Don’t be so quick to euthanize the mainstream media.
While a bunch of us liberal bloggers have been trying for weeks to convincingly explain why King County’s variance between voters credited and ballots cast is an irrelevant load of crap, it took a real reporter doing real reporting to finally, finally get the story straight. The Seattle P-I’s Neil Modie actually bothers to interview experts, ask them pertinent questions, and accurately report their responses in context. (I gotta get me one of them journalism schoolbooks.)
The result is a definitive answer to the question of what this so-called “discrepancy” really means. (Hint: absolutely nothing.)
The head of the nation’s largest election system thinks King County displayed amazing accuracy in a bureaucratic process that the Republican Party is focusing on in its attempt to overturn the governor’s election.
But Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Conny McCormack also thinks it’s irrelevant.
While King County officials defend the process in question as highly accurate and GOP critics call it shockingly inaccurate, McCormack said it’s a red herring, a flap over a postelection file-maintenance chore that has no bearing on the accuracy of the election returns.
“It has nothing to do with the ballot-counting. It’s a separate process,” she said this week. A nationally recognized authority on election administration and reform, McCormack made the comments in an interview given at the urging of King County election officials.
The criticism, she said, is “maligning the accuracy of the count based on something that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the count.”
Oh man… do you really need it spelled out any clearer than that? Well if so, Modie obliges:
After election results are certified, election workers electronically scan voters’ signatures into records. The purpose is to record, for future elections, who voted in the last one so that registration files can be purged of inactive voters and political parties and campaigns can obtain voters’ names and voting-frequency data.
Logan and McCormack said that record-keeping process, which they said is susceptible to human error, is being confused with the process of reconciling the number of ballots cast at each precinct and the number of people who voted at each precinct.
Those two numbers are supposed to be matched up before the final results are certified 15 days after the election. Logan said that’s the necessary check on election accuracy.
“It’s apples and oranges,” McCormack said. “I think someone is trying to confuse” the two (processes).
Ya think?
Of course, GOPolitburo Chair Chris “I’m rubber you’re glue” Vance accuses Democrats of trying to create confusion, calling the explanation “smoke and mirrors and jargon and gobbledygook.” Meanwhile, soon-to-be-unemployed Rossi spokesperson Mary Lane admits to being confused herself, saying it “makes no sense to me. They’re trying to condescend to us and say, ‘Oh, you don’t understand.'”
Um… Mary… maybe that’s because you don’t understand. Perhaps a fellow Republican can better explain it to you.
Secretary of State Reed said he thinks most counties don’t even calculate voter-crediting variances “because it’s not particularly relevant to anything meaningful.”
How devastating is Modie’s article to the Republican’s manufactured outrage? Well one of the state GOP’s leading outrage manufacturers, Sound Politics, seems downright tongue tied. Indeed, the Snark’s only rebuttal is to ridicule LA County Elections for being even more inaccurate than King County.
But then, to address the rest of the article would force Snark to issue a correction for comments he attributed to former KC Elections Director Bob Bruce:
I spoke with Bob Bruce later on Monday afternoon. He doesn’t recall the exact number of the 2000 discrepancy but said it was “under 20”. Bruce also told me that in his 12 years in senior positions at King County elections he never saw a discrepancy that was anywhere near as large as the 2004 discrepancy and can’t imagine what would explain it.
Well either Snark didn’t understand the issue well enough to ask the right questions… or he didn’t understand Bruce’s answers, for as Modie (the real journalist) reports:
Bruce, who was King County elections superintendent and later the records and elections director for 13 years, until 2002, said that discrepancy wasn’t even calculated when he was there because it wasn’t necessary, and it “should not be an issue” now.
“We never bothered doing a comparison (of the variance with those of previous elections) because we never needed to,” Bruce said. “But I would guess that it would probably have been about the same number” as the 2004 variance.
Bruce was quoted recently as saying the discrepancy in the 2000 presidential election was less than 20 votes. But yesterday he explained, “We’re not talking about crediting. We’re talking about the variance between the number of names in the poll book and the number of people who voted,” a reflection of actual election-return accuracy.
If that type of discrepancy turns up in a precinct-by-precinct reconciliation of the election canvassing process, Logan said, “then we run (returns from) that polling place again” during the canvass to find the error.
So there it is. Now we all understand what “The Discrepancy” is, and what it isn’t. And we owe it all to (gasp) the MSM.
UPDATE:
While we’re on the subject of public misconceptions about the integrity of the election, I thought I’d add this comment from Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed (from the transcript of a live chat published in The Olympian, via WashBlog, via Progressive Majority for Washington):
Moderator: Anything, Sam, you want so say that you haven’t had a chance to address? Any urban myths?
Reed: Actually, there is, you are right. A frustration of mine as a person with considerable experience in the field of elections is that some of the rumors of errors, mistakes, illegalities, were absolutely incorrect, but because of the Internet, blogs and talk radio, they were circulated rapidly and extensively and helped contribute to the loss of confidence and trust in the system. I would hope in the future that the people who operate these blogs and the talk radio hosts will exercise the caution and ethics of the journalism profession, and that will help the citizery understand what really happened in the election process.
Hear that Stefan? Sam’s talking to you.
Unfortunately, your spin is upside down from where most people stand on this issue. The certified difference was 129 votes. The actual King County vote discrepancy, at best, was over 1800 voters versus ballots. Regardless of how you want to phrase, term, or spin that difference, it’s real and it’s far greater than the “certified” difference in votes between the two candidates. People are becoming increasingly fed up with the partisan rancor AND the election shenanigans. Your blithe article will likely do very little to stem the overwhelming sentiment for true election reform. And that is a very good thing.
”Logan and McCormack said that record-keeping process, which they said is susceptible to human error, is being confused with the process of reconciling the number of ballots cast at each precinct and the number of people who voted at each precinct.”
I thought the number of ballots cast at each precinct and the number of people who voted at each precinct is the discrepancy. Why doesn’t Logan produce the precinct data obtained from the reconciliation performed at the precincts on election night?
Bruce – “We’re not talking about crediting. We’re talking about the variance between the number of names in the poll book and the number of people who voted,”
I agree, we are not talking about crediting. Again, where is the precinct-by-precinct data? The Shark has been swimming in this cesspool precisely because King County does not have it, or refuses release it…
The shark talked about one of these claims today- and to paraphrase- it was the pot calling the kettle black- or- you have such good numbers.
