Study shows WA elections errors one-tenth of national standard

I was going to comment on yesterday’s article in the San Francisco Chronicle on the accuracy of elections (“The vote you cast may not be tallied, 1 out of 100 shown uncounted in 2004“), but I don’t really have much more to add than TJ’s report over at Also Also.

There are two salient points to take from this analysis: first, electoral error rates can run to at LEAST 1%–and I say at least, because the figure cited only refers to votes not counted, leaving out invalid votes that are accidentally counted. In fact, as the article points out, “The National Commission on Election Reform has recommended that states reduce their error rates below 2 percent no matter what mechanism they use [emph mine, again].” Below two percent? So what does it say about a county with a new database and record numbers of voters, when they manage to achieve an “error rate” about one-TENTH of the national standard?

It says that whatever irregularities there were in this election (and of course, there were some,) were not all that irregular. I’ll repeat my mantra: the only thing extraordinary about this election is its extraordinary closeness. This election is so far within the margin of error that we simply cannot confidently determine who got the most votes… but Gregoire won by the rules. If there had been no hand recount, and Rossi had been declared the winner by 42 votes, his attorneys would be as vigorous in defending the integrity of the election as they are now in attacking it.

It is time to stop arguing over this past election, and start arguing over how to improve future ones. To that end, I intend to start posting a series on election reform, later this week.

Comments

  1. 1

    gs spews:

    Did the story also show how incredibly close a 129 vote victory margin is compared to the national standard for such races. I think this point is equally important in light of the KC ordeal, and I will just call it an ordeal at this point. I suspect it was closer than most any races nationwide, and therefore demands scrutiny! Just my opinion!

  2. 2

    JCH spews:

    “It is time to stop arguing over this past election, and start arguing over how to improve future ones.” Goldy, Perhaps the time to stop arguing over this past election was after the recount, but before King County “dicovered” a few hundred “lost” votes. Like Clinton, you libs love to say “Move on! There’s nothing to see here”! Classic Milwaukee/King County/Chicago/Philly/Detroit/Harare [Zimbabwe] comments after a stolen election. Gee, what do these cities have in common?

  3. 3

    spews:

    Sometimes I wonder if there’s any chance we will all learn to speak the same language.

    Notice this paragraph in the article you linked:

    “For years, researchers with the Cal Tech/MIT Voting Technology Project have studied what happens to votes that seemingly disappear. They’ve found vast differences among different techniques of voting. They have concluded, for example, that punch cards produced uncounted presidential votes nearly twice as often as alternatives such as optically scanned paper ballots and ATM- like electronic machines. They’ve also noted that some of those uncounted votes can be attributed to voters who deliberately opted not to vote for any candidate for president.”

    Now, if I were to use the word “vote” I would mean some mark or other indication on a ballot which expresses a choice or selection among available candidates or options.

    The person who wrote this article doesn’t use “votes” to mean such a thing. It’s impossible for me to imagine what meaning the writer gives to the word “votes,” since the writer apparently counts as a “vote” a decision not to vote at all!!

    Can someone on the left translate the writer’s language? How could “uncounted votes” include situations in which the voters intentionally chose not to mark a vote on a ballot?

    When Democrats say “count every vote,” are they including these non-vote-votes?

    When a so-called error rate during an election counts as an error the correct tallying of a non-vote as a non-vote, error rates have no apparent meaning.

  4. 4

    spews:

    Micajah, I’m with you until the last sentence. There’s no evidence that the researchers, having identified this situation, went on to categorize them as “errors.” In fact, what it certainly appears they are doing is alerting the reader that they have in fact been separated from the analysis for just that reason.

    I certainly agree the reference made by the author is confusing, however.

  5. 5

    spews:

    Micajah @ 3 cannot comprehend the meaning of They’ve also noted that some of those uncounted votes can be attributed to voters who deliberately opted not to vote for any candidate for president.

    A ballot has multiple races to vote on. Not everyone chooses to vote on every race. To quote a favorite drummer/lyricist: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

  6. 6

    spews:

    Daniel, I think what Micajah means is that not voting for President on a ballot where other races are voted, does NOT constitute an “uncounted vote.” It’s a race not voted. And he’s alarmed that it might get counted as an “error,” when clearly it’s not.

  7. 7

    spews:

    TJ, apolgies. My reading is that they are pointing out the fact that not all undervotes for a race are in fact erroneous, so that has to be taken into account. Which is how you explain it too.

  8. 8

    Jeff B. spews:

    The leftist/Goldstein party line regarding the election: “Sh-t happens, try again in 2008.”

    Now we will get to see if Goldy’s rubber meets the road. Can’t wait to read your election reform proposals and see if they are as weak as what your fellow Democrats are proposing in our State Legislature.

    Anything significantly less than the very reasonable reforms that the Republican’s recently proposed here http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1912206 as recounted by Emcee, and you will be exposing your true bias which is to make it easier to insert individual fraud and corruption into the elections process. There’s reasonable compromises in here, such as marking all registrations as inactive instead of outright purging the rolls. But you Democrats usually are not reasonable.

    I’m not expecting you to live up to any decent election standard Goldy. Surprise me.

  9. 9

    John spews:

    Jeff B.,

    Finally the Repulicans in this comment board put up – and the link doesn’t work!

    Try again and while you’re at it, put up a link for the Democrat proposals you disparage so much – without stating any reasons of course.

    Then we can have a real conversation.

  10. 10

    spews:

    Jeff B. @ 8

    Hmmm… What are those Republican proposals?

    >?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?<
    >response<
    >error<1>/error<
    >message<Need a Source URL (url).>/message<
    >/response<

    Very reasonable indeed.

  11. 11

    spews:

    That should have been:


    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
    <response>
    <error>1</error>
    <message>Need a Source URL (url).</message>
    </response>

    Still typically empty of meaning.

  12. 12

    David R spews:

    Reading the original article, you get the sense that the use of the term “Error Rate” includes ballots not counted due to voter error, such as not marking ballots correctly:

    “Voters were less fortunate in the November election in San Diego, where 5, 547 residents had their votes for mayor discarded because, although they wrote in the name of candidate Donna Frye, they failed to fill in the bubble next to her name.”

    Although admittedly it’s difficult to know what the author meant because she doesn’t define her terms.

    But Also Also compares this “Error Rate” to Washington State’s discrepancy between votes tallied and the number of voters credited, or the infamous 1800+ figure:

    “A national accuracy goal of 98%. A 2000 national reality of 99%. King’s reality of 99.8%. Chew on that for a while.”

    It seems like an Apples-to-Oranges comparison to me; Ballots that are not counted due to voter and election official errors versus a discrepancy between votes tallied and voters credited.

  13. 13

    spews:

    You’re absolutely right, David R. I used 1,860 as a proxy for the error rate, since it’s fairly likely that it represents the outer bound for actual errors.

  14. 14

    JCH spews:

    A Little WASH Democrat GOV Update: New carpet in the governor’s mansion sure didn’t help. She’s allergic to the cats that Gary Locke owned, you see, and so the whole mansion was recarpeted, at a cost of about $15,000. And no, you won’t find that in the newspapers. (She also got a new $3,500 refrigerator, by the way). Don, Goldy, TorridJoe, liberals et all…..It’s sooooo much fun spending other people’s money!! DON, when you had to spend your OWN $$$ on a refrigerator, how much did you spend? Goldy, TJOE, same question? [hehe]

  15. 15

    Don spews:

    Making everyone re-register is no more reasonable than making everyone re-take their driving licensing test. (BTW I wonder how many would pass?)

  16. 16

    Don spews:

    JCH @ 14

    Typical Republican, can’t see the forest for the trees. Bitches about a $3500 refrigerator when he could be complaining about the $2.5 million spent on renovating the mansion in which Gregoire lives rent-free. The very same mansion Dino and his family toured. I must bug the hell out of Mrs. Dino that she didn’t get to pick the refrigerator or carpet colors.

  17. 17

    spews:

    And you know, the more I read the article, the more I agree that the real thrust of at least the MIT/Cal study is to votes cast but not counted for one reason or another (excepting those intentionally not cast). And the NCER-suggested goal also seems to focus on machines not catching votes with various problems.

    But I think there’s a validation for King there as well, or at least more broadly a validation for manual recounts and examination of machine-rejected ballots. King was able to count thousands of these based on human inspection and concurrence by observers. And we know about the 700+ votes discovered set aside as a result of electoral errors.

    I have to agree that a more strictly comparable exercise would be to review King’s rejection rates based on the voting system, but I also believe there is continued merit in discussing King’s performance in this context of studied electoral accuracy.

    Thanks a lot for your comments, David!

  18. 18

    chew2 spews:

    micajah @ 3

    Too much lawyer like-mental masturbation on your part!! What is the meaning of “is”, what is the meaning of “votes”? You are demanding too much precision from a poor reporter who is trying to summarize academic research he/she might not understand.

    You should read the MIT report, if you havent’ already.

    I recall vaguely that those researchers were using undervotes as a proxy for spoiled ballots or votes not counted, but admitted that this measure also included deliberate non-votes. They then used other studies to estimate the deliberate non-votes, which they could then deduct from their proxy to get the “true” percentage of spoiled ballots. But I could be wrong in my memory. In any case, no way could the poor news reporter make those distinctions in her short report.

    So don’t argue over the meaning of “is”.

  19. 19

    christmasghost spews:

    “It says that whatever irregularities there were in this election (and of course, there were some,) were not all that irregular. I’ll repeat my mantra: the only thing extraordinary about this election is its extraordinary closeness.”
    Goldy,
    Well, there are a couple of other things that are unusual about this race too. For instance never has a recount changed the outcome of a race anywhere….has it? Does that not make anyone wonder? And then, of course, there were all those votes found and the mystery binder….and you would have to be really out there to think that it puts all these issues to rest. If it did, Logan would have been wearing it as a sandwich sign from day one. Maybe he just needs to “work” on it more…..Hmmm?
    I will say it again…if she really won, why are the Kirsten “I- learned-everything-I-know-about-politics-by-walking-James’-dogs Brost and the Paul-I-cry-on-cue-Berendt continually getting their knickers in such a knot?
    Because they know she didn’t win. If the democrats had been really savvy in this situation they would have called for a revote also.
    Heard of backlash ,anyone?
    In 2006 and 2008, what you will be hearing from the Democrats is this ” Christine Gregoire cost us these positions”. Start looking for work Paul and Kirsten…….sacrificial fools always go first.

  20. 21

    bmvaughn spews:

    Well put goldy, I totally agree with you on this post. Gregoire won within the rules laid out for this election.

    Furthermore, Rossi is challenging the election on grounds of irregularities, also within the rules, and it is noble of him to do so.

