegal votes was not cast for Ms. Gregoire.
... no evidence that King County fulfilled their duty under WAC 434-240-270 to maintain an accurate audit trail of absentee ballots and to show that the number of ballots returned was equal to the number accepted plus the number rejected.
... no evidence that the 875 absentee ballots tabulated in excess of identified voters is attributable to a recordkeeping error.
... no evidence that King County properly reconciled the poll site ballots as required by WAC 434-253-204, investigated every discrepancy and reported the results to the canvassing board.
... no evidence that the King County canvassing board reviewed the reconciliation of pollsite ballots prior to certifying the election, or even asked the election workers if they performed such a reconciliation.
... no evidence that the King County canvassing board wasn't aware of the pollsite reconciliation discrepancies and wasn't engaged in a deliberate cover-up and fraudulent certification.
... no evidence that the 395 extra ballots that King County produced during the recounts weren't stuffed ballots or even erroneously multiply counted ballots, which would have been precluded had King County performed a valid reconcilation.
... no evidence that a single ballot tabulated in the AccuVote machines in excess of the number of voters who signed the regular sections of the pollbooks came from a well-intentioned provisional voter who made an innocent error based on misunderstood instructions from an elderly poll inspector.
The Court concludes that mere ballot counting, without evidence of the number of voters who actually voted, is not sufficient to show that someone won an election.
The Court concludes that the election should be dismissed with prejudice and the certification of Ms. Gregoire as governor nullified.
As a resident of King Co., my verdict is that I dwell in the world's capital of election fraud. Court-approved even!
Do you have a geographic breakdown of the 1,673 non-specific illegal votes? I'd like to do my own probabilistic proportional deduction assessment. I'd like to start at the county level and maybe eventually do one at the precinct level. I recall Judge Earring reading off the illegal votes by county, so hopefully that information is readily available to someone. I hope you will post the transcript of the judge's ruling when it becomes available.
Thanks for all your good work.
Posted by: Far Star on June 7, 2005 12:18 PMIt is in KCE's violation of election laws and zero consequences of such that will haunt future elections in Washington.
Posted by: StephenR from Houston on June 7, 2005 12:21 PMA point I made to someone else just yesterday following the outcome. Your comments were spot on Stephan.
One thing I would be interested in seeing now that the election is past is a full analysis of ALL the illegally cast votes based on the statistical assumption that portionality "could" be used IF also taken into account were the number of ballots returned from a precinct or even a county for which there was a vote cast for any of the candidates AND no vote cast for any of the candidates. That in my mind seems to be a reasonable way around the ecological fallacy. I don't know if that data exists, but it would be an interesting study result to ponder.
Posted by: Jamie on June 7, 2005 12:28 PMI'm going to take you to task for this statement:
"The truth is that when it comes to most spheres of life, liberals simply cannot stand liberty".
Define for me the following:
a) what a liberal is (and no, the typical glib "big government, tax-and-spend" answers won't cut it -- I mean a substantive explanation of liberal philosophy), and;
b) what liberty is, how it manifests itself (i.e. the "spheres of life" you cite above), and how liberals consistently (as you suggest) obstruct citizens' access to such.
Then, define for me the following:
a) what a conservative is (and again, the typical "smaller government, lower taxes, family values", (etc.) answers don't qualify, and;
b) provide concrete examples of how conservatives consistently defend and/or enable the concept of liberty as you would define above.
Then, we can have a meaningful discussion.
In a lot of ways. Bridges said it was up to the voters, who are being disenfranchised by a corrupt election system, to use the corrupt system to fix the corrupt system. IOW, use a broken tool to fix the broken tool. Anyone else out there besides me absolutely boggled by the absurdity of this suggestion?
Another example: A man accuses his wife of adultery and challenges her to prove she is not. If you have the evidence you can prove she is but no amount of evidence can [prove that she is not. King county is the unfortunate wife in this instance, whom Reps are going to accuse of adultery until she proves she was not. Your logic is the same used by Josef Stalin--and you are smart enough to know it. You should be ashamed of yourself, Stefan Sharansky.