We need a re-vote.
If for no other reason than to have a Republican get to Bush and have him drop his energy proposal to double our power bills.
swatter @4: Your answer clearly demonstrates that the “revote” crusade isn’t about fairness, ethics, accuracy, felons, military, dead people, fraud, etc. It’s about doing whatever is possible to get a repulbican in the seat. Sad, really, but at leat you are upfront about it unlike most dittoheads out there…
Goldy,
QUOTE:
“process of reconciling the number of ballots cast at each precinct and the number of people who voted at each precinct.
Those two numbers are supposed to be matched up before the final results are certified 15 days after the election. Logan said that’s the necessary check on election accuracy.”
What is missing here is statement by Logan that the precinct matching forms did in fact pretty much match on election night or shortly thereafter. Why doesn’t he come out and say that, or explain the status of that review. I gather from a statement made by SOS Reed that that is something the SOS reviews on a periodic basis to ensure that the Counties are adequately administering their elections.
The article does a useful job of explaining the difference between the crediting process and the matching process, but leaves open the big unanswered question of how well the matching process went.
The actual King County vote discrepancy, at best, was over 1800 voters versus ballots
No. You’re wrong. You’re totally wrong. That’s what the article points out. Try reading it before you regurgitate the same argument. The article points out that the two lists have nothing to do with each other and are not required to reconcile. So it’s not spin to claim the “1800” figure categorically does not represent a discrepancy of 1800 voters versus ballots.
You, of course, are free to continue to believe it does, despite all evidence to the contrary. But the fact remains that the Republicans have definitively lost yet another supposed “smoking gun” to use in their court case.
At this point I think the only thing Republicans have left to pin their hopes on is the mid-fed provisional ballots.
The article does a useful job of explaining the difference between the crediting process and the matching process, but leaves open the big unanswered question of how well the matching process went.
chew2 is, of course, correct. However, the unanswered question isn’t enough “doubt” to prove anything legally. And it’s a far weaker argument for the Republicans than claiming that there already is a 1800 vote/voter discrepancy.
Now if the Republicans want to continue that line of argument they’ll have to back-track and prove it some other way. My guess is that if they thought the poll books had an actual vote/voter discrepancy, we would have seen evidence of that already.
Okay, jcricket – I’m BAAACCCKKK!!
NOBODY MESSES W/ MY MARUMMY!!!
Here’s the full quote, jackals:
“Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane said the notion that critics are making an apples-to-oranges comparison of two separate election processes “makes no sense to me. They’re trying to condescend to us and say, ‘Oh, you don’t understand.’ The fact that (Logan) cannot explain this discrepancy … just doesn’t cut it.
Yup, THE Marummy is right! Guess what “Governor Dean” Logan said to the King County Council, you guys:
“I want to be upfront and honest with you and say that we believe the variance that is represented in the post-election process is really an issue of human error in accrediting voters and the process that takes place at polling places on election day.” (1:05:30-1:06:00 of the Committee of the Whole RealPlayer)
Human error translates into concerns that not ALL of those “mystery voters” were legit.
In fact, as far as those provisionals, Logan said the way he was able to find out the # who were legit was… voter reconciliation. Yup, voter reconciliation is how we ensured 252 ballots were valid.
Maybe YOU Gregocrats don’t have a clue.
HAIL MARUMMY!
Zapporo @1
If true, that is unfortunate, because it would mean most people are wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And the fact is, any discrepancy between the voter list and the ballots cast is meaningless and irrelevant.
Now if Rossi goes back to the poll books and finds large unexplained discrepancies in the precinct-by-precinct reconciliations, well then, that might mean something.
Chew 2 @6
I will ask about the precinct-level reconciliations. But my guess is that if King County published a report showing there was very little variance at the precinct level, Rossi’s people would counter with “How can we trust King County when we already know there’s an 1800 vote discrepancy?”
This whole contest has always been more about spin than the law.
Goldy @ 10
I suspect that there are issues with the pollbook-to-votes reconciliation. Chew2 @ 6 understates the importance of that. It is law that says the pollbook must match the votes and that any discrepancies must be researched and explained.
If, in fact, the precinct-level reconciliations had been done, Logan could have released them LONG ago and the 1,800 votes would be a tempest in a teapot.
If we assume no voter fraud, then I suspect that it was another case of KingCo screwing up and not following procedure by not (properly) doing those precinct-level reconciliations. Logan isn’t about to admit ANOTHER screw-up that would, in fact, cast more doubt about the election. He’d just shut up about it.
How is this the definitive answer? The article is surprisingly balanced.. giving the statements of 3 people on each side of the question and drawing no real conclusions. I think the last paragraph sums it up for me. I don’t care what you call the list or which list it is but if any elections office can’t provide a list of participating voters that matches the number of ballots… you’ve got a problem.
If, as claimed, using the list provided is comparing apples to oranges… then where is the list of apples?
VR @12
Yeah, but the three people claiming there is a problem are partisan Republicans (hell… you can’t get much more partisan than Chris Vance and Mary Lane, whose job descriptions includes “lying”), whereas the four claiming there is no problem are all experienced elections professionals.
So tell me… who has more credibility on this issue… Dino Rossi’s spokesperson, or our Republican Secretary of State? The WA State GOP Chair, or the LA County Director of Elections?
And what makes this definitive is not just that elections experts unanimously agree that the variance between the voter database and the number of ballots is meaningless and irrelevant (and I’ve yet to see a professional disagree), but that it actually explains the real reconciliation process.
Goldy: You’re being too hard on Stefan. Today, he makes an excellent point in comparing error rates in crediting voter records with error rates in the air traffic control system. He’s right, a 0.2% error rate at SeaTac would mean two crashes a day!!!! If SeaTac can do better, why not King County?
The answer is obvious. We should outfit every voter and every ballot with a radio transponder so we can constantly track position. Movements of each should be carefully monitored by an army of highly trained professionals deployed in control centers across the county. We’ll need to limit transactions to a few thousand a day to avoid overwhelming the system — but that’s a small price to pay when mistakes are unacceptable. We can pay for the whole thing with an excise tax of $10-20 per ballot — that would raise up to $20M for the next general election in King County alone.
Now, some of you are probably saying “C’mon, failing to credit someone with voting isn’t exactly the same as driving two 747s into each other.” All I can say is, you wouldn’t feel that way if your candidate lost.
jim, you can do and say what you want. In this case you are fiddling and diddling while Rome burns.
