About the only thing more distasteful than reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page, is quoting it to support my own arguments:
Still, we have our doubts about the wisdom of a court challenge and a revote, especially if no fraud can be proven.
Consider, first, the problem of moral hazard. There are dozens of extremely close elections in the U.S. at every level of government, elections in which–like this one–the “real” outcome can never be known. What should determine which of these merits a revote? The judgment of a court? An opinion poll? Either of these is a recipe not for more perfect democracy, but for the destruction of democracy.
Gargle-gargle… spit.
(You can read the editorial here, but swallowing it whole requires registration and some Listerine.)
While much of the rest of the piece is the usual vile sophistry, the point above is why I am confident that the Washington Supreme Court will not reach beyond statute and toss the gubernatorial election without the strong appearance that errors or illegal votes actually changed the outcome. As I’ve repeatedly argued, this election is extraordinary only in its extraordinary closeness. There has been no evidence to suggest that this election is any less perfect than any other; thus to set it aside simply because it is close, calls into question all close elections.
Even the highly partisan WSJ understands the dangerous precedent such a decision would create. It would force all too many elections into the courts, where they will be decided on some arbitrary judicial notion of when the margin of error is too high, or public opinion too rancorous (manufactured or not.)
Some in the “revote” camp argue that seating a governor in the face of such uncertainty offends the public’s sense of fairness… but it clearly does not offend reason, or the law. Whatever the safeguards, no election with 3 million ballots can be 100% flawless. Some ineligible voters will always be counted, while legitimate voters are wrongly disenfranchised — there will always be errors in registration, counting, scanning and reconciliation. And yet if this race had ended in a tie, the winner would have been determined by lot.
Is that fair? Not really. But is it practical? Sure.
The statute codifies the pragmatic notion that in close elections, uncertainty is unavoidable. If the Legislature was unwilling to accept this simple reality, it would have modeled the contest statute along the lines of North Carolina’s, or it would have required a margin of victory substantially larger than… one.
And it never, ever would have accepted a tie.
For in fact, that’s what we have here: a statistical tie with the winner determined according to the rules in place at the start of the election. It may be difficult for the public — and painful for Dino Rossi — to accept this uncertainty. But sometimes uncertainty is the best we can do.
Gack! I see what you mean about the WSJ editorial taken in it’s entirety. Yuck.
Your comments are spot on. Again.
What mustn’t be lost in all this is that we do have an opportunity for the increased scrutiny of this election to generate change. Hopefully some of the more fixable problems in the election system can be corrected. Hopefully that can be a bipartisan issue.
What really bothers me is how hypocritical the revote camp has become. They used to say this was about pointing out errors and getting them fixed. Now it is all about getting any Republican they can elected today or in the future. When a Republican rises above political bias, such a Reed, he is condemned rather than respected.
I believe that there will be some election reform. How much is unclear. What is clear is that a close election is rare, but they occasionally happen, and when they do we have to follow the rules that were laid out before. What we’ve seen so far are problems that have been random and scattered, benefitting both candidates, not just one. The reason losing candidates in the past have graciously conceded elections has in part been in acceptance of the fact elections can’t be perfect and more harm is done contesting. Rossi shows his true colors, that he is not the angel he is made out to be, and people should be disgusted by the partisanship that has ensued which has so little to do with the real problems here.
The fact remains that King County knew and expected that there were likely to be significant problems — especially with things like provisional ballots. Yet nothing was done.
Why? Because moving away from the status quo — even if that process is tainted — runs the risk of losing future elections for those in power. If it ain’t broke (i.e. if it gets you elected and re-elected), don’t fix it — regardless of what party you’re in.
It also explains why many Democratic officials so loudly proclaim that there are no problems. If they did, they’d have to do something to fix those problems. So far, all they’ll admit to are a few “oopsies.”
I would challenge any of the other posters on here to find a quote from a Democrat that basically says, “I don’t think there should be a revote and I think CG is Governor, BUT there were some SERIOUS SCREWUPS and this can’t happen again.”
And don’t feed me the line about finding the money to fix the problems. Some things cost NO extra money — like different colored paper stock for the various types of ballots.
Also, all the rules in the world don’t mean they’ll be followed (see enhancement of original ballots instead of creating a new one).