Posted by: dr quest on June 7, 2005 12:36 PMVery simple. The fox guarding the henhouse does a good job of keeping other predators out because he wants to have as big a meal as possible for himself.
The reason why the laws weren't followed is that those charged with administering those laws had no intention of or commitment to enforcing them. Those subject to those laws had (and have) no intention of abiding by them. The social contract has broken down in this case. When you simply decide that you aren't going to follow the rules, and know that those charged with enforcing them have no intention of imposing sanctions, what incentive is there to follow the rules? If you're an honest person, you will follow them because in your heart you know it is the right thing to do. But these are 'Rats we're talking about here. Notions of fairness, doing the right thing, having a sense of moral justice in your heart, are all foreign to them. Winning elections in any way possible is the sole aim.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 7, 2005 12:41 PMAnd I love that you have a tripple negative. Careful thought there.
First of all, no evidence means just that. The judge could have said that while petitioner presented some evidence, it didn't reach the threshhold of clear and convincing. He did not say so. In fact, he said that even on the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence, petitioner loses.
The judge did not say there was some evidence, but not enough. He said there was no evidence.
If the GOP had really been interested in winning a legal case, they would have gathered some evidence. The Dems were able to, and they started much latter. Again, the highly paid legal team for the GOP presented no evidence.
And what are you suggesting, from now on whenever anyone is elected, the loser (or is it just the GOP) will file a challange, and then it is up to the winner to prove they won? Please.
Beyond the fact that from what evidence we have it appears that the vast majority of those illegal votes went for Rossi, can you show that any of them changed the race? No, I thought not.
There was no evidence of fraud, there was no evidence of ballot stuffing. When Dale Foreman got up and proclaimed there was, he was lying. Accept the truth, or be consumed by your delusions.
Posted by: jdb on June 7, 2005 12:46 PMLook, you liberal moron, if your wife were having an affair, you would know it. How many divorce cases have their been where a PI has taken pictures of adulterous couples embracing outside of a hotel room or the husband found love letters and the judge found grounds for adultery without pictures of the couple actually performing intercourse? Your analogy is absurd. The courts in this country work on a preponderance of the evidence. If the system worked on confessions and actual direct evidence of a crime, the prisons would be empty.
I'll bet Scott Peterson wishes he had been tried by Judge Bridges: "Hey, I know it looks bad, but you know, &%$! happens. I didn't do anything wrong. No one saw me do anything wrong. Can I go now?" Funny how the standard of evidence for a capital case where a man's life is at stake is less than for an election.
Posted by: On the Far Right Side of the State on June 7, 2005 12:47 PMTripple? Careful spell checking there, you fricking moonbat.
At least the MSM remains as a whole predictably incapable of understanding and correctly describing complex issues.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 7, 2005 12:53 PMHe made it very clear that unless the actual voter came forward and identified how they voted, there was no evidence that a vote for governor was even cast by an illegal ballot.
So, unless election officials/workers are caught redhanded illegally altering ballots or counts or guilt ridden cheaters come forward and admit truthfully how they voted (how would we know), an election contest can never be won.
We need to demand improved laws that limit the ability of illegal votes to get into the mix to begin with. We need to demand an open and transparent election system (RCW, not WAC).
Ballot accountability, crediting, and reconciling need to become part of the RCW. Through audit documents and sworn declarations, they should PROVE that they followed the law in administering the election.
The SoS should be required to verify (and concur) the supporting county documents before they forward the results to the legislature.
People make mistakes. Some people cheat deliberately. Election results must not be left to these two categories to decide.
Posted by: Jack on June 7, 2005 12:56 PMAs far as "no proof" - Har! Proof that satisfies the extremely high burden placed on the Republicans in a court of law, and proof that satisfies reasonable people are two completely separate things -- especially when the gatekeepers of the proof are the malfeasants themselves.