  21. 22

    JCH spews:

    WASH GOV Democrat Hack Spending Update: The refrigerator was only $1200. The additional $2300 were union installers and their apprentices. [Don, another "bargain" for the taxpayers, right? Goldy, "Nothing to see here!! Let's move on!!"]

  22. 23

    JCH spews:

    Goldy, Let’s vote for the economic “guideline” that you feel most comfortable. 1. Atlas Shrugged [Rand] 2. Communist Manifesto [Marx] Which discribes the “progressive” Democrats of today? From where does Don’s “redistribute” other’s wealth come? [Answer: You are a communist!]

  23. 24

    christmasghost spews:

    Good try Joe…thanks for the links.I still stand by what I said…and Montreal does not count.ANYWHERE……
    Dailykos….oh, please. Are you going to refer people to moveon next?
    If you can honestly tell me that as a liberal Democrat you would be satisfied with the outcome of this race if Gregoire had been declared the winner twice, and then the GOP brought in money from other states to do a hand recount and all of a sudden …whoops….she really lost.Can you?

  24. 25

    christmasghost spews:

    And by the way….along Susan’s line of “what the hell are you conservative creeps doing HERE?” Why are all the major complainers and excuse makers for Gregoire from out of state? As in Oregon?
    What’s it to you?
    This I have to hear………

  25. 26

    spews:

    ghost @ 24
    are you suggesting the MSM links from Kos are fabricated? You’d better back that up. Are you similarly alleging that Montreal does not exist; its presence as a city in Quebec is a falsehood perpetrated by anarchic cartographers? I find it curious that you choose to stand by your comments, despite being soundly proven wrong.

    Since I’m not a liberal Democrat, since Rossi was NEVER declared the winner, and the state is paying for the recount, I’m not sure of the point of your hypothesis. If you’re asking whether I accept that recounts are generally more reliable than the original count, the answer is “you bet.”

  26. 27

    Jeff B. spews:

    Sorry the link did not work. Read about what the Republicans propose here:

    http://pullonsupermanscape.typ....._ra_9.html

    It’s all quite reasonable. The only thing I am sure all you will object to is this part:

    “Any improvements to our election laws should include consequences for breaking them. We would increase the penalties for illegal registration or voting. That offense is now a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor – our bill would make it a class C felony. Those who vote illegally would be referred to county prosecutors and the results tracked.”

    Democrats never want to take responsibility for their actions. I’m sure you will all wax on about how felons did not know that voting was illegal, and neither did the nice old man who voted for his dead wife, etc. Try that same line the next time you get pulled over for a speeding ticket. Being ignorant of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, and that is why we have judges. If a person truly made a mistake and is truly remorseful, he or she can please for the mercy of the court.

  27. 28

    spews:

    jeff b–

    on what basis do you make any such claim about what I might object to? Is it simply your ad hominem attack on Democrats and responsibility–a charge that also lacks basis in fact?

    It’s all quite reasonable? To disenfranchise every voter in the state of WA is reasonable? That’s what they’re proposing. To eradicate the principle of voter intent in WA–that’s reasonable? That’s what they’re proposing. Giving military voters unequal and superior rights in turning in ballots late, despite several provisions already available to allow them to vote pretty much any time they want? That’s reasonable? Preventing apparently wrongly disenfranchised voters from being properly counted by delivering affadavits is reasonable? Forcing voters to provide additional proof of registration that is already proven by virtue of their presence on voter rolls is reasonable?

    Wow.

  28. 29

    Don spews:

    Jeff B. @ 27

    “Democrats never want to take responsibility for their actions.”

    Wow! You sure like to paint with a broad brush and take a flyer on grandiose statements, don’t you? If this isn’t the Mother of All Generalizations, it’s her bastard son!

    I don’t think I can compete with that but let me take a run at it: “All Republicans are narcissistic white males with their heads up their asses!” (For the record, I don’t believe that’s true, but I don’t believe your generalization either, which I guess makes it even.)

  29. 30

    spews:

    Regarding the Republican suggestions that Jeff B. thinks are the bees knees, I have the following comments:

    Tighten registration requirements. Remember how people listed their residences as rented mailboxes this election? Under our proposal, that would no longer be acceptable.

    What is the proposal? What would be acceptable?

    Give counties the tools they need to clean up the voter registration rolls by moving all voters to “inactive” status and requiring them to re-register by July 1, 2007. Anyone who doesn’t re-register would remain on the inactive list and could still vote, in accordance with federal law, but would have to vote using a provisional ballot.

    So we do nothing until after the 2006 elections? Why? This will undoubtedly cause a huge increase in provisional ballots, and the confusion that goes with that.

    Require the Secretary of State to check the voter registration database each month for:
    Duplicate registrations
    Felons whose voting rights were not restored
    Deceased voters

    How does this protect against dead voters who die in the last month before the election. This should not be done only once a month, it should be done nightly. This is the 21st century folks, not the dawn of computing.

    Require that all ballots be received at county offices by 8 p.m. on Election Day. The only exception would be members of our military, who would simply have to vote their ballots by Election Day.

    What about non-military citizens overseas? They should be extended the same deadline as military personnel overseas who would have the benefit of military mail delivery.

    Furthermore, these reforms continue to disenfranchise Americans who live overseas who cannot vote in federal elections, as should be their right.

  30. 31

    JCH spews:

    29…DON…”All Republicans are narcissistic white males with their heads up their asses!”………Don, I can’t feel your love!! [But I bet Goldy can "feel your love"!!]

  31. 32

    christmasghost spews:

    torridjoe @26
    “re you suggesting the MSM links from Kos are fabricated? You’d better back that up. Are you similarly alleging that Montreal…”
    I’d better back that up? Are you for real? Or what????
    And my Montreal comment was tongue in cheek humor…..I guess it went right over your head. Ever been there Joe?
    That’s a no…..
    You talk in very pedantic partisan little circles without ever answering anything. Why?

  32. 33

    spews:

    If an election board found errors, the county could amend its report during a 24-hour period following the last county’s certification. Military ballots that came in following a county’s certification would be added at that time.

    Huh? Counting military votes after certification? What’s up with that?

  33. 34

    spews:

    Xmas @ 32
    If you ask a question that makes sense, and isn’t troubled by a litany of mistaken information, I’m happy to answer it.
    I’ve never been to Montreal outside the airport, but Quebec City is beautiful. On the other hand, since you’re answering my questions for me now, I guess neither of us needs to worry about your questions.

  34. 35

    spews:

    Counties would need to reconcile the number of ballots with the number of people credited with voting. If they can’t, they’ll need to explain the discrepancy. Having such a rule in place would have saved innumerable headaches in this year’s election.

    How? Who decided what a valid explanation is? This does nothing to prevent future headaches.

    If the number of ballots cast for an office or ballot measure was greater than the number of lawful voters and the difference exceeded the margin of victory, that election would be declared void. A revote would be held within 60 days.

    This is an impossible standard to set. How are the number of ballots cast vs. the number of lawful voters determined? Is it set county by county, or against statewide totals only? If set county by county then one small county could cause a revote even if their numbers are inconsequential. If set against statewide totals then the chance that the error rate nullifies an election is too great.

  35. 37

    spews:

    Don @ 36
    I surely don’t find JCH any less annoying and ill-informed than you do, but I don’t think it adds anything to make up cute little names based on their regular name/handle. The right wing echo chamber just LOVES to do that, because it signifies their disdain and personal framing of their opponent, as opposed to the merits (or lack) of what they say.

    I know you want to fight fire with fire, as it were, but I don’t think it’s any more productive when you do it, than when “they” do.
    I’m not trying to police you; just stating my opinion on it. Obviously, you do as you see fit.

  36. 38

    christmasghost spews:

    Joe,
    So once again…why are you, an Oregonian, so interested in this?Isn’t it funny that Democrats are so upset when the US goes after terrorists in other countries[because it's none of our business, right?]…yet have no problem interfering in another State’s business? And in your case…it appears that you are doing it on another State’s dime as well…..
    Don’t you think the Washington Democrats can take care of themselves?
    Sorry for assuming that you are a liberal Democrat…..you sure do a good immitation of one.
    Feel free to actually answer my questions instead of just twirling around……….

  37. 39

    spews:

    ghost @ 38
    Don’t you find the election and contest fascinating? I do.
    As for the rest of your confused patter based on more wild generalizations without basis—I’ll demur.

  38. 40

    Goldy spews:

    Micajah @3,

    I’ve gone throught the Caltech/MIT studies in detail in the past, and believe I have explained the metrics they use in some detail. What you are referring to is the “residual vote” rate, and it is the most widely used metric for comparing voting technologies.

    Yes, some of the residual votes are due to voters choosing not to vote in a particular race. But some are due to the way voters interact with the technology (not filling in the ovals properly, or fully punching out the chads, etc.) If similar precincts with similar demographics and similar voting histories are using two different technologies, and one has a statistically significant higher residual vote rate than the other, it is fair to attribute the difference to residual votes created by the technology. For example, punchcard ballots nationwide have residual vote rates twice that of optical scan. You can see this even in WA when counties switch from punchcards to optical scan, the residual vote rate goes down 1 to 2 votes per 100 ballots.

    There is a separate metric, the tabulation invalidation rate, which measures the change from the original count to a recount. The main conclusion from the Caltech/MIT study regarding tabulation invalidation rates is that recounts should be automatic whenever the margin of error falls within .5%. Clearly, our our margin of error is well within .5%. But our tabulation invalidation rate was also much smaller than that found in the studies.

    Jeff B @8

    So what you’re saying is, anything “less than” (which you mean as “different from”) the Republican proposals are not acceptable. Wow… that leaves a lot of room for collaboration and debate, huh?

  39. 41

    christmasghost spews:

    Joe…once again very cute and very un-enlightening.I guess you never will get around to answering the question. I expected better from a fellow blogger to be honest.
    If I thought your interest in this election was the “fascination attraction” that would be understandable….but ,by your posts, it seems you are more interested in manipulating the situation without telling people up front that you are NOT a voter in this State. You aren’t are you? Just kidding…….
    Confused patter? Now that is AMUSING…..

  40. 42

    Chris spews:

    Goldy says “but Gregoire won by the rules”….

    Well according to “The RULES” Rossi is contesting the election and still can win “By the Rules”.

    You would rather we focus on future elections because Gregoire is currently in office – who cares if she is legitimate or not.

    Your positions and arguments are ridiculous and tiring, they are losing their entertainment value as well.

    This election, although flawed, works for Goldy so let’s just move on. There nothing to see here….

    By the way Goldy, how is it coming getting your copy of the KC Bible, I mean Binder.

