Part I of this exciting series on today’s plodding King County Council meeting can be summed up as follows: the military ballots went out on time, ballots were enhanced legally, and yes, some ineligible felons voted, but no it wasn’t due to corruption or negligence on the part of elections workers.
(Hmmm… perhaps Part I was a bit verbose?)
In this installment I will address the 348 improperly scanned provisional ballots, the 735 “no signature on file” ballots, and the incredibly overblown issue of the so-called “discrepancy.”
Provisional Ballots
As has been widely reported, KC Elections determined that 348 provisional ballots had been improperly scanned into the AccuVote machines at the polling places, before they had been properly canvassed to see if they were legal votes. Of these, 341 have been traced to specific voters, and 252 are confirmed to have been cast by valid, registered voters.
The proper procedure is that you sign a poll book, fill out a ballot, place it inside an envelope, complete the envelope, and deposit it in the slot in the side of the AccuVote machine. Once back at the counting center, election workers verify the envelopes, just like an absentee, before adding the ballot to the count, or rejecting it.
KC elections was able to determine who cast most of these polling-place-scanned provisional ballots by comparing the poll books with the provisional envelopes received from the polling place; those who signed the poll book but for whom there are no envelopes are assumed to have fed their ballot directly into the machine.
It should be noted that they cannot directly associate a specific ballot to a specific voter (secret ballot and all that), and just because a ballot has not been confirmed to have been valid, doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t. But it is clear that we have as many as 96 provisional ballots in KC that might not have been counted, had they been caste properly… and there is no way to sort them out of the mix.
Can we attribute this to election worker or administrative error? I don’t see how not. While nearly 99 percent of the over 31,000 provisional ballots were cast properly, this is an error for which there is an easy technical solution. In fact, it is so easy, that KC just implemented it in last week’s special levy election: provisional ballots had stickers placed over their barcode so that they could not be scanned at the polling place. Well, duh-uh! I suggest that a more secure solution would be to print provisional ballots with different barcodes, so as to avoid potential tampering with stickers.
Councilmember Steve “The Executioner” Hammond, believes the only way to restore public faith in elections is for “heads to roll,” but as Councilmember Julia Patterson pointed out, King County Elections only has 43 full-time employees… the polls are actually staffed by over 4000 part-time volunteers (they get nominal pay for a 12-hour day), “average citizens who come forth to engage in the democratic process.” These are the “grandmothers” that some council members talked of, and Patterson warned that talk of “heads rolling” would discourage engagement.
Personally, I’m well familiar with these grandmotherly poll workers. My South Seattle polling place has been staffed by the same table of little old ladies since I started voting there seven years ago. If Hammond is patient, I’m sure many of their heads will fall off on their own in short time.
Anyway… while it may not be satisfying to say that “mistakes were made,” and leave it at that, mistakes were made by poll workers — with about one percent of provisional ballots — and now KC Elections has devised a procedure to prevent such mistakes in the future. Problem solved.
As to what this means to Rossi’s contest, well, I’m not sure it means all that much. Remember, in addition to the grandmas, the polls were watched by observers from both parties, including an army of attorneys. If there have been any reports of massive election day fraud regarding provisional ballots, I haven’t heard it. Rossi can’t prove who the 96 ballots were cast for… at the very best, maybe a judge might value average them, taking away about 18 votes from Gregoire’s margin. But I doubt the courts would even go that far.
The 735 No-Signature-On-File Ballots
Isn’t it curious that of all the errors supposedly committed by incompetent KC election workers, the Republicans never mention this one? 735 absentee ballots were improperly left out of the first two counts because signatures had not been scanned into the computer for those voters. After these votes were discovered, the canvassing board verified and counted 566 of them (backed up by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.)
Keep this in mind… part of the Republican mantra (stupid as it may be) is that Rossi “won” two out of three counts. But if these ballots had been properly canvassed the first time around, Gregoire would have won the machine recount… leaving Rossi to pay for a hand recount. As Councilmember Raymond Shaw Reagan Dunn profoundly pointed out, “perception is reality.” Imagine how different public perception of this election might be if Gregoire had “won two out of three” counts?
In any case I didn’t hear Hammond asking for heads to roll over this one.
And finally… “The Discrepancy”
What a load of shit.
I was talking to a reporter before the meeting, and he said I had to admit, that intuitively, it looked suspicious. And I did have to admit it… intuitively it does. But only if you don’t understand any of the underlying facts. In fact this “controversy” is based on a false assumption that these two lists were ever intended to reconcile with one another.
To put this in the proper perspective, Councilmember David Irons (hmmm… what’s he running for?) repeated his “recollection” that the 2000 discrepancy at certification was only 17 as “confirmation” that the 2004 number is out of whack. When asked about this after the meeting, Dean Logan questioned what Irons might have been recalling, considering the fact that the voter list isn’t compiled until after certification. (And I’m totally ignoring the bizarre notion that Iron’s 4-year-old “recollection” is more accurate than the actual numbers recorded on file.)
Remember the cries from the right that it was criminally irresponsible to certify this election if the voter list didn’t reconcile with the ballots cast? Kind of hard to make that a condition of certification when the crediting of voters doesn’t occur until afterwards, huh? As Logan made absolutely clear, there is “no legal reconciliation process,” an assertion that has been repeated to me by every auditor’s office I have talked to. The voter list is compiled out of an entirely different process than the count of ballots cast, and for entirely different purposes.
In addition to recording about 600,000 absentee voters, the list is compiled by hand scanning the barcode next to each signed line of over 2600 poll books. If KC Elections could fail to scan the signatures from 735 registration cards, imagine what kind of human error a hand-held scanner introduces into the process. 1,800 misscanned voters is not only understandable, it’s completely consistent with past elections and other jurisdictions. So there.
I don’t really want to expend many more pixels on this issue, as really, it is a legal non-issue… however much the public may have swallowed the righties’ propaganda. But the ever earnest Councilmember Bob Ferguson spent some time trying tease out of Logan that if one precinct had 10 extra voters and another had 10 extra ballots, then that should be a net discrepancy of 20, not zero. (The Snark nodded his head hungrily at this, so I’m sure we’ll be hearing this thesis from the dark side.) But Logan wouldn’t bite, as it ignores a fundamental aspect of voter accreditation.
Over 28,000 provision ballots were counted. And for each one, the ballot was counted in the precinct in which it was cast, where as the voter was credited for voting in the precinct in which he is registered. But if Ferguson’s logic is followed, these 28,000 provisional ballots would create a 56,000 vote discrepancy on their own!
That’s what happens when you try reconcile apples with oranges.
Ah well… I’ve run off at the fingers again. I’ve got a few more observations and comments to make, but I guess I’ll have to save them for Part III.
Then if you are so certain, why not support a runoff?
Nice explanation.
I don’t really want to expend many more pixels on this issue, as really, it is a legal non-issue… however much the public may have swallowed the righties’ propaganda.