There's no direct "proof" that black holes exist, yet most people now accept that they do.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 7, 2005 12:58 PMHar! When you can prove that you care more about fair elections and democracy than trying to advance your neo-socialist agenda.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 7, 2005 01:10 PMa) you have already provided the big government/tax and spend answers. However, to clarify, liberalism and those that preach it are too busy trying to tell the rest of us what is good for us and how to run our lives. Liberalism is parmount to socialism, and as stated by Norman Thomas (US Socialist Presidential Candidate) "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened."
b) liberty is the freedom to make your own choices, be that on how your children are educated and raised, or where and how to spend your paycheck. Liberals consistantly determine what is "good for the people" by making decisions for "the people" without input from "the people" They believe that the constitution is a "living, breathing document" to be changed at their whim when it suits them.
a) in addition to the lower taxes, smaller government, family values, conservatives believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution and all of the liberties and freedoms provided there in. We believe in letting people do more to run their own lives and spend their own paycheck however they see fit.
b) as far as defending the concept of liberty, more than 75% of the military (of which I am a veteran) identify themselves as conservative. Talk about defending liberty and the Constitution....They defend the rights and freedoms of the 75% of liberals who want to stay home and protest any and everything that doesn't fit into their socialist plan, the moveon.org folks, the freedom of the press folks, etc.
Posted by: cowboy on June 7, 2005 01:13 PMReturn now to Dale Foreman's stirring oration, on Bridges Court Day 1, about fraud, stuffed ballot boxes, illegal votes, and stolen elections ... assetions that were self-evident to anyone who has lived on Stefan's blog because Stefan assembled and deconstructed the evidence that propped up the assertions.
In the cold light of a hot day in Chelan County, though, trying to see the hot talk (stolen, stuffed, illegal, fraud) through a jurist's eyes or to hear it with his earringed ear, the rousing oratory was diminished by Democrat Hamilton's plodding iterations of evidence or "evidence" on pieces of paper. The 'Crats didn't make a clear or convincing case of anything except that they actually did the dirty work of matching a few illegal voters to paper showing Republican registrations (via other states) or affiliations. From those they deduced illegal Republican votes.
It's more than we did, & it clearly (we now know) comported with what Bridges determined last winter would be the convincing level of evidence he chose to require.
Posted by: sandalista on June 7, 2005 01:14 PMWhat do yousay about the people in court who ADMITTED that they broke rules and falsely filed papers of reconciliation (among other "mistakes)?
Is that a lack of evidence, coming from the horse's mouth?
Posted by: elmo on June 7, 2005 01:19 PM1) It has been said that the petitioners had to prove who the illegal voters were. Doesn't RCW actually say that it is the duty of the election officials to be able to tell who voted, who was eligible to vote, and therefore by deduction who was not eligible to vote and therefore cast an illegal vote? The fact is, even with all the discovery, the election officials had information that the petitioners could not get that made it impossible for the petitioners to prove who the illegal voters were. RCW was not followed, and the election officials were never required to prove who voted, who was eligible to vote, and who cast an illegal vote.
2) Judge Bridges deducted votes from Rossi based on the depositions of felons who said they voted for Rossi. Do we even need criminal courts in Washington anymore? Why not just put the accused on the stand and ask them whether they are guilty or not, they must be telling the truth.
3) Why was the picture of the guy with George Bush entered into evidence? Does having an autographed picture of George Bush prove that you voted for a gubernatorial candidate in the Washington 2004 election? Judge Bridges seemed quite concerned that the Republicans never proved that any of the 1,678 illegal votes actually voted for a candidate for Governor, as opposed to casting a ballot but leaving the Governor field blank. Where was the proof that the Bush picture toting fellon chose a candidate for Governor?
Posted by: Michael on June 7, 2005 01:21 PM
Be careful you don't get what you wish for, Stefan, sometimes Republicans win by less than the margin or error.
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 7, 2005 01:32 PMHe has leveled the playing field. When it comes to voting, both sides can now bring in busloads of "voters". No felon needs to be concerned about losing his/her voting rights. Dead people can have their votes harvested (perhaps multiple times). College students everywhere can earn extra money by going from precinct to precinct and voting at will.
From what the judge has ruled, evrything goes. Let the games begin.