  41. 43

    spews:

    Ghost @ 41
    Just because you don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean it isn’t in fact the answer. Perhaps it doesn’t occur to you that some people write about topics they find interesting, despite their direct uninvolvement in the story. I wonder if you find it ridiculous that the press of Switzerland might cover the war in Iraq, since they have no dog in that hunt?

    I’m interested in getting to the facts. Almost all of the partisan participants, but particularly those who are protesting the outcome, are doing a mediocre to poor job of bringing them to the fore. As for not fessing to my residency–I certainly never claimed I was from WA, and while the blogroll category now says “AlsoNW,” for the first month it said “AlsoOR,” and there is also a NW Portal logo at the site that shows the outline of OR. We are listed under ORBlogs.com, as well.

  42. 44

    Richard Pope spews:

    Goldy, you are comparing apples and oranges. That 1% or 2% error rate from the San Francisco Chronicle article refers to voters who either don’t mark their ballot properly, forget to vote in a particular race, or choose not to vote in a particular race.

    The 0.2% error rate in King County refers to the percentage of ballots counted that were not actually cast by real voters.

    Please show me any other state where there are such a high percentage of ghost ballots that weren’t cast by real voters.

  43. 45

    spews:

    Richard @ 44
    No, that’s not what it refers to. It refers to the gap between voters credited, and ballots counted. Not the same thing at all. You’re claiming that the “extra” ballots were not legitimately cast, when there is no known evidence of that allegation.

  44. 46

    Chris spews:

    Richard Pope @ 44 –

    What you say is irrelevent because Goldy does not care that it does not apply . The intention is to divert and confuse not to really address any of this with facts or truth. Look, look I have this really neat story that says all elections are screwed up, not just ours, so there. You see facts and truth just get in the way of the arguments of the left. You just get a bunch of “Yea But” answers. I know it is screwed up but it’s always screwed up. I know it doesn’t reconcile but it never reconciles….yada yada yada. TIRING and OLD. Gregoire may not have actually gotten more votes but she is in office now, so move on, look to 2008.

    Yaaaaaaaaawn…..

    Just be happy this is the best they have and try to find the humor in their positions.

  45. 47

    christmasghost spews:

    Joe,
    Finally an answer. Thank you. It wasn’t that I didn’t like the answer…it was that there wasn’t one…till now.
    However, I think most people assumed that you were a Washington voter, whereas in the case of a reporter from a foreign country, you know where they are coming from. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
    “As for not fessing to my residency–I certainly never claimed I was from WA,”….just like President Bush never claimed he didn’t have a drunk driving record, right?
    You don’t seem to be very interested in getting to the truth of the matter…you seem to be much more interested in an agenda……I wonder what that could be?
    Wouldn’t it be interesting to hold everyone to the same level of accountability?
    Now…..are you at work??? LOL.

  46. 48

    spews:

    Ghost @ 47
    I gave you the same answer I did the first time–I find it interesting. I have no idea why it didn’t register with you the first time.
    Bush flatly denied he had a DUI after 1968. I was never asked, and never did anything but reveal where I lived.

  47. 49

    Jeff B. spews:

    Goldy, et. al.,

    The link I sent is not an exact description of the legalese for every proposed point, and as such the usual suspects have over disected it. You can go an read the actual legal wording.

    Daniel K @30 says:

    Tighten registration requirements. Remember how people listed their residences as rented mailboxes this election? Under our proposal, that would no longer be acceptable.

    “What is the proposal? What would be acceptable?”

    You can go read it, but that’s beyond the point, what’s acceptable about using an address private address that cannot be a residence as an address for voter registration? What are you trying to defend? We already allow the homeless to register at the nearest county building. So why would be also allow people to register at storage facilities? At some point, doesn’t this introduce the possibility of fraud into your mind, or are you that naive?

    Give counties the tools they need to clean up the voter registration rolls by moving all voters to “inactive” status and requiring them to re-register by July 1, 2007. Anyone who doesn’t re-register would remain on the inactive list and could still vote, in accordance with federal law, but would have to vote using a provisional ballot.

    “So we do nothing until after the 2006 elections? Why? This will undoubtedly cause a huge increase in provisional ballots, and the confusion that goes with that.”

    Mostly because the Democrats in the legislature are fighting hard to have no purging, reregistration, inactivation, etc. Democrats in the legislature think that in general things went well. That’s beyond the pale, even Goldy admits there were many errors. So this is a compromise to give everyone plenty of time. I agree, it should be sooner. But that certainly does not invalidate the point.

    Require the Secretary of State to check the voter registration database each month for: Duplicate registrations, Felons whose voting rights were not restored, Deceased voters

    “How does this protect against dead voters who die in the last month before the election. This should not be done only once a month, it should be done nightly. This is the 21st century folks, not the dawn of computing.”

    Again, so you are basically for this reform. And thus you think it is reasonable. I agree, no reason why it can’t be done more often, but the compromise is to appease the Democrats in the elections facilites who say there is no time for vetting the database. But your argument certainly does not invalidate the reform.

    Require that all ballots be received at county offices by 8 p.m. on Election Day. The only exception would be members of our military, who would simply have to vote their ballots by Election Day.

    “What about non-military citizens overseas? They should be extended the same deadline as military personnel overseas who would have the benefit of military mail delivery. Furthermore, these reforms continue to disenfranchise Americans who live overseas who cannot vote in federal elections, as should be their right.”

    A fair question, go read the text. The point is to make sure there is plenty of time for those overseas to vote. Don’t try to read into it as some kind of extra special treatment for the military that will somehow mean an unfair advantage. The military voters are basically getting exactly what poll voters get here in WA. The ability to vote up to and including the day of the election. Was not aware that voters overseas can not vote in Federal elections. How come they get to vote for President? Even if this were true, it would have nothing to do with these reforms which are at state level.

    I may have made a nice broad brush generalization about Democrats. To those who called me on it, touche. But then, why are many of you jumping on this to refute many of these points, especially in semantic ways. These reforms are quite reasonable to most people. Maybe are your should ask yourselves the question: “Are you most people?”

    I’ll be interested to see what Goldy proposes. There may be some small wiggle room for some of these points, and that healthy debate is what we should be having in the state legislature, but instead we are seeing partisan reform that is largely only what the Democrats want, and that is quite weak compared to what is proposed here? Why? Why would Democrats in the legislature be against many of these obvious and sensible reforms?

    For example, what’s so wrong with requiring ID to vote? If someone does not have proper ID, how are they qualified to vote? To vote you have to have some basic qualifications like citizenship, a residence, an age of 18 or greater, etc. You have to have ID to drive for the same reason. And you should be able to prove that you are who you said you were when you registered. This is just basic. You can’t withdraw money from your account at the bank if you can’t prove it’s you that own’s the account. Sheesh.

  48. 50

    spews:

    6-7% of Americans neither have a driver’s license nor a similar state-issued photo ID. Placing a burden on the voter to prove their identity to the state’s satisfaction, would require the state paying for IDs for everyone, IMO. Otherwise it’s simply a poll tax.

  49. 51

    spews:

    Goldy @ 40 (and torridjoe somewhere earlier, I think),

    I propose “unvote” as a better term than the one chosen by the MIT and Caltech group. It has been a long time since 7-Up was the “uncola,” so maybe there won’t be some kind of trademark or copyright infringement complaint generated by using “unvote.” ;-)

    I took a quick look at their web site and found that I was immediately confronted with their undefined jargon, i.e., “residual votes.”

    Looking through their site, I found a “FAQ” page which defined the term — pretty much as you’ve described it:

    http://www.vote.caltech.edu/faq

    “What is a residual vote?

    The term residual vote is used as a simple, easy-to-compare, measure of voting system accuracy. It is just the difference between the number of ballots cast in an election and the number of ballots cast for a particular race. For example, the residual vote for the presidential election in a county is defined as the difference between the number of ballots that were cast in that county and the number of votes that were recorded for the presidential race. Thus, the residual vote is a summary measure, including overvotes (situations where voters recorded more intentions of vote than they are allowed), undervotes (situations where voters appear not to record a vote), and ballots that for other reasons did not record a vote for the particular race. The residual vote is a convenient measure to use to study voting system accuracy, primarily due to the difficulty of collecting more detailed data on overvotes and undervotes. There are no definitive studies yet on how much of the residual vote is intentional, and how much is due to voter error, voting machine error, or other problems in the voting process. Research, including some studies done by Voting Technology Project members, does find evidence that indicates that some residual votes might be intentionally cast. In presidential elections, exit polls reveal that about one-half of one-percent of voters exiting the polling station state that they did not vote for President; by contrast, the residual vote rate is 2 to 2 and a half percent of ballots cast. Studying the residual vote rate continues to be an important goal of the Voting Technology Project.” [Emphasis added.]

    What they appear to be trying to determine is whether there are significant differences caused only by the choice of voting technology. So far, there is hidden within the data a group of ballots of unknown number (but obviously no bigger than the entire bunch of ballots which appear to have no vote on them for a particular office) on which the voters chose to cast no vote for a particular office.

    I don’t think I would call their “residual vote” number an “error rate,” since the error rate I would be interested in is the rate at which the chosen vote tallying system actually makes errors in tallying the votes. If I were to lump all possible sources of “unvotes” together, as they have, I wouldn’t be looking for an “error rate.” Instead, I think I would be looking for a system that has the lowest number of “unvotes” no matter why those “unvotes” occur.

    I think maybe that’s what the people doing that research are seeking — a comparison of voting systems that would perhaps allow government agencies to choose a new system without subsequently being surprised at the change in “unvotes” that occurs with use of that new system.

    If there are good arguments in favor of a type of voting system, it might win the competition to become the newly purchased system despite the higher number of “unvotes” that could be predicted. Or, perhaps some systems would lose the competition because of the likelihood that “unvotes” would increase in number.

  50. 52

    spews:

    Micajah–good work. As I noted earlier, I agree that a direct comparison is probably not the best way to articulate things, and I’m using your comments, David R’s, and my own subsequent research to better refine the posting. But I think it’s all a piece of the whole–analyzing and increasing elections accuracy, whether in the process of reducing “voter mistakes” or “official mistakes.”

    I think you’d agree that the manual recount likely reduced the _accidental_ residual error to almost nil, right? All residuals were examined (if they were machine counted, that is) and evaluated as to voter intent, which should almost entirely eradicate the failure of machines to properly count the ballot.

    Broadly speaking, what it means to accept a 2% accuracy goal viz residuals, is to accept at LEAST 2% error of any kind, right? In other words, even if the officials behave perfectly, one should still not call an election where 2% of votes were not properly counted, illegitimate.

    Obviously, King County (and their voters) benefitted from a manual recount that allowed them to address their counts. But that’s where we are: Rossi contesting this particular election on the basis of irregularity. He’s not contesting the result of the first machine count, nor the recount. He’s contesting the result of the statewide manual count. And as a result of that manual count in King, using 1,860 as a rough proxy for all unresolved discrepancies, we find a REMAINING “error rate” of around .20%.

