Sound Politics co-conspirator Jim Miller has a terrific op-ed in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer "Consensus elusive on voting reforms"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 14, 2005 12:30 PM | Email ThisTruth be told, we should all be delighted that the Rs aren't running King County. With nearly 2% error in a LESS THAN 1000 VOTE caucus, can you imagine what they would have done with a King County election???? Oh yeah, that doesn't include illegal votes, felons, and goodness knows who else voted in the R caucus.
Stefan, would you be the first to apologize for the insults and accusations you've thrown at the Dems regarding elections when this past weekend shows the Reps are a magnitude worse at elections?
Posted by: Fred Harris on June 14, 2005 01:44 PMAn independant count by at least two news organizations found that Bush won in Florida. Check it yourself.
You think STEFAN should apologize? rofl
Posted by: Julie on June 14, 2005 02:15 PMYou are correct. Also, Gore wanted to only recount those Counties. I wonder how many votes they would have "found" as King County did?
As has been pointed out several times on this board, Bush does win if you limit the recount to the three counties Gore originally asked for. However, a full state recount, including both over and under votes, would have givent he victory to Gore. No one questions that Gore was the choice of more voters in Florida than Bush.
RadioMattM:
That is not what the Supreme's said. The Supreme's ruled out a recount because there was no set standard to recount all the votes in the same way, hence why Washington changed its recount laws in 2002 (Dino Rossi voted in favor of this, by the by). Note, it is strongly believed that the Florida Judge who would have decided this after the Florida Supreme Court ruling upholding a recounty would have set a broad standard (over and undervotes recounted) and have demanded a full state recount (which is what GWB wanted). Strangely enough, what Bush demanded, had he not had the Supreme Court step in and stop the recount, would have made Gore President, just as what Gore originally demanded (although, by this point, the "count every vote" mantra had taken off), would have made Bush President.
Now why the GOP cannot count less than 500 votes without massive fraud is beyond me. Robert or Radio, do you have any theories?
I do. Linky, please.
You realize that you're claiming that Bush got more votes in democratic counties and Gore got more in GOP counties? I doubt it.
The FL Supreme Court was the real villain in the 2000 election. If they hadn't grossly overstepped their authority, the Supreme Court would have had to slap them down.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 14, 2005 04:22 PMWhy is it the media reports that after a recount by two (reported two, don't know if any more) local (to Florida) media outlets, Bush's win was confirmed? I just don't get it. Perhaps you have info of more post election recounts that were not reported in the media?
Posted by: Robert-in-Tacoma on June 14, 2005 04:56 PMI wish the "open access" people would realize that when other people vote multiple times, it diminishes the voice of lawful voters. They're so concerned about disenfranchisement, but never admit that fraudulent votes are a form of disenfranchisement just as much as "losing" ballots. (Oh, the Dems did that too. Okay, just as much as preventing people from voting by slashing the tires of vans meant to take people to the polls. Oh, the Dems in Wisc. did that too.)
Posted by: Shannon K on June 14, 2005 05:09 PM"No one questions that Gore was the choice of more voters in Florida than Bush."
I do, too. For every link to a study that you can provide saying that Gore had more votes in Florida, I can link to an equally reputable study that says the opposite. Your quote might as well be "No one questions how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" for all the effect it has. What's the definition of 'moot'? So hypothetical as to be meaningless.
"Now why the GOP cannot count less than 500 votes without massive fraud is beyond me. Robert or Radio, do you have any theories?"
I can answer your question, but first I must point out that there was no massive fraud at the King County Republican Convention. Were you there? I can personally attest that every person who won a vote-tally there actually received the most votes. It's sad that Dean Logan can't say the same about Gregoire and Rossi, isn't it JDB? After all, he testified that he couldn't be sure that King County's results were accurate within 129 votes. It's true - you can look it up.
And here's your answer: counting votes is not the core competency, and not necessarily the raison d'etre, of the King County Republican Convention. The KCRC was used to bring all the PCOs and interested parties into the same room and to come out at the end of the day with a unified slate of Republican candidates for the ballots this November. Do they need to count votes in order to do this? Yes, but administering elections and counting votes is not the reason we have the KCRC.
Contrast this with King County Elections Commission, whose sole job it is to administer elections and count votes accurately.
You're confusing a convention that, among other things, needs to count votes with a commission formed solely to count votes. Would you take your car to a mechanic in order to fill up the gas tank? Would you take it to the gas station in order to have the fuel injector replaced? Just because both places are auto-related, don't assume they have the same mission statement.
Can King County say that????? Noooooooo. So go back to the drawing board.
Posted by: Michele on June 14, 2005 05:54 PM"No one questions that Gore was the choice of more voters in Florida than Bush."
I do. But you will continue to only believe what you want to so it doesn't really matter what you think (oops...feel)Sorry, forgot dems don't think, they feel.
Posted by: Miriam on June 14, 2005 08:27 PMWhat a completely insane thing to say.
I don't think I'll bother replying to you again. You are deeply dishonest.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 15, 2005 04:44 PM