Posted by: Ken Muller on June 7, 2005 01:46 PMAs usual with your party, when a direct question is asked, you obfuscate. In plain English, you're full of sh$t and refuse to admit what the court actually found and admitted into evidence. Arguing with you is truly a waste of good breath.
Posted by: Elmo on June 7, 2005 02:18 PMCan you show mistakes in the system? Yes, there were some. As it turns out, they were not just in King County, but fairly evenly spread out across the state. Can you show that people who shouldn't voted did? Yep again, but again, it turned out that they were fairly evenly spred out across the state.
Can you show that a single mistake effected the election? Nope, not a chance. The GOP put forward not a single shred of evidence that they did. Can you tell who the people who improperly voted voted for? Yes, the Dems did, and the judge accepted their proof. However the Republicans put forward not a single ounce of proof on how any of these illegal votes turned out, or if they had any effected on the election. None what so ever.
This standard was not a surprise, the crack GOP legal team, the minnow, Goldy, heck everyone that actually read what the law was and what the Judge said knew going in that this was the standard of proof. As I wrote over two weeks ago, when Dale Foreman promised proof for fraud and ballot stuffing when he had none, that is when the case was sunk. Judges don't like it when you can't deliver on your promises.
And for all of you whining that you can't have a fair election in this state, a few facts. The total of illegal/improper votes to all votes is less than approximately .06%. The changes that Sam Reed and others have proposed should reduce that numer to about .006%. So, unless an election is extremely close (now six votes per 10,000; next election six votes per 100,000), none of the mistakes, illegal/improper votes matter.
The system actually works pretty well. That doesn't mean that it can't be made better (and let's here it for Sam Reed and others making it at least 10x better by the next election), but stop whining and contemplating actual fraud. A) you will get caught, and B) 99 out of 100 times, it won't make a difference.
Posted by: JDB on June 7, 2005 02:31 PMI also think you meant tantamount, but I'm not surprised that your vocabulary is as lacking as your understanding of basic political theory.
Have a lovely day, wingnut.
Posted by: Mr. X on June 7, 2005 02:33 PMThanks for the information. However, I don't know if what was linked to a couple of weeks ago corresponds exactly to what Judge Earring ruled yesterday. With the judge's ruling, we now have legally identified 1,678 illegal votes. The judge deducted 4 of these from Rossi, 1 from Bennett, and didn't account for the remaining 1,673. Unless we assume (which I believe we have the right to do so) that he deducted the 1,673 from the 74,725 votes for "none of the above," I'd like to see for myself how these votes fall out. You see, in his desire to not make an allocation, Judge Earring did make an allocation (unless he thought he was suspending the laws of mathematics, which--robe or no robe--he cannot). By allocating 99.70% of the illegal votes to the "none of the above" category comprising 2.59% of the ballots, his allocation is totally unjustified--not a shred of evidence before him to support his action!
Posted by: Far Star on June 7, 2005 02:54 PMSee, there you go again.....trying to tell me what I think or what I meant just like all the other moonbats out there.
As stated in Websters: Paramount - Of chief concern or importance.
We know that you moonbats are all about redistribution of wealth, and getting into peoples heads to discern what they are thinking. Liberal = Socialist = Communist = Moonbat
Posted by: cowboy on June 7, 2005 03:16 PMWe're all voters here. The last election had major problems, ranging from official misconduct to probable fraud. The court put the chore of finding a remedy in our hands. If we don't acknowledge and define the problems, we can't fix them. If we don't fix the problems, the next close election will be just as big a mess as this one. You can stick your heads in the sand all you want, just don't ask me to keep you company.
JDB: Why the heck are you still trying to re-fight the court case? Move on already. We all know what happened.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 7, 2005 03:37 PMRight, Karl Marx would feel REAL comfortable being compared to the typical pro-corporate liberal Democrats of the DLC. All of our capitalist competitors in Europe and Japan who happily pay into state-run health insurance, provide solid company pensions, provide workers 3 weeks or more of paid vacation, and still manage to eat our lunch in the marketplace are communists, too.