But I have the perfect solution! Since, according to many officials, a few thousand ballots here or there are insignificant, let’s not have a revote. Instead, let’s take all of King County’s ballots and put them in a giant bin. We’ll then pull out 1,800 random ballots, count who they were for and then just throw them out. Whoever loses fewer votes after CG’s +129 handicap is elected the clear winner. And if it is still a tie after that, they do pistols at 20 paces.
I would challenge any of the other posters on here to find a quote from a Democrat that basically says, “I don’t think there should be a revote and I think CG is Governor, BUT there were some SERIOUS SCREWUPS and this can’t happen again.”
Actually I have been saying exactly that, except I am not so naive as to believe such things can be made perfect, not that we shouldn’t try, and since I primarily voted for Democrats and they sent me a card (making me a card carrying member of the party – although I don’t actually bother to carry the card around with me), I believe I qualify as a Democrat who has made such statements.
Mark… there are not 1800 disputed ballots. As I’ve explained before, the voters list and the ballots counted list are part of two separate processes and are not intended to reconcile with one another. I have talked to a number of county auditor’s offices, R and D, and they all say the same thing. The voters list is fluid and changes from day to day… there is no scandal here.
Now if you want to take 345 ballots (the improperly canvassed provisionals) and the handful of dead votes not already credited to Rossi, and randomly pull those from King County… Gregoire will still win.
Goldy,
So you’re up for the revised idea of yanking 348 random ballots from King County + remove dead voters & felons and we’ll call it a day? While CG has a much better chance, I wonder what the statistics would be on that.
I NEVER said there was a scandal. Gross ineptitude? Yes. Violations of procedures, rules, regulations and laws? Yes. Individually-enacted… ummm… “electoral nudging?” Probably (even on the R side). Other various and sundry (yet minor) monkeyshines? Probably.
Daniel… I went to your site and skimmed your concerns, but didn’t see a clear-cut statement that things were more than reasonably expected boo-boos that should be corrected.
Whether it is in the actual handling of the election or the public appearance thereof, would you not agree that King County’s elections office looks like the proverbial monkey [bleep]ing a football?
Daniel, Goldy…
Would you both, right now, publicly call for your elected officials to immediately enact the requests and recommendations of the bi-partisan committee that studied election reform in response to HAVA?
Goldy–
County’s must reconcile the total of the list of people given credit for voting with the # of ballots counted BEFORE certification.
They should do this by precindt! Many do because it is required in the WAC’s and RWC’s. It doesn’t have to say it in exactly those words but it is the only way to double check for errors & omissions as well a neglect or wrongful acts. Goldy, have you seen the reconciliation forms that each poll book requires????
Every ballot taken in at the polls must be accounted for in some way. IT’S REQUIRED!!! Otherwise they are susceptible to charges of ballotbox stuffing and unstuffing.
I’d be curious which County Auditors you talked to about the “Logan Standard”. The “Logan Standard” is the low bar of internal controls which has caused this plethora of problems in KingCo. Trying to get other County Auditors to circle the wagons for Logan & Huennekens (aka Abbott & Costello of Who’s on First fame).
The bottom-line is these 2 boobs had plenty of staff..just a lot of incompetence. They failed the entire state of Washington by failing to scream publicly for more quality help 2 years ago.
Now Logan & Huennekens are in so deep, all they can do is continue to minimize whatever comes up as they are certainly under pressure not to fold and admit the problems. Logan & Huennekens had an opportunity well before the election to speak up. THEY CHOSE NOT TO!!
Is this a conspiracy? NO. Were there wrongful acts, errors, neglect and omissions? YOU BET! Are they of enough significance as to APPEAR to change the results of this election? YUP!
Will the truth come out about the incompetence? YUP!
Will efforts to mask over or cover-up the incompetence come out? YUP! Plenty of insiders are freely discuss things they saw and did.
Depositions are important to this case.
Do you think a staff-person will lie to the FBI ot Dept of Justice? NO!
Mark – I’ll take a look at the PDF you point us to. And of course there are the suggestions being made by Reed this time around too. There can be debate about exactly what changes should be made, but there shouldn’t be much disagreement that some reform is needed – statewide.
I’ve contacted my legistlator in Olympia urging reform. I hope you have too.