  51. 53

    spews:

    Jeff B. @ 49

    I may have made a nice broad brush generalization about Democrats. To those who called me on it, touche. But then, why are many of you jumping on this to refute many of these points, especially in semantic ways.

    You misrepresent many of my questions. My points were actually intended to demonstrate that in many ways the Republican suggestions you point to are not strong enough for this Democrat/Progressive voter, so your generalizations do not apply to all of us, as is often the problem with generalizations.

    I’ve been for reform for a long time. When the SP crowd is truly touching on issues related to reform I’m on the record there showing my concern that there is reform. What I’ve not been for is the witch-hunt approach to litigating Rossi into office and the call for a new election.

    As for the case I mentioned regarding disenfranchised Americans overseas, if you are an American who has never lived in the USA, although you pay your taxes and are a legal citizen, you can only vote in a federal election (senate, house, president) if you have a parent who once lived in one of only 12 states, meaning that in the 38 other states (including WA) they have no provisions for such citizens. You can read more about this injustice here. You claim, “Even if this were true, it would have nothing to do with these reforms which are at state level.” Actually, it is a problem that can only be addressed on a state by state basis. So when do we address it?

  52. 54

    Jeff B. spews:

    TorridJoe @50 really sums up the general Democrat positioning on election reform, which is to turn the issue from one of greater authentication, certification, efficiency and protection of the election to one of disenfranchisement and voter limitation. In the security world, we say that security is the reciprocal of convenience. Having a lock on your door is not as convenient as having no lock, but we lock our doors as a reasonable control to prevent unauthorized entry. Right now, we’ve got an election system that all will agree has allowed a lot of “unauthorized entry” into voting.

    TorridJoe says:
    6-7% of Americans neither have a driver’s license nor a similar state-issued photo ID. Placing a burden on the voter to prove their identity to the state’s satisfaction, would require the state paying for IDs for everyone, IMO. Otherwise it’s simply a poll tax.

    To equate the requisition of some form of proper ID with disencranchisement of voting is precisely the obfuscation with which Repubs are concerned. Either you are trying to semantically split hairs, or you are simply being unreasonable. All citizens have some form of ID, even if they don’t drive or have an ID from the DMV. A citizen could just as easily bring a birth certificate, passport, etc. There’s no voter out there who does not have some form of ID that proves they are who they say the are.

    The point should not be to try and paint this as some form of tax that would disenfranchise voters, but instead as a legitimate check to prevent fraud.

    TorridJoe, are you against protecting elections from fraud? Or are you simply trying to build argumentative road blocks?

  53. 55

    John spews:

    Jeff B., you’re distorting TJ’s position. Read his post again. He says ID is fine as long as the state pays for it otherwise it’s a poll tax. Are you against poor people who don’t have a driver’s license getting a free picture ID from the state?

  54. 56

    spews:

    Thanks, John @ 55. I should clarify that I don’t necessary agree that ID is “fine” except for the poll tax aspect, but that’s the primary legal objection I’d have.

    I do think this is a useful analogy, however:
    “Having a lock on your door is not as convenient as having no lock, but we lock our doors as a reasonable control to prevent unauthorized entry.”

    In order to protect our personal valuables and the occupants, we elevate security above convenience–we would rather that legitimate occupants fail to gain entry, than to allow those who are illegitimate to get in.

    The process for elections is exactly the opposite, IMO correctly so. We would rather that some illegitimate voters slip through, then prevent those who are legitimately able to vote from doing so. Why? Because voting is a basic, constitutional right. Granting liberty, as a concept, considers citizens to be on their honor with their civic conduct. The state may have the right and the compelling interest to enforce the honor of an individual’s conduct, but everyone starts from the presumption that they are doing things legitimately. Washington’s law is explicit in making this point, declaring a vote as proper until proven otherwise, and a registration presumptive evidence of eligibility unless proven otherwise.

    Does this, despite best efforts, allow illegitimate votes? Absolutely. But the fundamental character of our defining national law is that this is preferable to burdening EVERYONE on the premise that a select few may abuse the privilege of honor.
    So it’s not just as simple as making a couple of rule changes to achieve a tighter control over voting processes. In my view, an attempt is being made in WA to fundamentally alter the canon of liberty I’ve described. And I think that’s a dangerous situation.

  55. 57

    Chris spews:

    John @ 55 –
    As soon as the “Poor” get rid of their cable TV, Cell Phones, Nike Shoes, cigarettes, Latte’s, Booze &/or Drugs, they would be able to afford the ID. If they are truly poor, which is a relative term, and not just lazy or irresponsible with their money, I could see assisting. Otherwise PRIORITIZE !!!!!!! How dare we insist that someone actually be able to identify themselves.

    I decided to spend all my money on Gambling and designer underwear and can’t afford to eat, won’t you send me a pizza???????????

  56. 58

    spews:

    Chris @ 57

    As soon as the upper middle class get rid of their summer home, 3rd SUV, fine scotch and diamond jewelry, they would be able to afford higher taxes to better fund services for all.

    See how silly a statement you made?

  57. 59

    Chris spews:

    Comment by torridjoe— 2/28/05 @ 4:56 pm

    Stupid argument!! – This is apples and oranges.

    That is their money not yours they are spending. They can do with it what they want. They are not buying all this shit and then coming to you and saying; “I can’t afford ID – buy it for me, I can’t afford food – buy it for me, I can’t afford health insurance – buy it for me. So they should work their asses off, take all the risk, employ others, pay the vast majority of the taxes and that is not good enough for you! Now they should have more money taken so they can’t afford these things; summer homes, 3rd SUV, etc, and give it to you I guess. They earned it. I know it’s hard for you to grasp. Earning something, not having it taken from someone else and given to you. Actually earning something, you might try it. How do you justify this stupid position.

  58. 60

    John spews:

    chris @ 57

    I’ve got a little story about the poor:

    I had a neighbor who was a social worker at UW medical center.

    Someone checked a relative in the middle of the night and needed a ride back to their home in So. KC. Had no money. So my neighbor did her job, reached into a fund for this purpose and handed this person 30 or so dollars in cash for a taxi ride.

    This person started breaking down into tears.

    What’s the matter my neighbor asked?

    “I can’t remember the last time I had this much money.”

  59. 61

    marks spews:

    tj @56

    “[]I should clarify that I don’t necessary agree that ID is “fine” except for the poll tax aspect[] In order to protect our personal valuables and the occupants, we elevate security above convenience–we would rather that legitimate occupants fail to gain entry, than to allow those who are illegitimate to get in.”

    I do not see it that way from this standpoint: If ID is freely given by the state to those who do not have the means of obtaining DL or ID (granted, some debate over how to do this best), every eligible voter would be capable of having their vote cast (we could debate whether they are counted).

    BTW – Voting is a basic constitutional right unless deprived by due process.

  60. 63

    Chris spews:

    I never said there were not Poor People and I never said don’t help them, just the opposite.

  61. 64

    John spews:

    Chris @ 62,63

    So are you against granting picture id to poor and indigent people free of charge?

  62. 65

    spews:

    Chris @ 59
    In both cases, the private citizen is being asked to carry the direct burden of funding a public need. Just as it is not the direct fault of the rich person that someone else does not have health care, it is not the direct fault of the poor person that some people try to vote fraudulently. In both cases, the individual is being asked to bear a direct cost for a societal requirement.

    marks @ 61
    But you agree it forces everyone to get an ID, including those who opt now not to have one, right? And it forces them to do so, simply in order to execute their constitutional right.

    Obviously the right can be revoked. That’s why I said basic.

  63. 66

    Chris spews:

    John @ 64

    Please read what I wrote again. I support helping the poor. You and I will differ on what consititutes poor. Being a lazy ass should not qualify you to take my money. Being down on your luck through no fault of your own is a different story. I will admit I would find very few men (except those with disabilities) to warrant aid, at any real length. A man that is willing to work certainly can in this country. Women and children are a different story for me. They need and warrant assistance (especially children) more often. It is never the childs fault they are in their circumstance and at minimum their basics needs should always be met regardless.

  64. 67

    marks spews:

    tj @65

    “including those who opt now not to have one, right? And it forces them to do so, simply in order to execute their constitutional right.”

    Two points:

    First, having an ID will open opportunistic doors to the individual besides voting.

    Second, if they do not wish to obtain an ID nor have those doors open for them, why would they want to vote?

  65. 69

    John spews:

    Chris,

    I asked you the same question I asked Jeff B. and you still haven’t answered it.

    Many poor people are disabled and can’t work. Does this mean they can’t vote? Are you for charging a quadriplegic who lives on SSI for picture ID?

  66. 70

    Don spews:

    TJ @ 37

    I appreciate your sentiments, but the wingers have gone so far over the line in recent years, that I think fire is called for. Make ‘em wallow in their own drool, as it were. Certainly, reason doesn’t work on these folks.

  67. 71

    Chris spews:

    It is sometimes the womens fault and they should not receive one dime.

    Example;

    My sister-in-law’ she has never worked a day in her 38 year existence. She is drunk 24/7/365 and has been for over 20 years. She swindles, lies, cheats, steals and yes receives public assistance that allows her to do just that. We are enabling her. She does not need to work, we (the Tax payers) have paid her to be a drunk for her entire adult life. Everyday that you bust your ass to make ends meet, just know she is out there spending your money on beer and cigarettes. She has no health insurance. Is that a problem? No she gets all the medical attention she needs. How much does that cost her, you ask? NOTHING!!!!!! How much does it cost us tax payers – You figure it out. We (Tax Payers) have paid for her to go to “Treatment” 6 times over the years at $10,000 – 15,000 a shot. It worked each time for about 17 minutes just long enough for her to get off the bus and get to the store.

    There’s my touching little story about the poor John.

  68. 72

    Don spews:

    Xmas @ 38

    TJ owes you no explanation. It’s one thing to express your opinion; but you have NO right to pry into any other poster’s personal life.

  69. 73

    Chris spews:

    Don @ 70

    I wil say this as Clearly as I can for the 8th time. I SUPPORT HELPING THOSE THAT ARE TRULY IN NEED, we can debate what qualifies as truly in need. AGAIN, Those with disabilities certainly tend to qualify.

    I am not a heartless bastard but I am a realist.

  70. 74

    Chris spews:

    It feels good for you libs to help everyone out, with other peoples money. Here is an idea.

    Only help those that truly need it. (not the lazy)

    You would have a shit load more money available for those in true need by being a little more selective of those you help. We could actually help people and get a hand up instead of the hand out. Help them make for themselves.