Cowboy, your wealth of ignorance astounds me.
I am not refighting the court case. I have no reason to do so. I am trying to keep people here from lying about the case, and using words like fraud when there was none. I'm also hoping to start a little critical thinking, since hopefully having gone down in flames parotting what people like the minnow and John Carlson say hasn't helped you at all. Propaganda is fun, but truth is important.
The only fraud we have seen in the last six months is blog-fraud. Lets work together to stamp that out. That and a few good election reforms and this will be one heck of a state.
Posted by: JDB on June 7, 2005 04:07 PMSorry, Danny, you're the one too late to the game. Dr. Quest just used the Stalinist analogy right before you.
Posted by: boyko on June 7, 2005 04:12 PMYes, Judge Bridges dismissed the case - with prejudice - on the grounds that there was no evidence of fraud. And no, that isn't the same thing as "evidence of no fraud nor should it be!
America isn't the fascist regime that Herr Sharkansky and his ilk would like us to live in where a defendant must establish their innocence by proving a negative in the face of baseless charges.
No, Liberty consists of a system where there is a presumption of innocence, not guilt and where the burden of proof is on whoever is alleging wrongdoing.
If fraud was as rampant as the Republicans claimed it was or even a fraction as rampant as some of the delusional postings on this blog seem to think it was then finding some proof of it would be an easy task.
Some... Any... A Single Instance...
Is that too much to ask? That someone filing a lawsuit be able to prove their allegations? Would Comrade Stefanovich have his twisted idea of justice cut either way - or only when it's the Wrong-Wing hypocrite Republicans on the plaintiff's side of a frivolous lawsuit?
Of course, I doubt Sharkansky will ever get over the fact that a conservative judge in a conservative county chosen by the conservative plaintiffs in a cynical attempt at venue shopping found that there was NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD and chose to ignore the hypocritical invitations of conservatives to partake in judicial activism by ignoring the currently written laws and sending a message.
Posted by: SPB on June 7, 2005 04:20 PMMore to the point, NO, I'm not suggesting defendants prove their innocence to the government, only that government agencies prove the validity of their work product to the people. Do you understand the difference, PINHEAD?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 7, 2005 04:24 PMLet's just look at a few of those wacked-out concepts brought to you by liberal-commie moonbats: the GI Bill, food safety laws, labor laws, workplace safety laws, the Civil Rights movement, women's right to vote, etc.
Got a list of conservative accomplishments?
Posted by: boyko on June 7, 2005 05:07 PMWe won't have to see Janet Jackson's breast on television anymore.
Posted by: JDB on June 7, 2005 05:20 PMJDB keeps hollering about proof and evidence. He doesn't care about fair, legal elections. He is just gloating that he was able to slip so many provisionals into the accuvote without getting caught. Since we can't prove he did it, then apparently it didn't happen.
Posted by: Move_On? on June 7, 2005 05:43 PMThis link to EFF has a 159 pg (59 pages are the actual report, the rest is CEOC minutes and other documentation)Report on King County Elections that was released May 2004 regarding the November 2002 election problems.
http://www.metrokc.gov/MKCC/docs/CEOC_report.pdf
It is the complete findings and recommendations of the Citizens' Election Oversight Committee. It sure looks like "EVIDENCE" to me that KC was put on notice quite a while back, and exactly what changes they were expected to make.
It also contains the review and recommendations done by SOS Sam Reed. However, it is interesting to read how vague, general, and uncompelling his observations and "suggestions" come across. It does not have the resonance of authority or oversight that inspires my confidence.
Sorry, but I think Sam Reed's name belongs on the list with the other culprits that have not fulfilled their obligation to the public.
Cheryl in Chehalis
Posted by: Cheryl Russell on June 7, 2005 07:55 PMTwo candidates (A and B) with a total pool of 10 voters
A and B each receive 5 votes.
However, one voter is subsequently found to be an illegal voter - non-citizen, felon, or dead*. The election is contested and brought to JB.
Assume immunity has been granted to the illegal voter.
JBs only remedy would be to ask that illegal voter how he/she voted.