How is Gregoire, Cantwell or Murray going to muster enough political power to solve this latest proposal by Bush to overcharge us for the hydroelectric power?
I am not sure Rossi can, but we have am uch better chance with a couple of ‘heavy-hitter’ politicians at least of the same genre as the power broker.
And, while I think there is enough discrepancy that the third count should be thrown out, we still need to address this issue.
I don’t even want to get sidetracked onto who whe trust, definately a matter of opinion.
So where is the list of participating voters that matches the number of ballots?
The article is only about comparing the current credited voters list to the ballot total. OK. For the sake of arguement, I’ll agree 100% that we should not compare these two and that there is no reason to compare these two and we can get off that subject for a moment. OK, are we off it? Don’t forget, ok?… we’re not talking about THAT list.
Now, where is a list, any list, of voters that shows that ANY reconciliation was done that directly addresses the number of participating voters and the number of ballots? The issue isn’t really the list. The issue is that we don’t believe there is any reconciliation that matches the participating voters to the number of ballots. If there were such a reconciliation and it matched, wouldn’t Logan be showing it off?
Mark,
I’m going to guess that King did in fact do the poll book matching required by 29A.44.420, since that has been a requirement for some time. I just want to know the results. I believe these are done with the ballot accountability forms required for each polling place. Perhaps, you are right that there are a large number of discrepancies. I’m sure that will come out. HOWEVER, there is no legal requirement that they match however, only that discrepancies are noted.
RCW 29A.44.280 specifies the poll book matching, and only requires discrepancies are to be noted.
“Duties of election officers after unused ballots secure.
Immediately after the unused ballots are secure, the precinct election officers shall count the number of voted ballots and make a record of any discrepancy between this number and the number of voters who signed the poll book for that precinct or polling place, complete the certifications in the poll book, prepare the ballots for transfer to the counting center if necessary, and seal the voting devices.”
***********************************************************
Whether King did the more detailed reconciliation required by the emergency regulation WAC 434-253-203 is a little more iffy since this was the first time this was required and there is some possibility that some counties weren’t even aware of the regulation. The regulation specifies various steps the Counties are to take to reconcile discrepancies, but in the end only requires them to note any unresolved discrepancies. Micajah on his blog points to some cryptic comments by SOS Reed that suggests he believes King did this and that their results “matched”.
Credit to Micajah for pointing these out.
Rick – Having the precints balance on election night is great but it doesn’t preclude funny business of missing or added ballots after election night. It also doesn’t address mailed ballots at all. In my mind it certainly doesn’t confirm that the election results are accurate.
VR @ 19
What missing or added ballots are you talking about, specifically?
scottd,
I think contracting out the polling place security job to the guys in Las Vegas who watch for cheating in casinos would be cheaper than transponders and GPS tracking — but not as much fun. Good idea! :D
Goldy,
The pre-certification count of voters credited with voting at the polls was done by hand at each polling place — counting the signatures in the poll books and writing that number on the ballot accountability forms — assuming it was done at all, and assuming it was recorded in a way that is similar to the rules.
The post-certification update of voter records was done by hand — by passing a “wand” over the bar codes in the poll books to “capture” the data and upload it into the database.
Both are done by hand and both are subject to errors.
The post-certification scanning was apparently not done in a way that would have allowed the people doing it to recognize that some error had occurred until after they finished scanning the bar codes in all the poll books. They seem to have scanned the approximately 330,000 signatures in the poll books in one long process, then later it was noted that there were 1853 fewer signatures scanned than ballots in the vote tallying process.
Since they didn’t double-check the count as they finished each poll book, their only apparent way of trying to eliminate an error in the scanning is to scan them all again. They don’t know which poll books weren’t correctly scanned — assuming it was the scanning that was erroneously done and not the signature counts done on election night by the polling place officials.
Do you think it would be better to scan those bar codes and put the information into the database one polling place at a time as part of the pre-certification process?
Then, they could check before moving on to the next poll book to see if the number of signatures scanned into the database matched the number of signatures reported on the ballot accountability form and the number of ballots in the tallying process.
If a discrepancy was noticed, they could re-scan that poll book to see if the error was made by the polling place officials rather than the person doing the bar code scanning.
By doing the scanning before certification, they could kill two birds with one stone. They could double-check the count done by hand by the polling place officials, and they could capture and upload the data for their voter registration files.
Since they’re going to scan that bar code data into the database soon after certification, why not do it before certification?
Why rely solely on the signature counts reported by the polling place workers?
Scottd @14
Very funny. And dead on.
VR @ 17: Let’s try your argument from the other direction.
The polling place reconciliation is done on Election Night and is required by law. It would certainly show if ballot boxes were stuffed and it would be a big problem for King County if those reconciliation records did not exist.
Now, given that the WSRP has subpoena power to look at any record it wants, don’t you think Vance would be showing it off if there was a problem there? Instead, he keeps presenting ever inflating numbers based on specious analysis. Why is that?
RS @ 15
“…should we think it reasonable to expect King County to go through the full effort required to eliminate every last error…”
Uhhh… yeah. Considering they have to follow WAC 434-253-203.
chew2 @ 18
“Whether King did the more detailed reconciliation required by… WAC 434-253-203 is a little more iffy… some possibility that some counties weren’t even aware of the regulation.”
If ANY counties use the above argument in court, I’ll have to remember that for the next time I go speeding on their highways.
7′ Cop with Mirrored Sunglasses: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse, sir.”
Me: “Hmmm… that’s not what your county auditor says.”
scottd @ 22
“…it would be a big problem for King County if those reconciliation records did not exist. …don’t you think Vance would be showing it off if there was a problem there?… Why is that?”
I suspect that KingCo does have a big problem with the reconciliation records. Otherwise, as I mentioned above, Logan could release them and that angle of the court case would be moot. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Why hasn’t Logan simply released those documents and shut everyone up?
Mark @ 23
RS isn’t talking about election night reconciliation under the WAC. You’re confusing the issue again. He is referring to the “discrepancy” based on voter credits. We know this because he refers directly to the election night process separately:
“That accounting and reconcilitation was done, on election night with observers from both partieis present, on a precinct-by-precinct basis.”
“maligning the accuracy of the count based on something that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the count.”
Bet she got an A+ in talking out her butt, what an oxy-moron this is. Just like any politicial figure that is in hot water they become less articulate the larger lies get.