The fact that the discrepency is irrelevant to anything other that debased conspirary theory won’t stop them. They will interprete Sam Reed’s dismissal of the matter as being proof that he sold out to the democrats.
‘Then if you are so certain, why not support a runoff?’
What, and do this all over again? God help us.
Goldy,
As for your explanation of the so-called “voterless ballots” question — what a load of horsefeathers.
The law requires that the number of voters who sign the poll books be reconciled with the number of ballots — before the county canvassing board certifies the election returns.
It is required to be done first at the precinct or polling place level using that old-fashioned method of counting the number of signatures and ballots and comparing their numbers to discover any discrepancies.
Voters are “credited” with having voted at the polling places by an entry in the poll books.
The regulations issued by the Secretary of State in August 2004 required a reconciliation of voters and ballots prior to certification — and a report of any discrepancies and steps taken to resolve them.
The process which finally disclosed apparent discrepancies to the public was the required step of making an entry in the voters’ registration records to reflect the date of the last election in which they had participated.
This last process was indeed done by most counties after certifying their results — which is a mistake. It needs to be done before certification as a double-check of the simple counting method used by the polling place workers, so the canvassing board can be reasonably sure that the polling place workers put accurate information on their ballot accountability forms. Unfortunately, the law doesn’t require it to be done before certification, so most county canvassing boards didn’t do it.
Despite the fact that the entries on voters’ registration records are made in a separate process, they use exactly the same records as their source of information — the poll books.
Granting that human error may explain the discrepancies belatedly discovered in late December and early January after the election results were certified by the counties, those discrepancies need to be explained, not ignored.
The fact that several counties have been unable, despite their best efforts, to produce a list of voters who participated in the election that contains a number of voters that matches the number of ballots on which they counted votes means that there may have been illegitimate ballots included in the vote count.
Only a careful examination of the evidence in court may tell us whether the apparent discrepancies are real discrepancies.
Only a careful examination will tell us whether the discrepancies occurred in large numbers in a few polling places, thereby indicating that significant irregularities or fraud occurred. (Even sprinkled around, three or four in virtually every polling place would make me wonder, but it probably wouldn’t be as compelling a case of significant irregularities or fraud.)
Here are the laws:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/inde.....on=section
RCW 29A.44.231
Record of participation.
As each voter casts his or her vote, the precinct election officers shall insert in the poll books or precinct list of registered voters opposite that voter’s name, a notation to credit the voter with having participated in that primary or election. No record may be made of a voter’s party affiliation in a partisan primary. The precinct election officers shall record the voter’s name so that a separate record is kept.
[2004 c 271 § 138.] (Emphasis added.)
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/inde.....29A.44.280
RCW 29A.44.280
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.
[2003 c 111 § 1127; 1990 c 59 § 53. Formerly RCW 29.54.015.]
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/t.....4&p=1
NEW SECTION
WAC 434-253-203 Poll site ballot reconciliation — Central count optical scan and punchcard. Using the poll site ballot accountability forms, the poll books, and election night precinct results, poll site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:
(1) Reconciliation must begin as soon as practical after the election.
(2) Each precinct’s results shall be reconciled with the precinct’s ballot accountability form. The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted. Ballots not counted may include, but not be limited to: Provisional ballots, ballots referred to the canvassing board, ballots to be enhanced or duplicated, ballots with write-in votes, spoiled ballots.
(3) Any discrepancies must be investigated. At a minimum, the following areas must be checked until the discrepancy is resolved:
(a) Check the accuracy of the ballot accountability form.
(b) Recount the signatures in the poll book.
(c) Check the spoiled ballots.
(d) Check the provisional ballots.
(e) Count the ballot stubs.
(f) Check the bins in the ballot counter.
(g) Check the poll site supplies for ballots.
(h) Manually count the number of ballots.
(i) Call the poll workers.
(4) All steps to reconcile each precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election can be certified.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/inde.....29A.08.125
RCW 29A.08.125
Computer file of voter registration records. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)
Each county auditor shall maintain a computer file containing the records of all registered voters within the county. The auditor may provide for the establishment and maintenance of such files by private contract or through interlocal agreement as provided by chapter 39.34 RCW. The computer file must include, but not be limited to, each voter’s last name, first name, middle initial, date of birth, residence address, gender, date of registration, applicable taxing district and precinct codes, and the last date on which the individual voted. The county auditor shall subsequently record each consecutive date upon which the individual has voted and retain at least the last five such consecutive dates. If the voter has not voted at least five times since establishing his or her current registration record, only the available dates will be included.
[2003 c 111 § 209; 1993 c 408 § 11; 1991 c 81 § 22; 1974 ex.s. c 127 § 12. Formerly RCW 29.07.220.] (Emphasis added.)
Micajah @4
And your point is?
None of the RCW you cite refutes my explanation of what the voter list is. Voters are credited in the poll book upon voting. Precincts attempt to reconcile voters and ballots, and report any discrepancies.
As per RCW 29A.08.125, the county maintains a voter database that includes the last date on which the individual voted. This is done but going through the poll book with a hand scanner, and scanning in the barcode next to the name of those people credited with voting.
In your opinion it needs to be done before certification. But that is not in the RCW.
You are conflating two different processes.
Unfortunately, the law doesn’t require it to be done before certification, so most county canvassing boards didn’t do it. (emphasis added)
And that, my friends, is why the Republicans will lose their court case. Doesn’t matter how easy it is to convince people reading SP or listening to right-wing talk-radio. Convincing a judge is another matter, and the standards of evidence are quite high (rightfully so).
Great job Goldy – looks like, as expected, all the Republican suspicions and allegations don’t amount to a hill of (legal) beans once examined. There were errors, many of which are now fixed in a way so they won’t happen again. If we institute the sensible reforms proposed by Sam Reed (and Dean Logan), we’ll probably eliminate 80% of the systemic problems with our voting system.
The remaining 20% of fixes will be much harder (centralized felon database that is always right, better voting technology so there are less “voter mistakes” that lead to enhancement being needed, etc.).
Goldy,
Try this explanation to see if you can understand:
Soon after the polls are closed, polling place officers write on their ballot accountability form that they counted 110 signatures in the poll book and 110 ballots in the box.
No one double-checks their reported count of the signatures before certifying the election returns.
Based only on the ballot accountability form, the returns are certified — showing a total of 61 votes for one candidate and 49 for the other.
Everything seems fine: 110 signatures, 110 ballots, 110 votes split between the two candidates.
(jcricket — This is the part you need to read very carefully, since you didn’t get the point the first time around.)
Then, the elections office goes to that very same poll book to see who was credited with voting — so they can make an entry on the voters’ registration records showing the date of the last election in which each voter participated.
Using the very same poll books that the polling place workers had used to count and record the number of signatures, the elections office personnel now attempt to compile a database that contains 110 names of voters who voted.
They can only find the signatures of 100 voters in that poll book.
There never were 110 signatures.
There really were 110 ballots on which votes were counted, so 10 of those ballots should have been rejected — but which ones were they? And, besides, now it’s too late — the election returns have already been certified.