Here are the possible results:
1. The illegal voter cast a vote for "A" and admits to this. That vote is deducted from A. B wins the election.
2. The illegal voter cast a vote for A but says he/she voted for B (wants A to win). A wins the election since one vote would be subtracted from Bs total. The illegal voter actually controls two votes, the illegal one that was cast and counted plus the negated valid vote for B.
*3. Dead voter same as 2. but now one person has, in effect, three votes. Their own valid vote, the invalid vote cast in the name of a dead person but still counted, and the one the JB would take from "B".
Judge Bridges made a ruling that seesms to me to be a travesty of justice, maybe legal in the state of Washington, but a travesty. His remedy allows illegal voters to decide the election. He let illegal votes be counted since he did not deduct them from any candidate. He actually enabled five people to each control two votes when they had no right to vote at all (result #2 above). Would his ruling have been the same if the number of illegal votes was far greater than 1678? The same principle would apply but would a 50,000 or 100,000 illegal vote count have swayed him or would he still require illegal voters in court and thus give them all a chance to cast two votes?
Interesting hypothetical. I want to commend you on realising that the illegal voter can be granted immunity so there is no 5th amendment problems. I would also note that an illegal voter would not have the right to keep their vote secret, so he can be asked about it. A couple of criticisms:
First of all, remember, the standard of evidence. You would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the illegal/improper vote was cast one way or the other. The voter would be subject to cross examination and impeachment. Circumstantial evidence would be allowed in. Realistically, the results are:
1) The testimony of the illegal voter (IV) is such that by clear and convincing evidence, the judge believes he knows how the illegal voter voted (IV was a life time Republican, IV gave money to canidate A, IV mistakenly voted twice because his wife had sent in his absentee ballot and he had thought he lost it, so he showed up and voted provisionally for A, and the ballot got counted when it should not have, IV is terribly sorry and admits he voted for A.) The judge properly awards the election to B.
2) The testimony of IV doesn't reach the clear and convincing standard (IV is a proven liar, IV gave to B, but claims to have voted for A, IV is inconsistent on other items bringing his credibility into question). The vote remains a tie the coin flip is upheld.
3) It is shown that IV comitted fraud (IV had a ballot delivered to his house in his name and a made up name), the Judge orders a revote if it cannot be shown how IV voted. If it can be shown by collateral evidence how IV voted, the Judge awards the election to the other person.
The clear and convincing standard thwarts your worries.
Now imagine in your situation that A challanges the election after B wins the coin flip, claims B only got five votes by fraud, but provides no evidence what so ever of fraud, or even of how the IV voted. Why should A win the election? Shouldn't A be required to show how IV voted before we overturn an election? Without this requirement, we have the same result as you hypothetical.
Almost. You've ALMOST got it.
The people running the elections need to make 'em air tight so that the results cannot be questioned: no votes from dead people, the same number of ballots as voters, no duplicate votes, assurance that provisional ballots were checked as required by law.
Election officials should be able to prove in a court of law that they prevented any cheaters from stealing votes from honest people.
This should not be hard to understand. Accountants are held liable if they permit their clients to defraud the investors. What is so different here? Is it a lesser crime to steal a vote?
Why do people like you keep insisting that election officials should not be held accountable by the voters?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 06:20 AMYou set an impossible standard. By your standard, every election would be overthrown.
Let's look at dead voters. A's wife dies two weeks before the election. A uses his wife's absentee ballot. How does the system prevent that? How 'bout when A's wife dies two days before the election?
Duplicate votes? (and there were what, six?) As sgmmac and I discussed earlier, there are many scenarios that lead to duplicate votes, all of which are innocent. A fills out his absentee vote and plans to mail it. A later can't find it, and so he goes and votes provisional. It turns out A's wife had sent it in for him. The poll worker, at the end of a long and busy day, makes a mistake and sends the provisional through the system.
Now it should be noted that the proposed reforms take care of this. In fact, as has been pointed out, the proposed reforms from Sam Reed, Dean Logan, and others should take out about 90% of the illegal, improper votes.