Mark@25: Suspect all you like. Rossi, Vance, et al are making the accusations — they have the burden of proof. So far, the evidence they are providing on the discrepancies issue is irrelevant or bogus. We’ll see if they have anything better in court.
Adriel, it’s quite clear–the discrepancy reported by King is the result of the voter crediting process…which has nothing to do with the accuracy of the count, conducted on election night and then twice subsequently. It does not, in fact, have anything to do with the accuracy of the count.
torridjoe –
“That accounting and reconcilitation was done, on election night with observers from both partieis present, on a precinct-by-precinct basis.”
Where is that data? I would love to see it…RS can say the moon is cheese, but he better be able to back that up with facts.
Nice job Goldy. Today’s post amounts to the final blow to wingnuts conspiracy theories (or at least it should).
When the SOS in your own party tells you you’re full of it and that you screwed up, thats pretty damning.
Torridjoe- did you hear what you just said? what I heard was checking voter roles against votes doesn’t ensure accuracy, is this what you meant to say? If that is what you meant then maybe we should come up with a better system or purge the voter registration.
Mark at 24,
Conservatives complain about fat bureaucrats imposing burdensome and unrealistic regulations all the time. Why not here?
Based on the available info, and Sam Reed’s comments, I’m going to bet that King did make an effort to comply with the regulation and were successful.
I’m also going to bet that there were no major discrepancies shown, but we’ll just have to wait and see if the GOP can discover anything in their lawsuit. If we don’t hear anything, then I’ll assume there wasn’t anything there.
It’s unclear what penalties the SOS can impose, if any, for failing to comply with the regulation. But in any case, failure to comply would, in and of itself, be no grounds for challenging the election. Post election reconciliation could not have changed the outcome of the election. If any improper votes were cast, it wasn’t caused by a post election reconciliation process.
I’m sure the GOP finds any improper votes we’ll hear about it. But the variance of 1860 in the crediting process is no evidence of that.
P
torridjoe–
YAHOO!!! You are back again. YAHOO!!
I remind all of you 1 more time, that a number of Counties did feel the reconciliation of votes & voters is critical to assure all voters that CONTROLS UPFRONT (as Logan refers to them) did actually work. Logan screwed up and his only defense is to say “Trust Me”, I’m the best Election Official in the WHOLE DAMN STATE. Why Dean Logan even proved he is the best, didn’t he??
Dean Logan investigated Dean Logan and then Dean Logan gave Dean Logan an A+!!!!!
Any internal auditor understands you set up controls but MUST also have checks & balances to make certain these controls are actually working. Reconciling votes and voters is one obvious, fundamental step prior to certification.
Jefferson County has 2 election staff members. They counted 18,772 ballots and have provided a list of 18,769 voters names and 3 ACP (address Confidentiality Program voters)===18,772 voters. They reconciled 100%.
Jefferson County also hand-recounted these 18,772 ballots with 3 teams of 2 IN ONLY 3-1/2 HOURS!!!!!!!!!!!
Clearly, some County’s run first-rate elections….while others make excuses.
Sims & the Democratic Party spin machine bringing in some “expert” from LA is laughable. What exactly did McCormick audit before praising Logan??? NOTHING!!!!!!!! She took Logan’s data, Logan’s spin and signed off. PATHETIC!!!!!!
Mark @ 24
You’ve missed the point entirely. The voter list that is extracted from the polling books after the results have been certified is the sole basis for all Republican claims regarding any discrepancy in King County. Go to this page, search for “203” on that page, and show me where this particular administrative code pertains, in any way, to voter lists extracted from polling books after the election has been certified. The very last phrase in WAC 434-253-203 reads, “before the election can be certified.”
marks @ 30
The law requires that canvassing boards conduct that very reconciliation. The fact that the election was certified by the Secretary of State is prima facie evidence that the reconcilliation was carried out. The burden of proof is on those who want to claim that there were errors in the election night reconcilliation, and Chris Vance and the Republicans are the ones who are advancing a moon-made-of-cheese claim.
As for where the data is contained, contact the office of the Secretary of State. Since the election was certified, those forms must exist, and are subject to open records laws. It is, however, utterly and entirely specious to speculate on various web sites about the accuracy of the election when all you have to do is go ask the right agency. The legwork is yours to do. The election was certified.
torridjoe–
Do you really truly believe with 100% certainty that ALL of these discrepancies can be explained by human error in the voter crediting process????
I know you are a data analyst….not an auditor or internal control specialist. This is your obvious “blind-spot”. KingCo has had months to go back and re-assess this voter crediting. They spent weeks trying to do so. Then they gave up.
The bottom-line here is some Counties reconciled. Others did not to varying degrees. The attitude of “Expert” Logan will be his downful despite what his playmate from LA County says. Let’s check her background and find out where she is coming from. Any bets she’s a Lefty who was urged to step into this fray out of Party loyalty??????
there is a problem are partisan Republicans (hell… you can’t get much more partisan than Chris Vance and Mary Lane, whose job descriptions includes “lying”),
THAT’S IT, FRIEND. THAT I-T. I WANT YOU TO NAME FOR ME THE SPECIFIC “L-Y-I-N-G” THAT MY DEAR FRIEND MARY “MARUMMY” LANE HAS MADE. I’M REALLY, REALLY MAD, GOLDY. I’D DO THE SAME FOR YOU!
So tell me… who has more credibility on this issue… Dino Rossi’s spokesperson, or our Republican Secretary of State? The WA State GOP Chair, or the LA County Director of Elections?
Try Dean Logan, who Mary Lane quotes and notes. And guess what Dean Logan said as to vote-to-voter reconciliation:
“I want to be upfront and honest with you and say that we believe the variance that is represented in the post-election process is really an issue of human error in accrediting voters and the process that takes place at polling places on election day.” (1:05:30-1:06:00 of the Committee of the Whole RealPlayer)
He then went on to say that as far as those provisionals, Logan said the way he was able to find out the # who were legit was… voter reconciliation. Yup, voter reconciliation is how we ensured 252 ballots of the 357 were actually valid.
I think you need to be careful. Mary Lane is my friend and she would NOT lie, period. I can’t even get her to say the word ‘fraud’ in a sentence, yet…
Rick–
You are absolutely incorrect in your assertion that Sam Reed’s certification is “prima facie evidence that the reconciliation was carried out”.
Reed clearly stated and documented that his role was to merely add up whatever the County’s reported…..report and certify that number. PERIOD!!