“If only we had had the good sense to double-check the signature count before we certified the election returns!!” one worker says.
Says Jiminy in reply: “It wasn’t expressly required by law — the law only required us to certify the true and accurate totals of the legitimate votes. The law didn’t explicitly say we had to double-check that signature count. Who’s to say there aren’t really 110 signatures in that poll book?”
“The person who recounts the signatures, now that we have shown there is a question that needs to be answered,” says the other.
But Micajah… you cited statute to support your argument and the statute doesn’t support your argument. The voter database simply isn’t meant reconcile the number of ballots cast. You are demanding it do something the process is not designed to do.
Now if you want to make an argument that it should reconcile, fine. Work to have that law passed. But don’t abuse the counties for not doing something they weren’t required to do.
Micajah–
BINGO!!!
This all revolves around the Precindt Poll Books which must be reconciled Election Night and ATTESTED TO by poll workers.
Have any of these Poll Books been illegally altered after the poll workers attested? Do they indeed reconcile??
Micajah has nailed it…AGAIN!
Micajah or Goldy,
YOu said:
“Soon after the polls are closed, polling place officers write on their ballot accountability form that they counted 110 signatures in the poll book and 110 ballots in the box.
No one double-checks their reported count of the signatures before certifying the election returns.
Based only on the ballot accountability form, the returns are certified – showing a total of 61 votes for one candidate and 49 for the other.
Everything seems fine: 110 signatures, 110 ballots, 110 votes split between the two candidates.”
When and where and by whom are these ballots counted? Where when and by whom is it possible to associate these counted ballots with a particular poll book or precinct to see if they match up. 110 votes to 110 poll book signatures in your example.
You hypothesize that by mistake only 100 signatures were in the poll books. How do you know 110 votes were cast in the precinct/poll book, and not 100?
What about variance associated with absentee ballots, the largest component of votes, or provisional ballots (30,000) which common sense suggests could be the source of many of the variance’s.
I’m still trying to understand this process and where the variance originates.
And Goldy, I’m guessing that after the variance controverey showed up, Logan may have had his people go back to rescan the barcodes, so that human error from the scanning process should have been reduced a lot.
Micajah has nailed it…AGAIN!
Cynical to English Dictionary: “My side continues to cite statutes that disprove my theory, but I’m going to ignore that pesky facts while insisting that I’m right, only this time, IN ALL CAPS!”
chew2, I asked King about potential errors in scanning and crediting, and Bobbie Egan’s response was they have in fact done some validation on their process of crediting and dis-crediting voters (such as when a provisional is validated or not, respectively), but that to go much further they’d basically have to re-scan all of their pollbooks.
And Micajah leaves out a different scenario altogether—on election night, workers discover they have 110 ballots and 100 valid signatures–10 voters failed to sign properly. The workers note the discrepancy, and the reason for the discrepancy, and then certify.
Goldy,
I see now: It’s probably impossible to get the point across to you.
Let me try one last time. Maybe if I “shout” with capital letters once in a while, I can break loose some of the ossified material that is keeping you from seeing what’s in front of your own eyes.
You say I cite a statute in support of my argument that doesn’t support my argument.
I realize it’s probably too much to ask, but please note that I have cited a statute and a regulation BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRED RECONCILIATION OF THE NUMBERS OF SIGNATURES AND BALLOTS FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN NOVEMBER PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION.
That’s TWO LAWS THAT REQUIRED RECONCILIATION PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF THE RESULTS — one statute and one regulation.
Now, I cited another statute which required making entries in the voters’ registration records. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT THIS ONE DOESN’T REQUIRE THE ENTRIES TO BE MADE BEFORE CERTIFYING THE ELECTION RESULTS.
Here’s is what I am saying (and have said):
The making of entries in the voters’ registration records SHOWS THAT THERE MAY BE FEWER SIGNATURES IN THE POLL BOOKS THAN THERE WERE BALLOTS IN THE BOX.
It doesn’t matter that this latter law didn’t require those entries to be made prior to certification, SINCE THE OTHER STATUTE AND THE REGULATION DID REQUIRE THE RECONCILIATION OF SIGNATURES AND BALLOTS.
The entries made after certification are EVIDENCE THAT THE SIGNATURES AND BALLOTS WERE NOT IN FACT RECONCILED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
What matters is that the counties have not been able to count the signatures in those poll books and come up with a number that is at least as large as the number of ballots.
Now, I really don’t expect you to get it — because you would then have to admit that there really is a question that needs to be answered before we can know the legitimate and accurate outcome of the election.
And, I expect you to claim once again that I have cited a statute that doesn’t support my argument.
But, anyone with a modicum of common sense and the slightest ability to read and comprehend what I said despite their own biases will know what I said — and will know that I am correct.
Berendt was on with Vance on the Siegel show early this morning. Wow, talk about trying to talk over Siegel when he got pinned to the mat.
They were discussing provisional ballots and it seemed a huge percentage of King’s provisional ballots were okayed and substantially over and above the State average. And his only argument were the one or two “tiny” counties that had 100%. Pretty lame argument there.
And torrid, the latest on the blogger scene is the Tulsa Times threatening to sue bloggers for links to their posted articles. Seems they are claiming copyrights on all written material and that their entire site is copyrighted so you can’t link to them. I am afraid to give you a link.
chew2,
Read RCW 29A.44.280 — it requires the polling place officers to count the signatures and the ballots and see if the numbers match.
Read WAC 434-253-203 and -204 — they require a reconciliation of the numbers of ballots and signatures before the canvassing board certifies the election returns. When a discrepancy is discovered during the vote counting process, one of the required steps is to “recount the signatures in the poll book.”
Those WAC regulations also require reconciliation and a record of all discrepancies and resolutions of discrepancies prior to certification:
“(4) All steps to reconcile each precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election can be certified.”
torridjoe,
I haven’t left out any scenario. I have said that a question has been raised which must be answered.
If you believe that discrepancies were found and resolved prior to certification, and that a record was made and presented to the canvassing board which explains everything, why then do you think Logan hasn’t brought those records out into the open and shouted their contents from the rooftops?
Instead, Logan repeats the same thing Goldy clings to: The post-certification process of making entries in the voters’ registration records isn’t part of the certification process.
The argument made by Logan and Goldy misses the point.
If Logan has records which show that the reconciliation was done prior to certification, he would surely say so.
He has never said so.
I suspect he hasn’t said so for the simple reason that he has no pre-certification records which tend to explain the apparent discrepancies.
Maybe he does — but apparently we won’t know until the matter is examined in court. Logan has had plenty of time to make it publicly known that his records show a satisfactory reconciliation was done. The question was raised on Dec. 29 or 30. That was a month and a half ago.
Micajah,
Re: your the failure to reconcile per WAC 434-253-203 Poll site ballot reconciliatio.
. I’m going to guess that King and possibly some other counties did not complete this prior to certification, because there wasn’t time prior to the deadline for certication. It wasn’t possible given the manpower etc.