    It’s the old teach them to fish instead of giving them a fish. Teach them and let thme catch their own. But for democrates that doesn’t work. You must keep the sheep dependent upon you. You must control them. Teach them to fish and they no longer need you. They may not vote for you. It’s about independence people. Those that are dependent upon the government for existence are less likely to rise up against it and fight the system. They spike the Kool-Aid kids and your all drinking it up.

  71. 75

    John spews:

    Chris,

    I agree with TJ @ 56. Voting is a fundamental liberty granted to all citizens by the constitution.

    Your sister-in-law as disagreeable as she is shouldn’t be unduly burdened in order to exercise her rights.

  72. 76

    Don spews:

    Chris @ 71

    There are plenty of people – single parents and otherwise – who are working their butts off in two or three jobs but still can’t afford basic necessities like health care for their kids who, I think, would take offense at your characterization of poor people.

  73. 77

    spews:

    Chris @ 66 proclaimed, “Being a lazy ass should not qualify you to take my money. Being down on your luck through no fault of your own is a different story.

    And who passes judgement to decide who is lazy and who is down on their luck? Feel free to believe perhaps you are qualified to do so with regards to your sister in law, but I caution you in trying to do so for people you do not know.

  74. 78

    christmasghost spews:

    Don @68 and 72,
    “Standard neocon tactic = if you’re caught lying, claim you were joking”.
    Standard far left tactic….name calling, and not even creatively.And i was joking about Montreal…it is a standard joke that they actually use in Montreal.Very tongue in cheek.Sorry for going over your head that way…but from what I have seen of your less than polite rantings, it’s not uncommon or difficult to do.So where is the lie? You libs sure like to throw that word around don’t you?
    ” TJ owes you no explanation. It’s one thing to express your opinion; but you have NO right to pry into any other poster’s personal life.”
    I didn’t realize that merely asking a question was prying.I am very curious about someone who is so fascinated by Washington politics but does not live here…..
    And since you seem to think of yourself as the self appointed definer of opinion parameters may I suggest that you turn that anger on Susan next… who wanted to know what right I had to be on this forum…….unless of course your anger at intruders and nosey people is selective.Say it ain’t so…..
    And I think torridjoe is a big boy that can take care of himself…can he not?

  75. 79

    spews:

    christmasghost keeps prodding, “I am very curious about someone who is so fascinated by Washington politics but does not live here…..

    And the relevance? Your very own JCH has come out and told us all he is from Hawaii, so by your insinuation, should he not have a right to comment on the WA Governor election either?

  76. 80

    Chris spews:

    Don @ 76

    So you decide the standard then I guess. I have no input whatever you decide works for me. I don’t think so. there must be a test, othe then being broke to qulaify as poor. There is a difference from being lazy and being poor. So by your reasoning even the lazy qualify so as to not exclude those justified? why not weed out those lazy people. I think we all know what lazy is. Physically and mentally capable of working but choosing not to or choosing not to work very hard.

    Don @ 71
    My charactorization of those I would support helping is exactly what you described. READ WHAT I SAID and LISTEN TO THE WORDS!

  77. 81

    spews:

    I should also remind you that a good number of people that comment at Sound Politics have also indicated they are not from Washington state, so enough already. Shesssh!

  78. 82

    Chris spews:

    You guys are ridiculous. You think it unreasonable to distinguish between lazy and needy. If I have the capacity to paint my own house but don’t want to are you going to come do it for me? Who are you to say I am just being lazy? Are you heartless? Do you not want to help your fellow citizen? By the way please buy the paint as well, you see I can’t afford it – trust me, don’t question it. I’ll be hungry and thirsty as I watch you paint my house so bring some pizza and beer also. You are prepared to just hand out money because you don’t feel it is right to determine the laziness level of those requesting assistance. If you want my money show me you need my money. Don’t just tell me you need it. Show me you can’t do for yourself. Show me you have put forth effort.

    Liberalism will destroy this state and country if not stopped. Your all insane. But it is quite entertaining to hear your warped views.

  79. 83

    Chris spews:

    There is nothing wrong with telling someone NO. Of all the people I know that have ever receieved assistance, 50% did not really need it. You know how many times I hav eheard I’ll get a job when my assistance runs out? How many job offers where passed up because they had the assistance rolling in. They worked the system. Abused it. It happens all the time. It must be hard to get assistance to prevent abuse. Those that truly need it can get it. Those that want to abuse the system should have more obstacles standing in their way.
    You guys are always so happy with the status quo, you don’t recognize when something is broken and don’t think it is proper to fix it, when you do, because you don’t want to offend somebody (unless their conservative of course).

  80. 84

    christmasghost spews:

    #79…..Daniel K……JCH is one of my guys?
    I didn’t know that.And I never said that I think people shouldn’t be able to comment if they don’t live here. I am just very surprised [honestly] to discover how many people that don’t live here are trying to have an effect on the election process in washington.
    I really am…….

  81. 85

    John spews:

    Chris, all we’re doing is disagreeing with you. I think I went halfway and said if we’re going to do ID’s let’s make sure people aren’t unduly burdened by making them available free of charge. You more or less had a cow over this. Aren’t all of us law-abiding citizens entitled to have a say with our vote?

    You’re saying you have to pay to play!

    It’s pretty clear to me who is insane here and it’s not entertaining to me in the least.

  82. 86

    Goldy spews:

    Again, I plan to start posting on this later in the week, but I’ll give you a preview, and say up front that I’m not very enthusiastic about requiring picture ID to vote. Part of it is knee-jerk distrust that this is really a step to a national ID card. I don’t particularly like the idea of being stopped and asked to present my papers all the time, a la Nazi Germany or communist Russia.

    That said, my rational reasons for opposing picture ID is that it is impractical, and is intended to address a problem that really isn’t all that significant. In this election, how many cases of people voting under somebody elses name are we aware of? A handful at most? And for this we need picture ID? Let’s do some studies showing there is a voting identity theft problem before we implement some dramatic solution to a problem that may not exist.

    My second problem with requiring ID is simply practical. Who the hell is going to check these IDs? The little old ladies at my polling place? How much will this slow down voting? How effective will it really be with the semi-volunteer poll workers we use?

    Calls for requiring ID are based on the assumption that there is some kind of huge fraud issue that this will fix. I’d like to start the discussion without assumptions.

  83. 87

    spews:

    Chris @ 82 stated, “You guys are ridiculous. You think it unreasonable to distinguish between lazy and needy.

    I know I didn’t say that, but I did suggest that determining one from the other is not always obvious, and determining the cause for a person’s plight is important. You seem to have the feeling you have a Soloman like ability to do so. I’m suggesting that you probably don’t.

    christmasghost @ 84 said, “I am just very surprised [honestly] to discover how many people that don’t live here are trying to have an effect on the election process in washington.

    People everywhere are entitled to their comments and commentary, that should not be cause for surprise. And when people write about things it does not mean they are trying to have an effect on the election process. Yet, are we so insular that we cannot listen to the ideas of people outside the state? I hope not. Are we so naive to believe that the outcome does not have ramifications outside the state? We should not be. People in Oregon certainly are likely to feel some effects of politics in Washington.

    But if you still honestly wonder why someone outside Washington might give a hoot you might wish to ask the leadership of both national parties how they feel.

  84. 88

    Robert H spews:

    Bitching about a fridge in the governor’s mansion is nothing to the $4MM bill the republican’s want to stick the tax payer with for a revote over sour grapes – what a bunch of crap. Get over it – I am tired of Chris Vance’s self promoting road trip through the Chelan County Court system.

  85. 89

    JCH spews:

    #79…..christmasghost keeps prodding, “I am very curious about someone who is so fascinated by Washington politics but does not live here…..”

    And the relevance? Your very own JCH has come out and told us all he is from Hawaii, so by your insinuation, should he not have a right to comment on the WA Governor election either?

    Comment by Daniel K— 2/28/05 @ 7:29 pm {Dan, I work alone. Yes, I live in Hawaii, and yes, I think you Democrat liberals are communists….but, Daniel……..I work alone. Get it?] JCH

  86. 90

    Chris spews:

    Comment by John @ 85
    “I think I went halfway and said if we’re going to do ID’s let’s make sure people aren’t unduly burdened by making them available free of charge. You more or less had a cow over this.”

    What you continue to miss is that I would 100% support providing at no charge to those in need. The issue I have (or the Cow as you put it) is how big a “Burden” your side views the whole ID issue / cost. You exploit the poor to prevent implementation of a policy you disagree with. And then I look at the cost of providing the poor the ID and I say no problem we can do that, for those in true need. And then I look at the system and say wait before we go and spend a bunch of tax payer money on ID’s (or anything else) for the poor is it not appropriate to examine who makes up the “Poor” and who would receive this benefit. Yes this applies to all assistance, not just the proposed ID’s. I gave an example and I personally have countless others, as do many of you, of people that would “Qualify” for this free ID / Assistance but are not truly worthy. And yes I am qualified to determine their worthiness, it’s my money too. I don’t mean the single mom working two jobs and the obvious other cases, disabled, etc. But I do mean, my sister in law (and her kind), the drug dealers / user, the Lazy – people that are able but unwilling to work – Yes I can decide who is lazy, it’s not hard. These people are not worthy of our money and you all should be just as concerned as I am that the limited pool of funds available to those people in true need is being abused and misused. Again, tighten the programs and do some real good for those that deserve it. Being a drunk, drug user, that does not have any interest in working does not qualify. Yes, I feel I am entitled to make this call. The fact you don’t feel you are is the problem. You stance is who am I to say these people don’t deserve it so let them have it. WRONG answer. There has to be a standard and it must be a tighter standard then currently exists.

  87. 91

    Don spews:

    Xmas @ 78

    You made a false statement @ 19, which TJ debunked @ 20, and then you claimed @ 32 that you were just joking. Does that mean that any time you post something, we shouldn’t take you seriously, because if it turns out to be false you were just kidding anyway???

  88. 92

    chardonnay spews:

    Joe said:
    As soon as the upper middle class get rid of their summer home, 3rd SUV, fine scotch and diamond jewelry, they would be able to afford higher taxes to better fund services for all.
    See how silly a statement you made?

    and in our eyes you look equally silly (nice for ridiculous).if it is so important to you joe, pass up your next raise. quite simple.

    29…DON…”All Republicans are narcissistic white males with their heads up their asses!”………Don, I can’t feel your love!! [But I bet Goldy can “feel your love"!!]
    Comment by JCH— 2/28/05 @ 2:04 pm

    is there something fishy about those two? like “what about jane” don’t ask don’t tell? no biggy!

    ID cost $4, all your BS over $4, get a grip.

  89. 93

    torridjoe spews:

    I did pass up my last raise, actually. I’m topped out at the highest step of my grade. Ever hear of that happening in the private sector?