Why would you make this up Rick???
zapporo @ 1
Your comment about “where most people stand” reminds me of the old Lone Ranger – Tonto joke (“what you mean, we?”), i.e., speak for yourself, as you most certainly are not talking about me or any other Democrats I know.
However, if somehow due to mass stupidity you’re correct about what “most” people think, then the lemming analogy applies (“I don’t know where we’re going either, but two million lemmings can’t be wrong, can they?”).
According to Bridges, the legal assumption is that the conduct of election officials was proper and orderly. In other words, the burden is entirely on the petitioners to show it was not. What this means as regards the pollnight reconciliation, is that until someone proves otherwise, it must be accepted by law that they were done, and done properly. So neither Dean Logan nor Sam Reed are under any obligation to prove their cases.
Nonetheless, I’m still waiting to hear back from the SoS on this issue.
Mr Cynical, Jefferson County can match up their voter credit list with ballots, more than likely because they only have 18,000 voters. As Carla and I showed, error is largely a function of number of ballots. The counties with very small ballot totals, were much better than those with larger totals. I suspect the accuracy rate is inversely geometric, roughly–which is why it doesn’t surprise me at all that LA County has about 4 times as many voters as King, and has an accuracy rate about 5 times higher than King’s (when talking about voter credit discrepancies, anyway).
Torridjoe – I’m not talking about any specific added or missing ballots. I’m not saying that there are any improperly added or missing ballots. I’m saying that the system should have an overall reconciliation of participating voters to the number of ballots to avoid the possibility of added or missing ballots.
I’m saying that it’s important to balance the ballots to voters at the precinct and to my thinking is equally important to balance ballots to voters at the end of the count (but before certification).
To balance my accounting books at work, each deposit has to balance, but so does the bank account total and the receivables account.
The election is an entire process, we need to be able to track, balance, and confirm at every step.
By the way, Bridges declined to clarify his rulings, or fast track the hearing process, today in Chelan. I comment on David Postman’s Times article here:
http://alsoalso.typepad.com/al.....dges_.html
VR @ 41
isn’t that what is presumed to have been done? I believe so.
Mark @ 11
Who gives a damn what you suspect.
Scottd @ 14
I feel their pain. We Gregoire supporters knew, for about a month, what it feels like. I’m perfectly willing to extend my sympathy and condolences to the Rossi camp whenever they’re ready to accept the fact they lost.
swatter @ 16
Where did you ever get the notion that Rossi is willing to butt heads with Bush over the boy-king’s scheme to wreck our state’s economy by jacking up BPA rates 60%? Help me out here. Is that on a r/w blog somewhere? (I don’t read those things.) Rossi, himself, has been real quiet about this issue so far — not exactly what I’d call stepping up to the plate.
VR @ 17, 19
Thank you for not wandering off topic, but for the record, I don’t trust anyone you trust. And who gives a damn what’s in your mind. If you think someone “added” ballots after election night, cough up the evidence. Otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air.
Erik @ 31
Agree; but unfortunately it won’t shut them up, because they like to hear themselves talk.
Don @ 44
What flew up your a%%? You used to be much more interesting to “talk” to.
This may be lost on you, but (next to) nothing on here is firsthand knowledge. It is mainly belief, suspicion, conjecture and vitriol. However, from participating in said rantings, the authors & readers can gain new insight, sink deeper into the Kool-Aid vat or merely agree to disagree.
Marummy Speaks: DINOCRATS WIN, GREGOCRATS LOSE
(Okay, hyperbole aside – you Gregocrats lost again!!! Judge denied your spin!!! Paging Kirstin Brost: Come home and save that ogre called your former boss!!)
YEAH!!! WOO-HOO!!! HAIL MA-RUMMY!!!
“The Donald”- what is he supposed to say?
I just found another “dead” voter in Snohomish County. The voter was real proud of the accomplshment, too. But the voter never told me who they voted for in the seance appearance.
Actually, a live person did the voting for the dead person but I wanted to ‘spice’ up the above paragraph. The ‘live’ person was real proud of the accomplshment.
I hate absentee ballots.
swatter @ 47
if you are serious, you should report that to the Snohomish elections board, the county prosecutor, and the county sherriff’s office. They will take care of it from there.
Josef @ 46
I KNEW IT! I predicted they’d declare a victory (although I guess you don’t need to be Miss Cleo to figure that one out). Do you have a link to Mary’s statement? I can link to your post, but I’d rather link to the primary source and hat-tip you instead if I can.
Micajah @21
My only possible correction to your description of the pre-certification process is that I believe the poll-workers don’t actually count the signatures in the poll book, they tally the numbered voter log. I’m waiting for confirmation on this.
While what you propose… combining the reconciliation and voter creditation processes makes sense, I just want to point out that the current processes are defensible within the context of how they are currently utilized.
Precinct by precinct reconciliation needs to be accurate and fast… an election night accounting procedure intended to uncover any potential fraud or error at the polling place. It does not actually gather data, but rather compares data that has already been collected (the number of voters signing the log, the number of ballots issued, the number scanned into the machine, etc.)
Voter creditation is a data collection process that requires hand scanning individual bar codes in the poll books, a manual process that surely introduces data collection errors. The data is used to help manage future elections, and to provide voter activity information to the parties. Because it involves the collection of less critical data, used for less critical purposes — and because it is currently not used as part of the reconciliation process — a modest error rate is acceptable.
The problem with combining polling place reconciliation with voter creditation is that utilizing current technology, we would almost certainly introduce greater error into the more important reconciliation process. Given the necessary investment in new technology, these two separate processes could surely be accurately and efficiently combined, as you suggest. But the only real benefit from such an investment would be a more accurate voter database, for once both creditation and reconciliation data are collected out of the same process, one ceases to become a useful means of double-checking the other… as their raw data will necessarily be identical.
I don’t mean to dis your suggestions. At the very least they would serve to increase public confidence in the integrity of elections. But I’m not sure it would actually make our elections any more secure.
Like all public expenditures we would need to make a cost benefit analysis.
ANNOUNCING THE NEW KING COUNTY BANK! We guarantee an accuracy on all your deposits of 99.8%. So when you make a deposit of your paycheck, for each $1,000 deposited, we will credit your account with $998.00. We, also will require that you must write every check and debit card transaction for 2% more than the actual amount of the charge. And, we guarantee accuracy on your statements of 99.8% and if you complain, we’ll just explain that the Democrats and the KC Elections said that this is accuracy ANY BANK can envy. How about it libs, does this sound like the kind of bank you would be confident in using? Well, I feel the same way about King County Elections ability to assure me that just the votes and only the legal votes were counted.