So if the county was faced with having to meet a certification deadline or a reconciliatino deadline, which controls? Was the reconciliation requirement a PRECONDITION to certification, or merely directory. I would argue it was directory only. Why because, the reconciliation requirement doesn’t purport to and cannot require the county to reduce all errors to zero in order to certify an election or comply with the reeconciliation requirement. I’ve seen cases, Dumas vs. Gagner?, which have excused failures to comply with election directives on the grounds that the directive was not fundamental.
This is just a legal argument off the top of my head.
swatter–I don’t understand what you’re trying to tell me about the Tulsa Times. What story do you want to point me to? And how can they sue for linking by URL? I think you may be referring to quoting them, not linking to them.
micajah–
I never said I thought discrepancies were “resolved,” I imagine there are certainly discrepancies remaining. The law doesn’t say they must be resolved; they must only be explained.
You presented a scenario where everything was fine on pollnight, but that some point later things no longer matched. That ignores scenarios where things were NOT fine on pollnight.
You are alleging that King did no pollnight reconciliations, it appears. That’s a serious charge, one that Bobbie Egan denied to me just this morning. (She also took apart Irons’ claim about 2000 discrepancy totals, BTW. More on that later). I’m not sure you have any evidence that they were not done, and the paperwork submitted.
And you also say this:
“What matters is that the counties have not been able to count the signatures in those poll books and come up with a number that is at least as large as the number of ballots.”
How do you know this? It is possible (if not likely), that EVERY pollbook matched 100% on pollnight–and yet an 1,860 vote discrepancy remains…based entirely on absentee recording error.
I certainly don’t think Logan is “missing the point;” the argument from the right has been overwhelmingly related to the 1,860–not the pollnight reconciliations.
Micajah,
YOU DIDN’T ANSWER MY QUESTION.
You said:
“Read RCW 29A.44.280 – it requires the polling place officers to count the signatures and the ballots and see if the numbers match.
Read WAC 434-253-203 and -204 – they require a reconciliation of the numbers of ballots and signatures before the canvassing board certifies the election returns. When a discrepancy is discovered during the vote counting process, one of the required steps is to “recount the signatures in the poll book.””
I don’t want to know what the law says. I want to know when where and by whom the votes are ACTUALLY counted and credited by the counties. According to NCC the votes from multiple precincts are deposited into a single voting box. so clearly they aren’t counted at the polling place, nor are those ballots associated with any one precinct. So when, where and by whom does this occur? Assuming you or Goldy knows of course.
Joe – Wasn’t the percent of votes received via absentee nearly 70% this year? And wasn’t that a record, both in number and percentage of votes? It would stand to reason that 70% of any errors would come from the absentee pool.
It also appears that there were also a record number of overseas/federal write-in ballots too (due both to high interest in the general election and the number of soldiers deployed from our region).
chew2, it would seem that 44.280 is not picky about reconciling at the precinct level, only the polling site level. (I agree the new statute seems more directive of a precinct-by-precinct accounting, but it’s still not 100% clear). I don’t think it precludes them from aggregating pollbook signatures for multiple precincts, and matching to the total count from the entire polling site.
jcricket–I think the % was more like 63%, but that’s recollection. But yes, those were both records.
However, it may not stand to reason that a similar proportion of errors come from that group, since an absentee ballot is much easier to track. Receive it, count it, credit it. You can have worker error in completing that process properly, but there’s far more room for error of all kinds on election night.
Micajah,
Re my legal argument.
Forget about it. I must be getting senile (or reading too many blogs) I completely misread WAC 434-253-203 which does purport to condition certification on completing the report. I also failed to note that it is an administrative regulation and not a statute. So there is the whole issue of whether the reg is valid and/or consistent with the statutes.
Too much for me this morning.
chew2,
I think I understand your question now.
You wonder how anyone matches ballots to precincts after election night.
Note that they report their vote totals by precincts in the reports submitted to the canvassing board.
While the ballots are secret ballots — therefore not marked to identify the person who voted on them — the ballots are in fact coded to identify them by precincts.
Once the signatures are counted and reported by the poll workers on election night, and after the ballots are processed and votes are counted in the counting centers, the totals now allow you to go back and see if you have more ballots in the count than voter signatures reported by the poll place workers.
The vote tallying machines scan the codes on the ballots and report the ballots and votes by precincts — even if you dump all the ballots into a pile and shuffle them for days before sending them through the tallying machines.
Since those vote and ballot totals produced by the tallying machines are produced long before the deadline for certifying the election, only one step is missing from what most counties appear to do — scanning those poll book bar codes and uploading that info into the database to produce a report showing how many signatures there are in each precinct.
I don’t think it’s a lack of time that kept them from doing it. They had two weeks after election day, and their vote counting and ballot processing workload is heaviest in that first week.
Besides, if they say they don’t have time to do what is needed to ensure the accuracy of their election returns, they need to change something in the law — rather than ignore a step which would tell them whether they are about to state a falsehood when they certify their vote totals to be a true and accurate statement of the legitimate votes cast in their county.
The reason I have said that the process required by RCW 29A.08.125 ought to be required before certification is that the counties would then be required to do what they ought to have enough sense to do anyway (but obviously don’t). They would then be required to double-check what the polling place workers reported as the number of signatures in the poll books (and would kill two birds with one stone — double-checking the signature totals and making entries in the voters’ records to reflect the date of the last election in which they participated). They’re going to scan those bar codes anyway, so why not do it before certification?
Since it isn’t yet required, and since they don’t have enough sense to do it on their own, the post-certification process of updating voter registration records can produce an unpleasant surprise: an apparent discrepancy involving more ballots than voters.
As for the processing of absentee ballots, the bar codes on their envelopes are scanned as the first step in processing them. That scans the voters’ names into the database, so you know from the very beginning exactly how many voters have participated by absentee ballot.
The double-check for absentee ballots is the way they retrieve the digital images of signatures. They do it by “batch” (which is the group of envelopes in the mail tray that is about to be examined to see if the signatures match). When that batch is retrieved from the database, the signatures are displayed on the computer’s monitor (4 at a time in my county) in the same order in which the envelopes were scanned and stacked in the tray.
So, for an absentee ballot, if the bar code scanning didn’t “capture” the voter’s identity, the next step in the process will reveal the error. The digital image of that voter’s signature won’t appear on the screen for comparison (nor will that voter’s name or other info appear on the screen) simply because the bar code scanning somehow failed to capture the fact that the voter’s ballot was received and was placed in the batch which the worker is now examining to verify signatures. Any error in scanning the bar codes can be immediately corrected — and has to be immediately corrected, if anyone is going to verify the signature on the envelope.
When the counties want to produce a list of voters who voted by absentee ballot, they don’t need to re-scan those ballot envelopes. The information is already in their database — and the information has already been double-checked one ballot envelope at a time as the signatures were verified.