    But what am I giving up my raise for, again? I’m not the one who wants to force people to buy IDs just to vote.

  90. 94

    Chee spews:

    The election document put out by the state gives the reader a very detailed evaluation of the past election. Goldy is correct in saying there is margin for election errors. I agree with moving on. I agree that reform is the heart of the matter even as we speak. The Rossi case will get it’s proper burial. It will die it’s own death. In time, Rossi fever will subside, everything has it’s passage.

  91. 95

    Chee spews:

    I suppose the Republicans will be thinking up some other form of intimidation after their gov. case is shut down. More impose could be demanding every single registered voter be fingerprinted, like when cashing a check at a bank you don’t bank at. Then they could go an elephant step further, scan voters with a magnetic wand to make sure they do not have a lighter on their bod when entering the polling place.

  92. 96

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    tj–
    So instead of a raise…you piss away taxpayers time & money blogging most of the day. How noble!

  93. 97

    Chris spews:

    Comment by Torridjoe @ 93 – I did pass up my last raise, actually. I’m topped out at the highest step of my grade. Ever hear of that happening in the private sector?

    That is the whole problem, you “Topped Out” as you put it. Where is the incentive for you to work any harder? Until you can qualify (not by hard work but by “Putting in the Time”) for a grade increase you will get paid the same regardless of your effort. You will make more then someone busting his/her ass because you already topped out and he/she hasn’t. Pay scales such as this invite mediocrity, encourage time wasting, and kill creativity. It’s like four $45.00 per hour guys watching (supervising) one $20.00 an hour guy dig a ditch. We’ve all seen this a thousand times on every job we drive by.

  94. 98

    jcricket spews:

    At least TJ works enough to be offered a raise. I’m not sure you even know what a raise is. Sitting in your parent’s basement at age 40 pretending that selling your hand-painted D&D figurines on ebay makes you a “businessman” isn’t going to get you much of anything, Cynical.

    Or are you sitting in a cubicle at the BIAW’s offices earning your minimum wage while posting on this board? I’d like to think they’d get more for their money than the incoherent rantings you put out.

    Which is it?

  95. 99

    Chris spews:

    jcricket @ 98 – At least TJ works enough to be offered a raise.

    When you say “works enough” it is interesting you did not say “Works Hard Enough” you just said works enough. That is because he puts in enough hours/months/years to qualify for a raise not that he WORKS to EARN a raise. You libes live in an entitlement world where as long as you punch the clock – keep the schedule raises coming. You would not want to actually EARN something.

  96. 100

    Chris spews:

    That is why you Libs think its bad to have money or “Be Rich”, because you all feel quilty for taking what money you do get because you don’t really work for it. Don’t ease your quilt by taking my HARD EARNED money.

  97. 101

    zorkpolitics spews:

    “There are two salient points to take from this analysis: first, electoral error rates can run to at LEAST 1%”

    There are different error rates to consider. This report applies to the inability of people to follow instructions, leading to over or under votes, which are considered errors of the voting system. This is to some degree a measure of both the incompetence of the voting population and the limitations of the particular voting system, it is independent of the county to count the cast votes.

    A second level of error is produced by the county (or other authority) when it actually counts ballots. First, by failing to take prudent measures to assure that legally registered voters cast ballots, they will allow a certain level of illegal votes. Second, once a voter has improperly cast a ballot, there will be error in attempting to “correct” or “enhance” those ballots, since there are essentially acting as mind readers. But on the other hand, one should expect the county to be 100% accurate in actually counting the ballots that were cast and in correlating the number of ballots to actual registered voters.

  98. 102

    spews:

    chris @ 97
    Thank you so much for helping me understand just how it is compensation works at my job. You seem to know so much about it, despite the fact that I work here and you don’t! I’m sure if I could continue to garner merit raises within my position classification, you’d be complaining that government salaries can just continue to escalate without any caps at all!
    In two years I’ve received the maximum based on merit review, so I confess I don’t know what you refer to when you talk about earning the same increase no matter how well I do. As for someone else busting ass because they make less–I’m the only one in the state who does what I do, full time. There IS no one else. And then you regale us with your in-depth study of construction workers, compiled apparently as you whooshed by them in your car.

  99. 103

    spews:

    zork @101
    thanks for the comment. We’ve discussed here a little bit the difference between residual error and counting error, and I’ve reflected that in an update to the original posting. As to “error” in correcting residual error, since about 90% of these were ajudicated unanimously by a panel of three, I don’t see significant room for error there. And as Goldy discussed clearly on Carson, we should definitely NOT expect 100% accuracy in reconciliation, based on natural human error (eg, 80 year old ladies handing folks the wrong ballot).

    Because of the manual recount, I think it’s fair to say that residual error has been reduced to almost nil in this election, which leaves only counting accuracy. Given that the upper bound for error is likely the 1,860 voter-credit shortfall, and that federal guidelines are tolerant of AT LEAST 2% total error of any kind, IMO the point still stands that KC did a solid job overall.

  100. 104

    Chris spews:

    torridjoe @ 102 –

    I did know for sure that you worked for the government, I mean ME! I thought possibly a union job – same thing.

    Do me a favor…quite wasting our money posting on this website and do the job we pay you to do, whatever that is. You are a perfect example of what I was describing…Locked into a pay structure to perform a task and no incentives to actually work. Instead you get paid by the taxpayers to kinda work and kinda read and post to websites. You are not being productive for the money we pay you. If you have time to do your job and post maybe your job is not important or at least should be cut to part-time. You are Hilarious. You are the actual proof of my point. Thanks You!!!!!

  101. 105

    Chris spews:

    SHARK “BIG NEWS” ON WA GOV ELECTION: King County Revises Story on Voter Crediting …

    Explain this one away!

  102. 108

    Chris spews:

    torridjoe @ 106

    What are you talking about. That is all you do here. ALL day long, on my dime!

  103. 109

    Chris spews:

    @ 107

    Are you saying the facts as laid out at SP are wrong? That the people quoted did not say the things they said? That KC has not changed their position? Your evidence is? You have quotes / facts that counter this? I did not think so.

    Keep grasping Joe you may eventually catch something….nothing a little penicillin won’t cure.

  104. 110

    spews:

    The facts aren’t wrong; the conclusion is. Voter crediting has nothing to do with reconciling ballots to voters; its only involvement in the pre-certification process is to prevent DOUBLE voting. The number of credits are never compared against the number of ballots in a defined way as to assess accuracy. Stefan continues to try to shoehorn his thoughts of scandal into a process that is irrelevant to the ballot reconciliation.

  105. 111

    spews:

    The facts aren’t wrong; the conclusion is. Voter crediting has nothing to do with reconciling ballots to voters; its only involvement in the pre-certification process is to prevent DOUBLE voting. The number of credits are never compared against the number of ballots in a defined way as to assess accuracy. Stefan continues to try to shoehorn his thoughts of scandal into a process that is irrelevant to the ballot reconciliation.

  106. 112

    Goldy spews:

    Chris @109,

    I just read Stefan’s piece, and I’m not sure that he’s adding any new information, just repackaging it. He’s throwing in the absentee ballot stuff, and we’ve always known that voters were credited for absentee ballots at the time their signatures are verified. We’ve also know that the same was done for provisional voters.

    This issue we’ve been addressing is polling place reconciliation and voter crediting, and Bobbie Egan repeats that these are two separate processes. The fact that some voter crediting took place before certification, and some after, is not really significant or news. In fact, if you go back to a tape of what I said on the Carlson Show last week, I think you will find that I said that some voter crediting took place before certification.

    What Stefan does is try to conflate the two, but since I don’t have access to his email thread with Bobbie Egan, I’m not really sure how he comes to that conclusion.

    You know, just because Stefan puts a headline on it saying it is news, doesn’t mean it is news.

  107. 113

    Chris spews:

    @ 110 (& 111)

    DENIAL – Are are buried in it. KC acknolwedged Shark was correct, read this information, not that that will matter because you know all. I personally cannot wait until all this is over to see how you spin it to not mean what it really means.

    How come this site does not post correspondence that it receives from these officials, like Shark does? Is it because thay don’t correspond with them or that the answers don’t shed a good light on the positions held here. Where is the quote supporting that you a Goldy are correct in all your assumptions. Call them or e-mail and get KC to confirm you are correct in your position and post it. Who at KC says that it is OK that these numbers don’t jive? – “The number of credits are never compared against the number of ballots in a defined way as to assess accuracy.”

    Even if the intent of doing so is not to assess accuracy, (it may be to prevent double voting) in would in actuality do just that, confirm accuracy. Why is it ok for there to be more ballots then voters credited with voting? (or in some case more voters then Ballots – added together this is a huge probelm) Tell me the KC official that says this is ok. Show me the RCW that says it is ok.

  108. 114

    spews:

    Chris @ 113
    You really should stay quiet until you’re up to speed on the processes. You’re sticking your foot in your mouth by not doing so.

    If KC “acknowledged” Shark was correct, why did Shark have to use the word “implicitly?” That suggests they did not, and he had to reach conclusions on his own (something he is excellent at).

    HA posts the results of discussion with relevant officials ALL THE TIME. Just like AlsoAlso does, just like Preemptive Karma does. We all have spoken multiple times with officials, and we always name them when they make statements that we reprint. Pay better attention next time. EVERYONE at KC says it’s OK–Egan and Huennekens have told me that personally.

    No, it would NOT confirm accuracy, because the voter file used for crediting is not the list of voter names replicated in the pollbooks. The voter file is a rolling file, constantly updated.

    There is no RCW, because there is nothing in the RCW that addresses reconciliation of the voter-credit process. IT IS NOT PART OF RECONCILIATION REQUIREMENTS. You don’t know that there are more ballots than voters countywide, more voters than ballots, or a perfect accounting. That’s in the reconciliation, not the voter-credit process.

  109. 115

    Chris spews:

    Comment @ 114

    Let me just keep it simple for you Joe. If the totals don’t match, and they don’t, that is a problem. Plain and simple – not any more complicated than that. If Rossi one by 1 vote or 1000 votes and the totals did not match you would say it (the election) was flawed and not reliable. Be intellectually honest. What is so amazing is that you all try so hard to justify and expalin away a very clear and simple truth, just to secure the result you desire. Everyone agrees this election had problems but because you all like the current result, we are told it was not any worse then other election, (better then most I beleive was the point of Goldy’s post) there’s always problems, get over it, move on, look to 2008. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Like you would follow your own advice. Other then the fact you like the result, why is it ok that all these problems occurred? You cannot have any sense of confidence in this election but that does not matter to you liberal hacks. The ends always justify the means, to you. Honesty would force you to admit these problems very likely had an impact on the result of this election. It does not mean that it impacted it in favor of Gregoire. just that it is very likely that if this election was handled properly the result would not have been a 129 vote win for Gregoire. It may have been 1000 votes for her or 1000 votes for Rossi but it certainly would not have been 129. You don’t know and neither does anyone else. That is why it is an invalid result…Elections must have certainty, provide confidence. Even a coin toss provides certainty and confidence as to the winner. This election surely does not. The non reconciling numbers, as you know, just barely scratches the surface of the issues and problems with this election and this result.