Bill @ 50
Does this bank you’re starting require that all deposits and withdrawls are to be kept secret, so that you cannot match a bank customer and their transactions?
torridjoe@40–
“I suspect the accuracy rate is inversely geometric–roughly”.
HUH????
Is this what the Dems are going to tell the Judge??
It is NOT simply a matter of numbers. Jefferson County only has 2 Election staff members. It’s more a matter of professionalism.
Comment by torridjoe— 2/18/05 @ 11:39 am;
http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/.....ction.html
Cynical @ 52
you can assert that it’s a matter of professionalism, but what evidence do you have to substantiate it? I’ve got statistical evidence to support my contention.
josef @ 53
Yeah, I’ve got the link to your post. Do you have a link to the press release itself? Or if it’s email, can you forward it to me at alsoalso.also@gmail.com?
Goldy @ 13 – your comparisons; “So tell me… who has more credibility on this issue… Dino Rossi’s spokesperson, or our Republican Secretary of State? The WA State GOP Chair, or the LA County Director of Elections?”
In most areas, the SoS has more credibility, but when it comes to credibility in enforcing the letter of the law about reconciling votes, Reed falls short. He tries to be non-partisan, but loses credibility by being too lax on enforcement. To his defense, there has been no election of this magnitude with such a small margin, which is definitely disputable – the courts will decide, just as the progressives/leftists would like them to decide virtually everything – right ?
On the last matchup, the GOP chairman or the LA County Director of Elections ? The LA County Director of Elections is a weak sister compared to Dean Logan, which ought to spell out how pathetic they really are. Logan should be either terminated for his unaccountability and incompetence(but won’t) or voted out of office when his position becomes an elected one. Chris Vance doesn’t regulate elections, so that comparison is comparing apples vs. oranges. Vance leaves something to be desired and Behrens is a fine used car salesman but a bloviating hack – but that’s his job and their agenda is to promote their party however they have nothing to do with regulating elections. This comparison is apples and oranges – perhaps tongue in cheek (?)
“And what makes this definitive is not just that elections experts unanimously agree that the variance between the voter database and the number of ballots is meaningless and irrelevant (and I’ve yet to see a professional disagree), but that it actually explains the real reconciliation process”.
That seems to be another apples to oranges comparison and an irrelevant one – ballots that aren’t reconciled are illegitimate votes. The question that should have been asked is how does the number of irreconcilable votes compare to the margin of victory ? There is an irrefutable link there and won’t buy any attempt to spin it otherwise. No, your buddy the Shark didn’t put me up to this.
I’ll admit, the count of ballots, and the reconciling of the total count with the total number of voter signatures are two very different issues. I’ll also conceed that they are irrelevant to each other, in the sense that the inability to reconcile has no bearing on the accuracy of the count. The count could be 100% accurate with absolutely no reconciliation. But then, what do you really have? You have a 100% accurate count of worthless paper. The old idea of “Garbage in, garbage out” applies. A 100% accurate count of illegal votes doesn’t make them any less illegal, it simply means that you know exactly how many you have.
If ever there was a red-herring, this article in the P-I was it.
The accuracy the Republicans are referring to is not the final tally of ballots. The final tally has a finite answer, much like counting the books in a library. Assuming nothing is added or subtracted, a final 100% accurate tally can be obtained. I’m sure that’s what we got with the final hand recount, a 100% accruate tally of the votes. However the Republicans issue is whether or not all of those votes were legal.
I suppose the idea is the same as a bank trying to count money, with some conterfeit bills in the stack. They can come to a definitive tally of all bills present, but does that tally accurately reflect how much money they have if they can’t weed out the counterfeits? I’d suggest that most reasonable people would say “No”.
KS @55, Jason @56
You are both confusing the issue. The election results were reconciled, on a precinct by precinct basis. The fact that results of the voter creditation process does not reconcile with the election results is meaningless, as it merely represents errors in the creditation process, which is much more labor intensive, and thus prone to more errors.
Simple as that.
Goldy @ 57 I don’t see it as simple as saying once the election is certified, its over. That’s what the contest is all about. True, in 99 out a 100 elections, this would not be significant, but where the number of irreconcilible votes far exceeds the margin of victory – there’s an obvious problem there which falls on the Republicans to prove in a court of law. Don’t think that it is asking too much for votes to be reconciled as much as possible – not everytime will be perfect before certification as a requirement of election reform. No revote here, but perhaps a new vote at the next general election in Nov. 2005 or 2006.
Goldy @57
I’m not confusing the issue, you are simply choosing to ignore it. What part of “garbage in, garbage out” doesn’t make sense? If you have illegal votes, and you count them along with legal votes to arrive at a 100% accurate count of votes, that in no way translates into a definitive election result. Particularly when the number of illegal votes could be far greater than the margin of victory.
With over 2.5 million ballots cast state wide, it’s not hard to imagine that at least a few hundred of them were illegally cast, and I’m not talking about just this last election in specific, I mean in all elections. This was never a huge cause for concern because when you have margins of victory in the 10,000+ range, a few hundred illegal votes are simply noise and don’t affect the outcome the election at all. But when the margin of victory is only 129, clearly the potential impact of illegal votes is magnified to the point that they could have swayed the election one way or another.
Who knows, maybe after the investigations and trail, we’ll find that Rossi actually got a larger number of illegal votes, and that Gregiore is absolutely the legitimately elected Governor. If so, great, at least then we’ll know for sure. Right now it is completely impossible to tell, both Sam Reed and Dean Logan have said so themselves:
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003518.html
KS @ 58
the number of irreconcilable votes is far greater than the margin? Really? Where did you hear that? How many irreconcilable votes are you aware of? As others have said, so far I don’t think the total precinct reconciliation results have been released to the public. Similarly, on what basis do you assert that the votes weren’t reconciled “as much as possible?”
Mark @ 45
Republican blowhards flew up my a%%, that’s what. After weeks of hearing their rantings, it’s getting tiresome.