If a county has more absentee ballots than voters, then they had to work really hard to screw up that process. So far as I can tell, having more absentee ballots than voters means some people voted more than once, or someone unlawfully inserted some ballots into the count after election day.
also note that the changes to 203/204 are no longer in effect, although they were for both the primary and the general. The emergency order expired after 120 days.
torridjoe,
The emergency rules are in the process of adoption as permanent rules:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documen.....01-208.htm
The date of intended adoption as permanent rules is Feb. 23.
good show micajah, thanks. I assumed it would be enacted permanently by 2006 at the latest.
Micajah,
Thanks for the explanation.
Couple of other questions of course -).
How likely could a voter be handed a ballot that had the wrong precinct on it?
How do the poll workers at the polling places actually count the number of signatures in the poll books and the number of ballots in order to prepare their election night report. Or is this done later. By hand?
How are provisional ballots linked to a precinct since they are presumably not coded.
Do I take it that the number of votes cast is the number of ballots run throught the counting machines, inlcuding those which can’t be read for one reason or another?
Do I take it that the number of voters credited with voting are the total of the scanned signatures from the poll books, the scanned envelopes for the absentees, and some special provision for provisional voters? And that all of this occurred sometime after election night.
And how do you explain the more voters than votes scenario that occurred in other counties and past King county elections.
Sorry for so many questions.
chuck @ 1
If we’re going to have do-overs in this country, let’s start by re-running the presidential election in June and see how people like Bush now!
Micajah @ 7, Cynical @ 9
Why don’t you guys find those non-reconciling and/or altered poll books and offer them to the Republican legal team? You will earn their heartfelt thanks! (Until then, you’re just conjecturing and speculating, a.k.a. blowing hot air.)
The Olympian is doing an online chat with Secretary of State Sam Reed at 3 p.m. today. If you’ve got any election questions for him, you can submit them here: http://www.theolympian.com/livechat/prechat2.shtml
chew2,
Gee whiz! What a lot of questions. I’ll take a stab at answering them.
How likely could a voter be handed a ballot that had the wrong precinct on it?
I don’t know how likely it would be. I suppose it’s possible that the wrong one could be given to a voter. The process goes like this: Voter states name and address, and poll worker finds that name and address in the poll book. If the name and address are found, there is a notation in the poll book to tell which precinct number is the correct one. The ballots have that same precinct number. The worker takes a ballot from the stack which has that precinct number on it, then writes the ballot stub number – including that precinct number – next to the voter’s name in the poll book. (The stub is either removed at that point before the ballot is handed to the voter, or just before the voter puts the ballot into the ballot box or counting machine – depending on which method is used to accept ballots at that polling place – so the number in the poll book cannot later be used to ID any voter’s ballot.)
If a mistake was made and not noticed, the poll worker would have to err by picking out the wrong blank ballot and by failing to notice the error when writing the ballot number into the poll book alongside the printed number that shows the correct precinct number. I think it’s unlikely to happen often, but even at the reconciliation stage after the ballots are sent through the tallying machines it would be possible to check the poll book and spot the error – the written ballot number and printed precinct number in the poll book ought to stand out like a sore thumb, since they would not be identical.
How do the poll workers at the polling places actually count the number of signatures in the poll books and the number of ballots in order to prepare their election night report. Or is this done later. By hand?
At polling places where the ballots are simply dropped into ballot boxes, they count the ballots by hand – just the way they count the signatures in the poll books. They have to do these counts before placing the ballots and poll books into the transport container to go to the auditor’s office or counting center that night after the polls close.
At polling places where the ballots are sent through counting machines, they match the number of ballots the machine says it received to their count of the signatures in the poll books. If you read the WAC section that ends in -204, you will see the process they follow. They match the number of ballots issued to the number of ballots spoiled and ballots accepted by the machine. It’s not clear to me, but I don’t think they count the ballots by hand at those polling places. I think they go by the number of signatures and the ballot stubs to figure out how many ballots ought to have been put into the counting machine – and then compare that figure to what the machine says it received.
How are provisional ballots linked to a precinct since they are presumably not coded?
Provisional ballots would be linked to the voter’s precinct once the auditor’s office finds that voter’s registration record – assuming he is a registered voter. I’m not familiar with the process they follow to maintain an audit trail for those ballots, but they are included in the precinct totals for the precinct in which the voter is actually registered and eligible to vote, so far as I understand it. (I suppose you’re wondering if provisional ballots could make it appear that a precinct had more ballots than voters. I presume they can keep a record of what they started with and note each provisional ballot that is added to the original number in each precinct and thereby reconcile the numbers before certifying their returns.)
Do I take it that the number of votes cast is the number of ballots run through the counting machines, inlcuding those which can’t be read for one reason or another?
The tallying machines record how many ballots go through and how many votes there are on those ballots. Without those two sets of numbers, you wouldn’t know of a problem involving “voterless ballots” if it’s hidden by “over votes” and “under votes” that cause some ballots to be counted without counting any votes on them. They reconcile those numbers to be sure that they have actually sent all ballots through the machines. The vote totals should match the ballot totals once you add in the over voted and under voted ballots.
Do I take it that the number of voters credited with voting is the total of the scanned signatures from the poll books, the scanned envelopes for the absentees, and some special provision for provisional voters? And that all of this occurred sometime after election night?
The voters who vote at the polls are credited with voting by the entry in the poll books alongside their signatures. Counting those signatures gives you the number of regular ballots issued – which ought to match the number of ballots counted. (Later on, the bar codes are scanned to upload the info into the database and update the voters’ registration records to show the date of the last election in which they participated. This is the step I’m saying needs to be done before certification. It’s going to be done anyway, so ought to be done as a way of double-checking what the poll workers said was the number of signatures in the poll book.)
The voters who vote by mail are credited with voting when their signatures are verified, and the step just before that is the scanning of the bar code on the envelopes. The info from scanning the envelopes is uploaded into the database, so the database can be queried to see how many ballots were received and how many of those were verified by the signature comparison as having come from eligible registered voters.
The provisional ballots wouldn’t have a bar code on the envelope to identify the voter, so the process of finding the voter’s registration record and crediting the voter with voting would be done by typing the information into the database, so far as I know.
Some of this is done before election day – for absentee ballots that arrive before then. Some is done immediately after the polls close – for voters who go to the polls. Some is done during the ensuing two weeks as absentee ballots are received.
But it all has to be done before certifying the election returns. (Of course, some people like Logan say that they weren’t required to double-check the number of votes in the poll books by scanning them into the database. But, somehow even Logan and people like him have to determine that the numbers they are reporting are accurate numbers of legitimate votes.)
And how do you explain the more voters than votes scenario that occurred in other counties and past King county elections?
I know of only a couple of things that can result in more voters than ballots. When an absentee ballot is rejected, it’s not possible to go back and remove the credit from that voter’s record. This can occur when two ballots are put into the same envelope, but only one signature is placed on the envelope. The voter is credited with voting. The envelope goes to the next stage, where the inner secrecy envelope containing the ballots is taken out and put into another tray. The secrecy envelope is later opened and the two ballots are found inside. If the ballots are voted identically, one is rejected – so the number of accepted ballots matches the number of voters credited with voting. If the ballots aren’t voted identically, both are rejected – causing the number of voters credited with voting to exceed the number of ballots on which the votes are counted. (It’s obviously possible to keep track of the few that are rejected, so it ought to be easy to reconcile the numbers.)