  110. 116

    Chee spews:

    Rossi got robbed. Rossi didn’t get robbed. The election was a rape. The election wasn’t a rape. It would help if those who claim to have the facts refer to the document they draw their inofrmation from by chapter abd page by number so those of us who do not have the facts in front of us can follow up on what is being quoted as the gospel of Rossi. Could it be everything you have heard is true. Or untrue.

  111. 117

    Goldy spews:

    Chris @115,

    I have been consistent, since before the hand recount, that this election was too far within the margin of error to confidently determine who actually got the most votes. Way back on December 2nd I wrote:

    Republicans argue that “winning” the first two counts gives Rossi legitimacy. It doesn’t. It’s like flipping a coin and having it land on heads two times in a row.

    And Democrats argue that a hand recount will more accurately determine the winner. It can’t. This race is simply too close to call. We’ll never know who really got the most votes.

    Fortunately, the law does prescribe an endgame. Gregoire will request a hand recount, and whoever “wins” that, will be governor.

    And for this analysis, the Snark called me stupid.

    Now I know it must make you feel better to automatically question the integrity of those who disagree with you, but that has been HA’s party line for the past three months.

    So while we’re questioning integrity, answer me this… if there was no hand recount, and Rossi was declared the winner by 42 votes, don’t you think he and his attorneys would be defending the results as vigorously as they are now attacking them?

  112. 118

    Chee spews:

    Goldy @ 117:
    I like your comment Goldy. A wise friend of mine taught me to always ask a question you know the answer to.

  113. 119

    zapporo spews:

    Chris @115 – You hit the nail right on the head. Don’t worry, liberals don’t have to be consistent, honest, or ethical. However, every once in a while their deluasions are shattered by reality. It’s very likely that this will be one of those occasions.

  114. 120

    John spews:

    Chris, Zapporo:

    So typical. When you can’t win an argument on the merits you trash the other side.

  115. 121

    torridjoe spews:

    Chris @ 115–“Let me just keep it simple for you Joe. If the totals don’t match, and they don’t, that is a problem. Plain and simple – not any more complicated than that. ”

    A problem according to whom? Not KC. Not the Sos. Not the RCW. Not the NCER. Not the FEC. Who, besides Rossi and Mary Lane?

  116. 122

    zapporo spews:

    John @120 – Again John, Please go back and read the actual post. Let’s take a sports analogy – Chris made the basket. Score. Nothing but net. Get over it.

    Moreover, your post puts the exclamation point on what Chris wrote. So sorry, please try again.

  117. 123

    John spews:

    Zapporo,

    This was the argument:

    Chris: Look at Snark’s latest! Take that!

    Goldy and TJ: Same old, same old just repackaged a little.

    Chris: The election was a fraud! Name call Name call.

    Dino Rossi lost the election. Too many Republicans sat on their rear ends at home on election day, eighty thousand in KC alone. Even with all the D’s crossing lines to give Dino a chance – he couldn’t win.

    Now if he can prove he actually won the election in court fine, but I highly doubt it.

  118. 124

    Chee spews:

    John @ 123. I sure agree. The fire is slowly dying. How many dressed-down rehearsals does Rossi need to get the message The curtain closed. Rossi campers are still acting out. Not much mention of Judge Bridge’s hints. Get the cane.

  119. 125

    Chris spews:

    Goldy said:

    #1 – Fortunately, the law does prescribe an endgame. Gregoire will request a hand recount, and whoever “wins” that, will be governor.

    And

    #2 – So while we’re questioning integrity, answer me this… if there was no hand recount, and Rossi was declared the winner by 42 votes, don’t you think he and his attorneys would be defending the results as vigorously as they are now attacking them?

    We have discussed both of these in the past Goldy,

    #1 – Part of this “Endgame” is an election contest. Only after that do you have a “winner” until then you have doubt. The law is being followed and has not reach conclusion yet.

    #2 – As I have said many time before. I would be much happier with Rossi being in the lead and I would really like it if the Dems did not contest the result. BUT, they would have every right to do so and would have a very good position to stand on. Would it be nice for them to not fight so my guy won? Sure, but they would be stupid not to. I am consistent, either party would have substantial grounds to fight this result. I would hope the Dems would not fight, for my own selfish reasons, but would fully espect that they would and would fully expect that they could actually win. I would not have confidence that Rossi won under these same circumsatnces, but would like the result better. That is what is know as honesty, you guys should try it.

  120. 126

    Chris spews:

    Comment by torridjoe @ 121 – A problem according to whom? Not KC. Not the Sos. Not the RCW. Not the NCER. Not the FEC. Who, besides Rossi and Mary Lane?

    YOU, If you weren’t a partisan hack.
    Everyone should have a problem with this election regardless of party affiliation. The problem is the process and the errors not the result.

  121. 127

    Diggindude spews:

    The perceptions of errors, that the republican spin team has thrown around, you mean.
    Allegations, are not facts.
    These are facts though; rossi was only “ahead” by 261 votes.
    Upon closer scrutiny, rossi was now only ahead, by 42 votes…..,
    Upon an even more detailed analysis, rossi was now behind by 129 votes, and declared “LOSER” by law.(we use law in the U.S. to determine right from wrong)
    Rossi, was in the lead once remember? with a shrinking margin, he called out; “PLEASE CONCEDE NOW!”, “IF THE TABLES WERE REVERSED, WE (ROSSI) WOULD CONCEDE!!”
    Yet, here we have been now for months with the tables reversed, and where is rossi?
    Hanging on like a tic.
    Some concession……
    I think, if the court rules in favor of the election as it stands, and allegations are proven false, we should really make an attempt to rub all your noses in it, for a period of time, equal to how long rossi has whined.
    Then make sure rossi’s criminal real estate buddies, have their voting rights restored, naturally, as a show of good faith.

  122. 128

    Chris spews:

    Goldy to better answer your question @ 117.

    I think the each party would fight to the death to defend their positions. I do not expect them to have the same interests as us citizens. I expect them to shed light on the good parts of their individual aguments and to hide in the shadows those points that help their opponenets. I expect that we, although we have a preference of a winner, would be honest enough to shine a light on all points regardless of which party they help. We should want to have certainty that we know who won, who represents us. Regardless of what party they are from, you want to know they are there because they deserve to be there, not becasue a bunch of mistakes put them there. Political partys just want to win, so they are more likely to get in how ever possible. I, PERSONALLY, would be embarrased and hesitent to claim a victory of any sort if I had doubt of the actual outcome. Everyone should have doubt in this case.

    It’s like having the record for the most home-runs, was it the steroids or did he do it on his own. How do you feel good about a record (a win) when a cloud hangs over it? How do you, with pride, claim a victory under such circumstances? “I hit the most Home-Runs, but might not have if it wasn’t for the drugs”. “I won the governors race but might not have if it wasn’t for the errors”. These are not legitimate. We will never know who really hit the most legitimate home runs, maybe it was Bonds (and maybe it wasn’t) and we’ll never know who really won this election, maybe it was Gregoire (and maybe it wasn’t).

  123. 129

    spews:

    so we simply shouldn’t have a governor until 2008? You can say “we’ll never really know” 100 times, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s no IMPACT to your statement. We won’t ever know–so what? That’s what happens when elections are close, because our elections are run and participated in by human beings.

    If you have problems, you seek to fix them for the next time. We cannot “fix” the 2004 election; it is over. We can not replicate it, we cannot improve on it by law.

  124. 130

    christmasghost spews:

    Joe..@129 said……. “so we simply shouldn’t have a governor until 2008? You can say “we’ll never really know” 100 times, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s no IMPACT to your statement. We won’t ever know–so what?”

    Joe….WE? Aren’t you forgetting that little issue of you living and working in OREGON again?

  125. 132

    Chris spews:

    Joe @ 129 –

    Is an Election Contest not part of law? Can it not be “Fixed” through a legal contest. You want to have us fix it later when we are not out of legal remedies to “FIX IT NOW”!

  126. 133

    Chris spews:

    Joe what happens when elections are close is every error and vote is scrutinized. I can say it 100 time that we will never know and it will be true 100 times. You just think there is nothing that can be done about it. That is where we disagree. You are content to turn a blind eye to the glaring problems because you like the result. You critcize the R’s for their efforts, but these are the same steps you would want and expect the D’s to take.
    Did you think Gregoire should have conceded when she trailed after count 1? Count 2? I don’t think so. How about if she trailed after count 3 and these problems existed. No, you would want her to continue the legal process and would argue that the election was flawed and these errors could have impacted the result.

    You know I am right.

  127. 134

    Chris spews:

    Joe – You also know Washington will not be without a governor until 2008. Don’t make yourself look stupid. You know that of the potential remedies to this issue, waiting until 2008 to fill a vacated seat is at the very bottom.

  128. 135

    spews:

    Chris @ 132
    I didn’t know anyone was complaining about the state of contest law. What problems are you having with the way the contest is being conducted? If you mean statutes related to the conduct of the election itself–then no, there is no way to fix the 2004 election. You can’t retroactively apply new laws to an election conducted under the old ones.

    Chris @ 133
    I don’t think there’s nothing to be done about it; state law and the Constitution show very clearly there’s nothing to be done about it. I’m not “content to turn a blind eye to the glaring problems,” mostly because I’m addressing the allegations head on. The problem is, the allegations are extraordinarily weak, and not subject to any substantive remedy. You then speculate on what I might think, which can easily be dismissed out of hand. I don’t “like” the result; I trust the mechanisms for achieving the result. I barely give a rat’s ass if Homer Simpson runs Washington, much less Gregoire or Rossi.

    Gregoire couldn’t have conceded after the first count, or at least it wouldn’t have prevented the recount. It was automatic. I called for her to do a selective manual recount, or pay for a statewide herself, rather than trying to blackmail Democratics nationally by threatening to concede. But it would have been foolish for ANY candidate not to request a manual recount given the margin. If she had trailed when the best accounting became known, I definitely would NOT have supported a contest. Why? Because there is no point to it. For comparison’s sake, I was very intrigued by allegations of malfeasance in Ohio, allegations much stronger and more easily proven than in Washington. However, it became clear after a while that at best, the only remedy possible would be civil and/or criminal actions against Mr. Blackwell–and that wouldn’t have changed the result in OH. Democrats had a lot of bits and pieces there, and there may yet be something to the greater story–but a contest would have been pointless. Similarly, when the results were contested in Congress in January, I cheered–until I heard the speeches. It was wrong to make that objection, IMO, unless they truly believed something was afoot. I sympathized with the inability of Congressional Democrats to even get their voices heard when the GOP controls the gavels, but if they weren’t ACTUALLY going to contest the electors, they should have found another way.