Josef @ 46
You should call her for a date. You two have a lot in common.
swatter @ 47
So what? All Republicans hate absentee ballots. Never mind this state has a lot of people who work away from home and would never get to vote if the GOPers got their way. Try explaining your position on absentee voting to commercial fishermen, construction and maintenance people working in Alaska, ship and airline crews, etc., and see how it goes over with them.
Cynical (various places)
In other threads, you have never failed to tell us how hard you work in your self-employed occupation. I notice you also find time to post on HorsesAss all day, every day. That’s amazing! How do you do it?
Goldy,
All that most of the Republicans are saying here, and of note are Jason, Micajah and Mr. Cynical, is that if there really is a true reconciliation of the number of voters to ballots on a precinct by precinct basis on election night, then how come Dean Logan has not simply produced this information to put the whole issue to rest?
And if there is no reconciliation, then why not? It’s perfectly reasonable to distrust the results of this election with a margin that was never any greater than 261 votes when King County can’t produce a definitive reconciliation of votes to ballots as of close of the polls on election night.
Furthermore, its disingenous for all of you Democrats to be so silent on the milquetoast reforms that are being proposed by the Democrat controlled legislature. Why are Democrats afraid of common sense reforms like ballot-voter reconciliation prior to certification, occasional purging of the voter rolls, proof of ID to vote, color coded provisionals, etc.?
The majority of Washington does not take your defenses seriously because King County has been unwilling to allow full visibility into their process, have been self congratulatory in their reviews, and because Democrats have moved in lock-step to block or exclude meaningful reform.
JB @ 62.
It’s perfectly reasonable to distrust the results of this election with a margin that was never any greater than 261 votes when King County can’t produce a definitive reconciliation of votes to ballots as of close of the polls on election night.
How is that possible when the majority of votes are absentee?
Look at Jason @ 56. He’d better stay away from Sharkansky. The system is designed to put the controls on the front end to minimize the discrepancies on the the back end recognizing that with limited resources you’re always going to have stuff slip through the cracks. I don’t know anyone here who isn’t in favor of a stronger “front-end” like color-code provisionals or even a properly maintained felons database.
Rossi didn’t get enough support to prevail in this election. R’s stayed home on election day. There’s no excuse for that. You owe all your sound and fury to D’s who crossed lines to vote for Rossi. We wouldn’t be here if Rossi was 2000 votes ahead like Cantwell was over Gorton. Better luck in 2008.
Mary Lane does it with Dems!!
King County has been unwilling to allow full visibility into their process,
This is so bogus! The R’s had poll watchers everywhere. One caught the provisionals being misfed. The R’s even had a “GOP Lounge” at the recount center! What more did they need?
because Democrats have moved in lock-step to block or exclude meaningful reform.
Please provide a cite or do you not know how to link?
torridjoe @ 60 – Nice try to obfuscate, but for starters 1853, 3700 or 9596 is much greater than 129. End of story. Reconciled as much as possible ? means a lesser number of more ballots received than voters or more voters than ballots received.
Comment by marummy hater— 2/18/05 @ 3:34 pm
Tell me why you hate her?!?
(Don’t worry – I somewhat expect her to run for U.S. Senate next year against that great Senator from our State Maria Cantwell. Odds are 1 in 20.)
KS @ 66
None of the numbers you cite are numbers reflective of the reconciliation process. You are speaking of the voter crediting process, which is not the same thing. That is the point you seem to be missing: 1,860, 3,700, and 9,596 are all numbers related to voter credits versus ballots counted–none of which have any statutory bearing AT ALL.
Which is why I asked how you know about a reconciliation problem, when as yet no one seems to have identified one.
Cyn @ 38
It’s not entirely clear to me which fact you’re claiming that I made up. The election was, indeed, certified. That this constitutes prima facie evidence that King County adhered to the provisions of WAC 434-253-203 is a conclusion based on the facts, not a fact in and of itself.
You might be correct in the sense that I haven’t stated all the facts required to get to that conclusion, but I hadn’t thought it necessary to spell this out in detail. Whether or not I’ve actually stated sufficient fact would rather depend upon the ignorance of those who would challenge the conclusion.
But the necessary facts are rather simple. Among them is the fact that both parties had observers present while King County was carrying out the provisions of WAC 434-253-203. If King County hadn’t carried out those provisions, then either party would have had grounds to contest certification on the bases of that very administrative code. Since neither party challenged the certification on the basis of WAC 434-253-203, the conclusion is inescapable.
With that, Cyn, a bit of advice: before you again decide to accuse me of simply making things up, you might want to consider not doing so from the ostrich posture.
Josef the Dinocrat
Oh, I’d rather not say. It’s personal. VERY personal. You know.
JB @ 62
Why are Republicans so afraid of letting people vote? Why do you guys work so hard to suppress the vote by making eligible voters re-register, turning away people at the polls who forgot their ID (not everyone drives, you know), opposing absentee voting (our state, with its natural resource-based industries, has a higher proportion of voters who must travel or work away from home to make their living), and so on?
John @ 65
I really don’t think the “GOP lounge” was any big deal. Hell, they even invited ME in there. It was nothing but a room where they had coffee and donuts, trained volunteer observers, could talk in private, etc. They paid rent for it, so why not? We Democrats had a room on the same floor, albeit smaller, which we used for the same purposes. According to the Seattle Weekly, the Rs did some praying in their “lounge.” I would’ve been praying, too, if I were them.
marummy hater @ 70;
Tell us!!!
What did our (okay the Rossifarian) hero in shining armor do?!?
Don @71
Let me turn your question around and ask, why are Democrats so willing to let anyone vote without any safeguards at all? Should we do away with all of our laws on Voting requirements? Is that what you really want? Let anyone and everyone vote?
Tj @68 Vote crediting and reconciliation are the same thing in my book. That is a significant issue. Those numbers have been made public on Sound Politics, Orbusmax, as well as the Times and TNT. What is your definition of reconciliation ? What is the difference between that and certification ? There is merely a difference in syntax, it would appear. The court case in Chelan County is about reconciliation, certification and vote crediting – if you will. Results won’t be known apparently until late spring.
John @ 71 – Republicans do not want people who are illegal by the constitution to vote. There is a good reason why felons and illegal aliens are not allowed to vote- ya think ? Why do Democrats like to twist and distort the law – the ends justifies the means, whether its legal or not – that’s what the trend is. Not to say Republicans don’t spin it also, but they also call out their own for damaging their credibility and not playing by the rules – (cases and points Bob Livingston – Speaker of the House briefly in 1998 and Trent Lott – former Senate Majority Leader were both outed by their own party)
They may be the same thing in your book, but in the one they keep at the courthouse, they’re not. Reconciliation was done comparing ballots issued to ballots cast, using the pollbooks to count ballots issued. Those numbers have NOT been made public, anywhere, to my knowledge.