Another situation would involve a ballot – whether absentee or voted at the polls – on which the voter put some note which identifies the person who cast the ballot. Such ballots must be rejected. (Again, it ought to be easy to keep track of the few that are rejected and reconcile the totals.)
When those two situations occur (and others that I don’t know for sure – for example, I’ve heard that some counties credit voters with voting even when their absentee ballots arrive after the deadline), the actual pre-certification process should be able to handle the reconciliation. However, the list of voters credited with participating in the election won’t match the number of ballots included in the count. Only by adding the number of rejected ballots to the number of ballots on which the votes were counted could you arrive at a number which ought to match the number of voters credited with having voted.
And, of course, an inability to reconcile raises an obvious question when there are “ballotless voters”: Were legitimate ballots cast by registered, eligible voters and then removed from the stack of ballots and hidden or destroyed? That’s the mirror image of the question raised by having “voterless ballots.”
Actually, Don, I am pointing out the nature of the available evidence which must be examined to see if the apparent discrepancies between the numbers of voters and numbers of ballots are real discrepancies.
But, I guess that’s too hard for you to wrap your mind around.
Micajah–
We appreciate your patience with the retarded Leftists.
The Precindt Poll Books are a nightmare…they were REQUIRED to be reconciled Election Night. Obviously, they were not. Have any of these pollbooks been altered since pollworkers SIGNED AND ATTESTED to their precindt accounting for ALL BALLOTS RECEIVED and ALL BALLOTS ISSUED? Were they altered in efforts to reconcile??
torridjoe-
You seem like a pretty sharp data analyst. Previously you did an analysis of other County reconciliations to make the case that KingCo was within a reasonable range. I can’t seem to find your analysis. You were using this analysis to discredit Sharkansky and came up with some pretty interesting numbers. Can you share those numbers with us?? For the sake of brevity, what #’s did you use for the bigger Counties…say
PIERCE, SNOHOMISH and SPOKANE.
Thank you–
torrid, you certainly are dismissive if I don’t have a link, but here goes. It may be a lefty or righty blog, but the facts and memo appear to be true. I would think the internet journal would want a lot of hits in order to justify more ad revenue.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/001274.html
cynical–
you don’t happen to have any evidence that the pollbooks were not reconciled, do you? So far there’s no one I’ve heard of who yet claims that King did not perform this step. And I don’t think the issue is one of ballots counted to ballots issued–or at least I haven’t heard anyone else mention it. If there is an issue, it would be ballots issued vs voter signatures.
I used the numbers Sharkansky provided at his site for Pierce and Snohomish. I retrieved Spokane’s myself; there was an error that Carla and I are correcting, and should publish this evening. Essentially, Spokane fed me their number including “courtesy credits,” which makes them uncomparable. Their “stripped” number was much lower than originally reported.
However, I did do a follow up set of correlations, and added the simple regression that chew2 wanted to see–the relationship is still there, still strong. I’ll have more on that tonight, as I said.
torridjoe–
Hey thanks….I try to look at this from all angles. I haven’t seen anyone yet be 100% correct 100% of the time. Only Dean Logan wants us to believe his controls were 100% perfect that despite his inability to reconcile we should just TRUST HIM that there were no illegitmate votes (via BALLOTBOX STUFFING OR UNSTUFFING). I would have a lot more confidence in Logan if he could give us a list of names that matches in total the ballots counted.
I do find it quite peculiar that Logan would tell us he has perfect controls in place UPFRONT out of one side of his mouth…
and then say that some people may have voted and failed to sign the pollbook??? That doesn’t sound like perfect controls in place upfront as no one can get a ballot to vote at the polls unless they sign the poll book. Peculiar, don’t you think??
Anyway, thank you for your ongoing data analysis. I can’t imagine where you, carla and Sharkansky find the time to do all this and earn a living too!
You must be independently wealthy!!!!
I’ll look for your update….many thanks!
swatter–bates makes the same point I did: it’s ludicrous to try to restrict linking, because nothing’s being disseminated. It’s being “anti-disseminated,” for what of a better word–everything’s going BACK to them, not away from them.
Thanks for the link. You don’t have to worry, I’d say. They are trying to bully Bates.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/l.....40401.html
torridjoe, carla & Goldy–
Well folks…it looks like you may have tried hard to “FISK” the SHARK but what ended up happening is he actually F**K’ed you!
And I don’t mean FISKED!
Seriously, I appreciate all your efforts to present data analysis from a variety of viewpoints and biases. And I understand you can only go with the data you are given.
HOWEVER–You must be much more careful to validate data that APPEARS to be not accurate (like the Spokane numbers you used).
Sharkansky is very careful in this regard….and it gives him more credibility.
That said…keep up your efforts. I truly enjoy the “Battle of the Stat Analysts and Actuaries”!!!
To many of your Leftist posters have zero training in these areas…all they do is puke up political mantra and RCW’s..(i.e. Don, jcricket, bby/Rudy/jpgee etc.) At least you are “trying” to statistically justify your positions. Hats off!!
Oh–torridjoe–
If I were you, I would definitely spend some time looking at those pollbooks. Micajah is 100% Right-on. Although, if you are looking to avoid the truth about the KingCo election dept. failures, I would continue to avoid looking at those poll books.
Hopefully you folks aren’t screwing around where you START with the desired conclusion and look for away to glue together statistics to validate your assumption??!!! That wouldn’t be right, would it.
The number the sycophants at (u)SP don’t want to look at:
1.1 million registered voters in King County.
900 thousand voters who bothered to show up on election day. Actually an historic turnout.
However, 80,000 R voters who stayed home?
With all the D’s who crossed lines to vote for Rossi, these sycophants have no one to blame for the outcome but,
THEMSELVES!
Now, now, Mr. Cynical!
Studies undertaken by a group which already has a postulated view are considered suspect for good reason…only through careful and unbiased research can a “valid” result (in the eyes of the opposition) be obtained.
I think neither TJ & C nor the Shark allowed bias to enter their data models…though if it did for either of them, what a shame…
Sharkansky is very careful in this regard….and it gives him more credibility.
I’m sorry, that’s complete BS and hilarious for you to assert with a straight face. Stefan regularly uses preliminary numbers and then complains when his model gets blown out of the water by “late breaking developments”. We saw that all through the original count and the recounts.
Micajah @13, 15
I know we keep talking at each other instead of to each other, but here goes…
The statute requires that precinct workers attempt to reconcile at the polls, and then report on any discrepancies. (I believe they actually compare the log sheets to the number of ballots issued.) I have seen no reports that this reconciliation process was not done as required, but I will inquire.