It should also be noted that from everything that is out there, none of the errors in the vote seem to have been with an intent to throw the election one way or the other (as Judge Bridges has ruled). People voting for dead spouses is a bit troubling, but we are talking 19 votes out of 2.8 million. For some more perspective, we are talking a little under 1,400 felon voters out of approximately 150,000 felons in this state. The system is not perfect, but lets stop saying that the system if broken.
You will never, however, make a system that involves well over 2.8 million human transactions air tight.
Do you believe that the police should have to prove in court that they prevented any crime from being committed? Should the FEC prove that they prevented every instance of buisness fraud?
It is a human system. There will be mistakes and errors. Could the Washington system be made tighter? I believe yes, and you don't have to disenfranchise people or get rid of vote by mail as many on this site reactionarily want to do. As I said, the proposed reforms will take care of many of the problems. If the GOP had not blocked moving the primary back from September, that would get rid of a lot of the rest.
Now if we could just get the parties to stop being idiots and bring back the open primary, we would have a great election system.
Posted by: JDB on June 8, 2005 10:08 AMI am asking for the same level of accountability that is required in the private sector, for reasons that are just as urgent, if not more so.
This contest would have not have happened if King County had been *remotely* competent. They were not, however, and the voters of WA state are being asked to accept a miniscule victory despite HUNDREDS of ballots without voters (that means hundreds of people who voted twice or without being legal voters). That's like King County saying "trust us."
I don't think so. Why would I?
Why would the voters of WA state trust King County? Really, why?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 12:22 PMI'm not sure that if King County had run the election better and Gregoire had been ahead after the first recount by 128 votes that there would have been no contest. This contest was pushed for many reasons, and King Counties incompetence was just he most visible one.
That being said, I agree that if King County had run the election better, we all would be happier.
There were not, however, 100s of voterless ballots. Someone else has done the math, check through here or at horsesass, and the final number comes out to less than 100, and that is probably due to accounting problems. Note also, as the testimony showed, many counties had proportionally similar problems.
Can you site a private sector situation that is similar? Heck, FOX has messed up the American Idol voting system just this year, and I bet the Secretary of State and County Auditors offices would love to have half the money that FOX puts into its little game.
I don't say that you should trust King County. Heck, you should question authority at all times. But you should be equally critical of the authority of this board, the authorities that claimed fraud and yet couldn't bring up a shred of evidence of it, as you are of King County.
The good news, we can make King County better. As for the rest, perhaps we can all hope that politicians and cometators like we have here will stop saying whatever it takes and start working with facts.
Of course, we saw that with the agreement this year between the GOP and Dems to fix the roads in this state, with the GOP and Dems working together on stem cells, with conservative judges in Florida and on the Federal appeals bench in the Schiavo case, but in each case the far right has thrown a tantrum, so I'm not holding my breath
Posted by: JDB on June 8, 2005 02:41 PMHow is it that we can calculate the PRECISE (unforgiving) re-entry angle of a rocket so as not to fry our astronauts, yet we accept DUNG as someone's accuracy-in-voting work product?
Voting is the basic governmental root and right from which all is accomplished and all flourishes. Do you accept routine or 'acceptable levels' or "always has been this way" of "human errors" and "mistakes" in the water treatment plant that serves your home faucet? I'll bet not. Some measurements in life can slide. Voting is not one of them.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 8, 2005 07:36 PMLast I looked, NASA plunged the Mars Lander into the red planet because they couldn't keep metric and english units straight. If the landing of the Shuttle required nearly three million people to do everything perfect, I bet we get very few Shuttles down.
You are also comparing mathmatical and scientific results with a very human activity. Can you predict the score of all Seahawk games this year by the end of the week? What will your accuracy rate be?
Again, as I said, the system can be and should be improved, but hold it to the proper standard. Heck, we went to war based upon incredibly bad intelegence, if you want to make a human system better, shouldn't you concentrate on that. After all, there is no evidence that the King County mistakes mattered, on the other hand, those intelligence mistakes have killed tens of thousands.
Posted by: JDB on June 9, 2005 11:03 AM