The numbers you are referring to are variants of the discrepancy between the number of voters credited for voting, and the number of ballots cast. The former is reached by hand-scanning the barcodes with the names of the voters who have signed the book. That is done on a rolling basis after the count and before and after certification, at the same time voter records are updated with new address information, voters added, voters dropped. There is no statutory requirement to address any such discrepancy, nor is the practice by any means universal across Washington.
That is not syntax. That is a procedural difference of time, substance, and requirement. One is official, one is entirely administrative.
I realize that you are being subjected to emotionalist media who charge up their language with demonization and morally apocalyptic themes, but the facts are not hidden here. Nobody is protecting anything. Sheeez.
Jason @ 73
I admire your clever rephrasing of the old gimmick question, “When did you stop beating your wife?” But you didn’t really think I’d fall for it, did you? Of course I reject the premise of your question, i.e., that Democrats want to “let anyone vote without any safeguards at all” — because it’s false. My question to you is, how many hoops do Republicans want to make voters jump through and why do we need so many hoops? Their eligibility is supposed to be checked when they register, and their signature on the poll book or absentee ballot attests they are the voter.
Don @ 76
But Don, don’t you see the false premise you are setting up as well? “…many hoops do Republicans want to make voters jump through…”? You are already pre-supposing that every “voter” is a valid one. I want to ensure that anyone who votes is legally entitled to do so. That is partly taken care of during registration, where we should have safeguards and checks in place to ensure that only eligible people are registered. But because registering and voting are two distinct actions separated by time and place, we then also need to ensure that only those people who are properly registered are allowed to vote.
It’s not good enough that Bob Smith’s name appears on the voter rolls on election day, and you have someone claiming to be Bob Smith who wants to vote. You need to verify that not only is he Bob Smith, but that he is the same Bob Smith who registered.
Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Not everyone drives, or some people forget their driver’s license are not valid excuses, those are loopholes for allowing people to vote unchecked.
How many banks do you think would hand you money if walked inside and said, “I have an account here, but I forgot my ATM card, and my checkbook, can I have $100?” Why is it that we should have such lower expectations for voting?
KS @ 74
ROTFLMAO!
I love your examples. Livingston was outed because infidelity was the inexcusable Republican sin of the day at the time. You can’t impeach a President (Clinton) for adultery while the speaker of the house has done the very same thing.
Lott was outed because he expressed his true “convictions” at the wrong time in public and didn’t run the Senate in lockstep with the wishes of the Bushites. Now the Bushies have a cat torturer in Lott’s place – the Bushites’ kind of guy – a true practioner of the “culture of life”.
Jason @ 77
You’re close to seeing the light on this issue. You’ve accepted Goldy’s analysis of Sharkansky’s specious claims. Now you just need to understand that elections can’t be anything like a bank – and banks don’t have the greatest track record either.
We’re not far apart. The elections system is designed to put the controls on the front-end to minimize the discrepancies on the back-end. No-one I know of is not in favor of strong controls on the front-end as long as they don’t amount to vote suppression. Things like color-coded provisionals, timely removal of deceased persons from the rolls and even a properly maintained felons database. But even with all of that, something is going to slip through the cracks. Would you say a silver coin is worthless if it had a 0.2% impurity?
Close elections like this one are torture because they get people obsessed with the imperfectness of the system – no system is perfect even banking systems. This is all the more incentive to political parties to run halfway competent campaigns and gotv efforts so their candidates can prevail.
John @74 I should have known to expect a neo-lib/progressive spin from someone on this website. yeah – whatever, dude on your rationalization about Livingston and Lott. Cat torturer – ROTFLMAO back at ya ! Frist is a Dr. so what ? you evidently have a problem with that along with a MSM conspiracy theory that undoubtedly have tucked away to pull out.
Torridjoe @ 75 You are getting hung up on your legalistic jargon. The courts will decide it – end of story. Maybe there won’t be a new election for Gov., but in 2006 the Dems will pay the price for their legislative efforts to get as much power as possible and dis the common people. I’ll put money on that. See ya all later.
John @ 79
Simple question for you, why can’t elections be run like banks? And yes, I do understand that banks are occasionally robbed, but over all, their track record of access and accountability, ensuring that only rightful account holders have access to their money, and that all of their money is accounted for, is far greater than what our election officials are telling us that we can expect from them.
Jason, do you have any evidence of that? The articles from the banking industry that have been referenced here, do not support your thesis. And banks have the luxury of being able to tie customers to their transactions, which elections officials cannot.
Jason @ 81
Why can’t elections be run like banks?
They’re not the same thing. Do you run a bank with 1.1 million “customers” with 43 full time people and 4000 volunteers? Are dollar bills the same thing as fill-in-the-oval forms?
Comparing elections to banking is just misleading debate rhetoric.
Besides banking systems aren’t all that accurate.
More.
John @ 83
Nice try. The errors sited in those reports are human error, related to electronic billing paying, such as trying to direct a payment to or from a closed account. The error rate they mention has nothing to do with the bank’s accounting of the money. This is analogous to voters overvoting, or perhaps droping their ballot in the wrong precint box. The system should have a mechanism for dealing with human error, as banks clearly do.
Torridjoe, same comment applies. And perhaps if we wanted our elections to be more accurate, rather than just good enough most of the time, we would either have more than 43 full time folks, or we’d come up with a system that would allow 43 full time folks to manage it. But please don’t try to tell me that it is just too hard, therefore we shouldn’t even try.
Jason, Jason, Jason:
Be pragmatic. Banking is not subject to “secret ballot” and the same kind of civil liberties considerations. Elections can’t have deposit insurance.
No one is not in favor of strengthening controls on the front-end to minimize and hopefully eliminate the problems we’ve seen in this election contest – as long as they’re not obnoxious.
Now what’s the easier thing to do? Set up a whole new slew of rules and regs that cost the taxpayer and make it harder for your vote to count – or – get more support for your issues or candidates so they prevail through the 0.2% of noise?
And if they don’t prevail through the noise then there’s a legal process in place for picking a winner – it’s profoundly distasteful for the loser – but it’s pragmatic given our winner takes all system.