The voter database is maintained by going to the poll books, after certification, and scanning the barcode (using a hand scanning gun) next to each voter signed into the poll book. This is not part of the reconciliation process, and is not compiled from the precinct reconciliation reports. The precinct level reconciliation concerns total numbers, whereas the voter database maintenance credits individual voters. With proper technology one could conceivable combine the two… but we don’t.
Also, please note that while statute requires reconciliation to be performed at the precinct level, it does not require that the numbers actually reconcile in order to proceed with certification. And note that I am not interpreting the statutes, but rather reporting on how the auditors interpret them in performing their functions.
There is a reconciliation process, but the voter database is simply NOT part of it. Thus, as I have said on a number of occasions, the “discrepancy” does not represent evidence of more ballots than voters, but at the worst, represents the lack of evidence to the contrary.
You keep repeating that we “need” to reconcile the voter credits with the ballots cast, before certification, but that is merely your opinion, not the law. The poll books are there for you or Snark or Rossi to examine. If in fact there is evidence of the ballot box stuffing that people like Cynical smirkingly insist there was, then there will be every opportunity to prove that in court. But the “discrepancy” between the number of voters credited in the voter database, and the number of ballots cast is not in itself evidence of fraud, corruption or mismanagement.
And that is what I have been objecting to all along.
Cynical… I stand by my original report: all Snark and I did was shake hands.
Goldy,
I’ll read what you wrote above as soon as I post this.
Have you seen what Sam Reed said today during his “chat session” hosted by The Olympian?
Take a peek:
http://crokersack.blogspot.com.....ey-do.html
Come on, Goldy, get real. You said: “You keep repeating that we “need” to reconcile the voter credits with the ballots cast, before certification, but that is merely your opinion, not the law.”
I’ve said it in plain English that I believe that ought to be done. I’ve not said that the law specifically requires it. You can surely understand what I said.
Of course I repeat it — had it been done, there wouldn’t have been a surprise in late December; and it ought to become a part of the law for future elections.
A nearly identical thing is done with absentee ballots now — there is no second scanning of bar codes. The database info scanned at the initial receipt of the ballots is used to update voter registration records with the date of the last election they participated in.
All I’m saying is that the computer system can be used to do exactly the same thing with the poll books. Then, there would be a way to double-check the ballot accountability forms as the bar codes are scanned.
Should I put my recommendations in italics, so you won’t again fall into the fallacy of claiming that I’m expressing my opinion as though it’s the law?
With regard to the significance of the apparent discrepancies between voters and ballots that came to light in late December when the voter lists were published — I have said repeatedly that those lists don’t prove anything. I have said repeatedly that they raise a question which must be answered by looking at the records from which they were prepared.
You accuse me of saying things I have never said.
As for there being a requirement to reconcile voter signatures and ballots — of course the law doesn’t require that they match. If there is a discrepancy the canvassing boards must determine what to do about it.
A big enough discrepancy could justify tossing out the entire precinct’s ballots, rather than including them in the count. That’s the most drastic thing, of course, and wouldn’t be done except in the most drastic circumstances.
When the election is contested, there could be discrepancies that are big enough to justify setting aside the election.
No one says they must match exactly — at least not I.
Until the evidence is presented in court, we won’t know how big the discrepancies may be (if they exist at all).
Until we know how big they are and where they occurred, we won’t know whether they could conceivably justify setting aside the election.
How many times must I say that nothing has been proven yet?
You have me confused with someone who has already made up his mind about the facts without having seen the evidence.
Goldy @ 43
“I stand by my original report: all Snark and I did was shake hands.”
LOL! Though mitigated by your continued ‘snark’yness…
I know of only a couple of things that can result in more voters than ballots.
What about when the voter signs the poll book, waits in line for a voting booth, gets impatient and walks out of the polling place with the ballot?
John,
Yeah, I thought about that one afterwards.
It’s a crime to take the ballot out of the polling place, and the poll workers are supposed to make a note of it in their records when they see it happen — so they can reconcile their signature and ballot counts after the close of the polls, and maybe even so someone could apprehend the offender (if the law enforcement people wanted to take the time and effort to do so).
But, obviously it could happen without their notice at a busy time of the election day.
It’s a crime, because taking the ballot out of the polling place is one way to show a person how you’ve actually marked your ballot before putting it in the ballot box. If your job or some benefit depends on how you voted — maybe just a big jug of wine has been promised — then the buyer would want to know how you voted.
I suppose no one worries about such things anymore. Absentee ballots are now cast by people who aren’t absent, so they can show them to others before sealing the envelopes and dropping them in the mails.
Micajah,
I apologize if I inadvertently put words in your mouth, but you started off the discussion by saying:
I thought the issue we were debating here is whether the so-called “discrepancy” is a meaningful number that tells us anything about this election. My argument is that it isn’t. And that is why I continue to harp in that one point.
Then we agree. I’m a little sleep deprived today, so remind me, what is it we’re arguing over?
Goldy,
Apology accepted.
Here’s why I called your analysis horsefeathers (aside from a desire to mock the label you gave to Sharkansky’s stuff). You said: As Logan made absolutely clear, there is “no legal reconciliation process,” an assertion that has been repeated to me by every auditor’s office I have talked to.
Then you went on to talk about the updating of the voter registration records to show the date of the last election (what some people call “crediting” the voters with voting, although they are actually credited with voting by an entry in the poll books) as though that was the only thing required — and didn’t note the reconciliation that is required prior to certifying the county’s election returns.
My point was that there is a legally required reconciliation process prior to certifying the county’s election returns — one which Logan never mentions (and for that matter, hardly anyone mentions).
Did you look at what Sam Reed said today in the chat session? Click the link at #44 and take a look, if you haven’t already.
Interesting. If he has a factual basis for his statement, there might have been a reconciliation done by King County (even though Logan never mentions it in answer to the many critics). It would have been the minimum required by law, namely a reconciliation of the ballot accountability forms’ numbers and the ballot counts. But something is better than nothing.
Gentlemen–
Keep in mind if every precindt pollbook is reconciled and all ballots accounted for..
And if the Absentees are all accounted for
And if all discrepancies, provisional ballots, ACP’s etc are noted–
They ought to be able to reconcile voters & votes…don’t you think?
It will be interesting to you all to see precindt-by-precindt where these discrepancies have occurred, don’t you think?
The pollbooks are a key document, don’t you think?
Goldy…don’t you think?
Micajah,
My statement was an error of ommission. I guess I was assuming context. What I meant was that there is no legal reconciliation process regarding the voter database and the ballots cast. There is, of course, a precinct level reconciliation process, and my understanding is that it was conducted as specified in the WAC.
Cynical… the poll books have always been there for anybody to examine. Personally, I don’t have the time to pour through 2600 poll books. But if your BIAW buddies can front me the money, I’m sure I could hire a team to do it.
Please use smaller words and shorter posts. I am getting dizzy from all the spinning. I can watch my clothes spin in the dryer all day, but this is just too much! It is cruel and unusual punishment for one fraudulent election.