Even the WSJ…that — bastion of liberal bias figure it out correctly. Amazing others don’t.
When we in the 31 counties of the 39 in WA who voted for Rossi realized that the dems were going to find a way to finance a hand count, we knew that we had lost. In every coffee shop in eastern WA (we can’t afford to drink Latte’s over here ) the mood changed. A foreboding cloud loomed in the West that grew until it blotted out the sunshine of victory.
In Klickitat County the hand count perfectly coincided with the machine count. The system is devised to work that way. If it doesn’t it sows the seeds mustrust.
We can only assume that the King County political machine saw an opportunity to swing the election. Votes began to appear out of everywhere until a victory could be announced.
So CG can be the gov. until the courts get through doing what they’ll do, and then the legislature will have a shot at getting it straightened out, but when all that dust has settled, if we don’t get a revote, it’ll be time to put together a recall.
Comment by Mark— 1/12/05 @ 1:39 pm
SWELL
Olduffer~
There were five counties out of 39 where the hand counted exactly matched the recount. The error rate (difference between counts divided by total votes) was higher in many counties than King. Gregoire added a total of 919 votes statewide, only 358 of which were King County. Rossi added 748 votes statewide, 179 of which were King County. In King County, the bulk of the difference on both sides were the votes that the Supreme Court said should have been counted in the first place. Just face it, your guy lost a close election and you don’t like it. I’ve been there. Trust me, you’ll get over it.
steven–
Nice try!
What about the 348 feed into the machine without validating signatures?
And what about the 1800+ more votes than voters in KingCo.
OOOPPPSS! It was a human error, right steve??
The Lefty’s continue in their efforts to pull 1 issue at a time and try like hell to nitpick into insignificance.
Unfortunately for you steve, the Court will consolidate all the allegations raised, the evidence and render a final opinion based on the ENTIRETY. Nice try Steve.
Now enjoy your night with Chris.
You won, right!??
Cynical – that’s how court works. People consider each allegation separately. You can’t just say “all these things happened so throw out the election” without first proving that each thing happened.
And even when you do, good lawyers can very easily prove which ones are/aren’t applicable to the point you’re trying to prove.
The court’s not a right-wing blog or talk radio where they just “take your word for it” and consider all the allegations together as one big “ball of proof”.
There weren’t 1800+ more votes than voters. You’re comparing apples to oranges, and my guess is that based on expert testimony the judge isn’t going to allow that into evidence. Things aren’t evidence because the BIAW or Chris Vance says so.
jcricket — I may be wrong, but my recollection is that each county elections office is required to have an up-to-date registered voter list and a (separate? coded?) list of those they’ve removed. There is NO reason, if they’re following the law, that the current “fluid” list of registered voters + the list of those removed since 11/2 (+ the count of fed provisionals & hidden address voters) shouldn’t add up to the exact number of ballots cast.
Also, you and others seem to think that a variance of 1,800 is OK when compared with 900,000 ballots. However, the reconciliation is done at the precinct level with MUCH smaller ballot counts. And if Thurston County can supposedly reconcile exactly (with some 100,000 ballots), one would think that PRECINCTS in King County should be able to do so as well. Or are math skills in King County worse than those in Thurston?
Mark–
Right on.
The Lefty’s and inept County Auditors are trying to get the County’s that did reconcile to say not reconciling is OK. Circling the wagons and trying to lower the bar statewide down to the depths of the Logan/Huennekens (ie Abbott & Costello) standard.
Who’s on first? No, who’s on second, what’s on first.
There are plenty of County Auditors that will not roll over because they law requires every vote has a voter. I doesn’t.
Logan says its ‘impossible”. Impossible????? So why did 5 county’s do it? Impossible??
So Goldy–
Did ya get any tonite?
No, I’m not talking about getting l**d!!!
Did ya get any inside information from the Dems?
I’ll bet the Dems have a “secret plan”.
A plan that’s so secret, they don’t even know what it is!!!!
Dems don’t share their secret plans with me, but I shared mine with every D legislator I met. Wanna hear it? It’s: “Fuck the BIAW!”
And while I won’t share the details, my plan is so incredibly devious even the incredibly devious minds at the BIAW won’t anticipate.