    I do indeed know WA will not be without a governor. The point was to illustrate that you have a problem without a remedy. The election cannot be rerun, there can be no special election until 2006, and the problems exhibited appear to be well within the normal range of human error, which cannot be corrected. So saying Gregoire didn’t really win is useless, if it’s impossible to say that she shouldn’t be the officeholder.

  129. 136

    christmasghost spews:

    JOE@ 131….. Washington would not be without a Governor…that’s why we have a Lt. Governor. And the election would be this november.
    And ,really, do you know what happens when a State doesn’t have a Governor? Absolutely nothing. The Governor does nothing the Lt. Governor can’t do…..and that isn’t much to begin with.
    What I keep wondering about and can’t ever seem to get a straight answer on is why the state Democrats would want to blow all their political capitol on such a ,well, less than qualified, candidate.
    And why the people that are most upset about this come from out of state. Money for the recount came from out of State….posters come from out of State….yet a majority of Washington residents have no confidence in this election and want a new one. If she really won….what’s the big deal? What are the Democrats so afraid of?
    What they should be afraid of is that the actual residents here have a much longer memory than they used to, and won’t soon forget that their elected officials didn’t listen to them even half as much as they listened to out of state interests.
    The next election will be very, very interesting……

  130. 137

    spews:

    ghost @ 136

    The election for governor cannot be held in an odd-numbered year. That provision is in both the RCW (29A 04.321) and the Constitution (Article III, Section 1—this based on the RCW provision that the governor is elected with the Legislature).

  131. 138

    Chris spews:

    Joe Said – “If she had trailed when the best accounting became known, I definitely would NOT have supported a contest”.

    What the hell is the “Best Accounting”? IMO we have not had the BEST ACCOUTNING yet so I support a contest.

  132. 140

    Chris spews:

    Joe Said – a manual recount of a machine recount is the best accounting of election returns. Your opinion isn’t worth much on that point.

    Dumb Ass, “a manual recount of a machine recount is the best accounting of election returns”, is only YOUR OPINION and does not make it fact. Your opinion does not mean shit to me, especially since you don’t even live here.

  133. 141

    christmasghost spews:

    joe @ 137……said” The election for governor cannot be held in an odd-numbered year. That provision is in both the RCW (29A 04.321) and the Constitution (Article III, Section 1—this based on the RCW provision that the governor is elected with the Legislature).”
    I believe there is room for a special election if the election is thrown out though, right ? And I think it will be, if anyone in this state has any sense at all.When a majority of the RESIDENTS have as little faith in an election as they do in this one, it is the duty of both parties to come together and fix the problem.
    In this case…that would involve a new election. There are no free rides…something the Democrats in this State have yet to figure out.
    And Joe, can you please tell me why you and so many others from out of State are trying to take our right to choose away from us? Speaking of noise………

  134. 143

    Chris spews:

    Joe @ 135

    You are wrong on so many points, when I have more time I will highlight your errors.

  135. 144

    spews:

    chris @ 140
    no, it’s not my opinion; it’s the current state of electoral research, and frankly pretty much common sense. A machine makes no mistakes (functionally speaking) when the ballots are filled out to spec. Those that are not, will not be read and create “residual error.” Reading those ballots by hand, and making a call as to voter intent, reduces that residual error to near zero. Over 90% of machine-rejected ballots in King were hand-accepted unanimously; the other 10% presumably on a 2-1 vote.

    ghost @ 141
    No, there is no room for a special election as currently written. The next time a governor can be elected in WA is November 2006, according to the Constitution.

    Trying to take away your right to choose? That wouldn’t be me, that would be the representatives you voted for–if you want to perceive that that’s what they’re doing.

  136. 145

    christmasghost spews:

    Joe…interesting that you would equate the only choice with the right to choose death, huh? I loved your views on Teri Schiavo…she should die because her husband said she once said she wanted to? Yeah…that’s what I call choice.Women have come so far….men can tell us when to die and when to get rid of an inconvenient baby.I feel so liberated already…….
    But then there’s all this too…..
    Ted Kennedy was responsible for the death of a woman, Robert Byrd was a klansman who STILL loves to throw the “N” word around, Bill Clinton took advantage of a stupid young woman on the job….I can really see the error of my ways and how ENLIGHTENED you liberals are. And then there’s you….you spend Oregon’s money blogging and commenting on the job all day about WASHINGTON….and you want us to think that non of us are taxed enough.
    Wow….and it’s such a mystery why the liberal Democrats are losing races?
    I’m pretty sure that Judge Bridges knows even more about Washington law than a lawyer from Oregon…..aren’t you?

  137. 146

    Chris spews:

    comment @ 144

    Joe, I have a little quote for you. You will find that many disagree with your OPINION of the accuracy of the hand count over a machine count, Dean Logan include…..

    “When you’re talking about close to 900,000 pieces of paper, I think the machine count is going to be more accurate than a manual count,” said Dean Logan, the elections director. “You introduce another human interface into the process. There’s a margin there for errors to be made.”

    Spin away………………

  138. 148

    Chris spews:

    More for you Joe,

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....nt05m.html
    I pasted some key points form the linked article here.

    *****
    From Spokane to Seattle, elections offices are about to begin the staggering and unprecedented task of hand counting 2.8 million ballots. But will the hand count in the governor’s race really be any more accurate than the two previous counts?

    Even experts can’t agree. It’s not clear whether humans or machines are better at vote counting.

    *********
    “It’s closer than the technology and our capacity as humans to decipher,” said Jeffery Mondak, a political-science professor at Florida State University. “You folks would do as well to flip a coin as to try to determine who actually won.”

    *************
    “There is a margin of error in connection with any measurement system, whether we’re counting fish in a lake or counting votes for a governor,” said Kirk Wolter, a statistics professor at the University of Chicago who did research on what happened in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

    In an election, Wolter said, “there are millions of human interactions, and we’re all human and we all make random mistakes.”

    ***************
    Secretary of State Reed says he doesn’t consider either machine or hand counts to be more accurate than the other.

    ************

    Twist it Joe, Come on. You said it (your opinion that you stated as fact) is Only Common Sense. Do you want to concede the point now or should I continue?

  139. 150

    marks spews:

    tj @144

    “Over 90% of machine-rejected ballots in King were hand-accepted unanimously; the other 10% presumably on a 2-1 vote.”

    Curious, just how many were rejected by machine? I heard a 50,000 number, but I don’t believe that is the case, is it?

  140. 151

    Diggindude spews:

    marks @ 50
    Ive read 2% to 5% innacuracy by machine counts.
    Heres an interesting point. Old news, but its so very relevent here today.

    The Real Flaw in Hand Counts
    They’re too accurate.
    By Edward Rothstein
    Posted Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2000, at 12:00 AM PT

    The hand counting of ballots in Florida has been hailed by its supporters for increased accuracy. And it has been criticized by opponents for its inaccuracies.

    But aside from the handicaps of each recount method—the political vulnerabilities of chad and the rigidities of machines—the problem with a hand count may not be that it is inaccurate or accurate, but that it may be too accurate.
    This is because of the nature of “digital sampling.” We are most familiar with digital sampling from CD players. An analog, smooth wave of sound is “sampled” at particular intervals (over 44,000 times a second for CDs), and each sample yields a 1 or a 0—for a higher or a lower movement of the sound wave. This string of 1s and 0s are meant to be approximations of the wave.

    This is a lot like voting. Each of us carries around hundreds of judgments, opinions, prejudices, loyalties, many of them conflicting. But when we vote, we are being sampled. That jumble of sentiment is turned into a 1 or a 0—a Gore or a Bush (let’s assume a two-party system).

    The sampling then continues at a higher level. Those 1s and 0s are counted within districts, which may then yield another 1 or 0 for local issues. The Electoral College takes a statewide mass of 1s and 0s, counts them up, and turns them all into another 1 or 0 (I use 1 or 0 just to signify a Bush/Gore vote by the state; I am not weighting those results nationally). Nationally, of course, this happens as well. A single 1 or 0 is determined from sampling millions of pieces of digital data. That digit is our president.

    How do these digital translations take place? Though voting procedures are determined regionally, they must satisfy federal election law. So, there is some uniformity region to region. But there are also great differences. In some cases there are manual machines, in others paper ballots, at some point there will be Internet voting. But the implicit assumption is that every single one of these methods is fallible. Some are more fallible than others, perhaps, but there is a range of error that is considered acceptable.

    Let’s say the tolerable range of error is 2 percent. Errors in counting, authentication, absentee balloting, execution, enforcement, etc., may vary from near zero (very rare, perhaps even impossible) to about 2 percent. These various errors are considered commonplace. We generally assume that they can be ignored; they may even cancel each other out across the country. But if a particular district’s errors increase, we see a vote as corrupt or invalid. If a district can only guarantee an accuracy of plus or minus 50 percent, for example, it is obviously doing something wrong.

    In the case of Florida, there was no such impropriety, but the vote itself was close enough that the range of error made it plausible that the election could have gone the other way. So, a recount was justified just as recounts would have been justified in any other region with similar percentage differences.

    But what happens as the scrutiny on a district increases past that recount, as is now taking place? It changes the principles of the election itself. It creates another level of accuracy, one that bears no relation to the rest of the country. It changes the digital sampling rate. It means that the test of accuracy has been changed from, say, an acceptable 2 percent error rate to an acceptable .2 percent error rate.

    In a close election, this means that a manual recount (which can include holding each ballot up to the light and making minute judgments about chad and punctures) might materially alter the digital result in a single district. But a microscopic recount in a particular district should not swing an entire election unless it is assumed that that level of accuracy can be uniformly applied in all districts without materially changing things. There were so many close local elections this year that such microscopic recounts, uniformly applied across the country, would cause vast swings in results simply because small variations yield digital differences.

  141. 152

    John spews:

    Chris @ many

    Dude, I predict that the R’s won’t meet the legal burden of proof to have this election set aside based on what I’ve read so far.

    If I’m right GET OVER IT! SEE YOU IN 2008! If you’re right, great SEE YOU IN 2008!

    Some election reforms will be passed by 2006. I predict that they will not be good enough for (u)SP crowd whose idea of election reform is whatever it takes for Republicans to win every election.

  142. 153

    Chris spews:

    John @ 152

    Not even interesting enough to respond to. Just like most of your posts John, waste of time.