Liberals lie @54
Vote good. Gregoire win. Rossi lose. Rossi voters big sad. 2008.
Micajah @ 31
Or maybe you’re just regurgitating the standard GOP myths.
Cyn @ 37
Let me guess. It’s credible if it’s what you want to hear. It’s not credible if it’s what you don’t want to hear.
Don@58–
Obviously that is your mentality. I don’t think that way. Thanks for asking!!
Cyn @ 37, 58
Sorry, Cyn, but you Republicans hold the patent on that mentality and I wouldn’t dare infringe it!
Goldy, Thanks. However, I think your analysis is flawed because
“win” is inaccurate data input which created your conclusion that “Rossi lose.”
“1,800 misscanned voters is not only understandable, it’s completely consistent with past elections and other jurisdictions. So there.”
1,800? What about 1,801? 2,000? 5,000? 9,000?
It is clear that Democrats would say any amount of errors/fraud is o.k. as long as the leftists win. Mediocrity in the election process and hypocrisy in the Democratic Party make good bedfellows, and increases the chances for election fraud.
Democrats do not want real election reform because their chances of “winning” (by any means) would be greatly diminished.
LL @ 60,
If you have proof of fraud go to Norm Maleng or the FBI but you don’t do you?
It just makes you feel better to spout off. Spouting off takes less work than motivating the 80 thousand R’s who stayed home on election day in King County alone – more than enough to put Rossi over the top.
So keep reading Sharkansky and sucking in Faux News – and spouting off.
John, why be so acrimonious? If I want to “spout off,” why can’t I do it here? There is a lot of spouting off going on here, and not just by me. At least I try to be succinct.
“So keep reading Sharkansky and sucking in Faux News – and spouting off.”
Why do liberals always feel the need to control?
FYI: I don’t even have cable TV.
The election was a real mess in King County, if you choose to not believe that, I really don’t care, that is your right. I think that the evidence is overwhelming for fraud and incompetence. Any person voting illegally has committed fraud (by deception), and I am sure that Dean Logan is giving the illegal voters info to the Prosecutor so he can prosecute those people to the fullest extent of the law, whoever they may have voted for.
Many, liberals go to more conservative blogs and spout off(continuously, inanely ). Why can’t the spouting off be a two way street? Do you not believe in free speech after all?
Who really listens to people spouting off, anyway? I try not to.
LL @62
Unlike some blogs (you know who I mean) I don’t stop anybody from spouting off here. However, neither do I stop anybody for spouting off at the folk spouting off. What I don’t want is for anybody to tell you to leave. I’m not exactly sure what the definition of “moonbat troll” is anyway.
Liberals lie @ 60
“Democrats do not want real election reform because their chances of ‘winning’ (by any means) would be greatly diminished.”
This one is easily tested because the Democrats control the Legislature, so all we have to do is wait and see what they pass. Of course, some of us know that no matter what they pass, there are people who will bash it simply because Democrats instead of Republicans passed it.
Liberals lie @ 62
“Why do liberals always feel the need to control?”
Because we don’t want the pathologically ignorant elements of society f**king everything up. We have to live here, too.
“The election was a real mess in King County, if you choose to not believe that, I really don’t care, that is your right. I think that the evidence is overwhelming for fraud and incompetence.”
Florida 2000 was a “mess.” Ohio 2004 was a “mess.” Compared to that elections that Georgie-Boy wins, King County is a model of rectitude, cleanliness, and competence. Not perfect; merely infinitely better than elections run by Republicans. As for “fraud,” if we can set aside the right-wing propaganda and paranoia and deal with reality for just a moment, the only “fraud” uncovered so far is a couple of people who voted their dead spouses’ ballots and possibly a handful of felons who knew they weren’t supposed to vote, although the latter is questionable given (a) how confusing our felon-disqualification system is and (b) most felons are too stupid to figure out something as subtle as their eligibility to vote (or lack thereof) as demonstrated by growing indications that a majority of the ineligible-felon voters may have actually voted for (ahem) Rossi. The key to understanding a right-winger when he complains about “election fraud” is as follows: “Fraud” = any election a Democrat wins.
Maybe We Should Support a Revote
The more I think about Bush’s BPA proposal, the more inclined I am to actually find out how many eastern Washington farmers, small business owners, and consumers would vote for a guy who owes his allegiance and gratitude to Bush. Sixty-percent rate increases in three years, how’s that grab ya? Rossi has an interesting choice here, either fight his own president or commit political suicide. Yes, let’s do a revote and see how the GOP’s scheme to boost BPA rates by 60% plays in eastern Washington and all over the state. This should be fun.
(Changed my moniker aka L.L.)
Goldy, thanks. I will try to curb my acerbic extemporaneous spouting off (as in expressing my personal opinion). I know I am only a (perhaps unwanted) guest here. Liberals seem to get angry too fast for me. Like Mr. Eastwood, “Maybe I’m getting to the age when I’m starting to be senile…” A few more years and many reduced brain cells later I could become a lefty (I know everyone will join me in this prayer “O Lord, take me home before that happens, please.”)
Begin spouting off (already started, I know, couldn’t help myself): Florida 2000 has little or nothing to do with Washington 2004.
Why do liberals always try to make every discussion into a vendetta against President Bush? That much hate I do not want to have against the woman pretending to be the Washington State Governor. Hate is very self-destructive.
End spouting off.
Goldy –
“Unlike some blogs (you know who I mean) I don’t stop anybody from spouting off here. However, neither do I stop anybody for spouting off at the folk spouting off. What I don’t want is for anybody to tell you to leave. I’m not exactly sure what the definition of “moonbat troll” is anyway”
I have given this some ‘inconsiderate’ thought. I honestly do believe that when under attack, you should respond in kind and overwhelmingly. I admit to a past military affiliation, which makes my opinion a bit precarious, perhaps? I don’t know…
What I suggest is creating a “Rant Room” where you could move or copy the more ridiculous raving lunatic fringe comments.
Keep everything as it was perhaps, just collate the more ridiculous rants in another page where people can post to.
Soon enough, one of two things happens. Either that page becomes your most popular spot, or the ridiculous rants of some go bye-bye…
Don’t know if it is a good idea or not, just brainstorming after your attack…
In fact, I would suggest this to other sites, as well…
LL @ 62
I think that the evidence is overwhelming for fraud and incompetence.
Fraud has a nine point definition in the law. As for incompetence, you try running an election that had a record number of new registrations and a record turnout with 43 full-time people, a few more paid temps and 4000 volunteers and see if you get a perfect balance.
There are illegal votes in every election, some due to ignorance of the law and some deliberate. That’s reality. If you want to double check Logan’s work on referring those “defrauders” to Norm Maleng feel free.
But the reality you consistenly refuse to face is that Rossi didn’t get enough support to prevail in this election contest despite all the help he got from D’s who crossed lines to support him. Too many R’s stayed home. The R’s blew it!
Visit your domination phone sex mistress. Live domination phone sex hot femdom mistress waiting.
solidification.fleshing cryptographer whacked?allemande waxen