Washington State update: Election Scandal

If they do re-vote watch the democrtas. I'd be willing to bet everything I own they'll be yelling " The republicans stole another one."!

Oh for godsake, they recounted the bloody votes three times.  This is worse than Florida and shows how petty politics has become.  By the way, in the Washington case, the recounts were mandated by state law.

Reply #2 By: jeblackstar - 1/11/2005 5:11:49 PM Oh for godsake, they recounted the bloody votes three times. This is worse than Florida and shows how petty politics has become. By the way, in the Washington case, the recounts were mandated by state law.

All 3 times?

The first recount was the original count, the second was mandated because it was so close, the third was allowed because the recount closed the margin even further.

Reply #4 By: jeblackstar - 1/11/2005 5:59:16 PM The first recount was the original count, the second was mandated because it was so close, the third was allowed because the recount closed the margin even further.

Nope, sorry. There have been 3 recounts

Amid all the wrangling over this election, almost all semblance of a fair system has been lost. It now looks like Washington's election will be decided by lawyers and a court, rather than by the voters. The result probably hinges on whether 723 King County absentee ballots that were rejected during the first two vote counts will be counted after all. A local judge has ruled that it is too late to inject the 723 ballots into the recount and that if they were valid votes they should have been counted in the first or second recounts. Democrats respond that the fault lies with King County clerks, who failed to take extra steps to verify the ballots, and not with the voters.

And if there were only 2 recounts then why did you post this?

Reply #2 By: jeblackstar - 1/11/2005 5:11:49 PM Oh for godsake, they recounted the bloody votes three times. This is worse than Florida and shows how petty politics has become. By the way, in the Washington case, the recounts were mandated by state law.

Than allow me to rephrase, they have counted the bloody vote three times.

Cheers

Reply #6 By: jeblackstar - 1/11/2005 6:30:44 PM Than allow me to rephrase, they have counted the bloody vote three times. Cheers

Okay I'll buy that. But from what I've read of Washington state election proceedures the 2nd recount should not have been allowed.

Reply By: jeblackstar   Posted: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Than allow me to rephrase, they have counted the bloody vote three times.

Yet you apparently are ready to just blatantly ignore this info:

Some 1 out of 20 ballots in King County that officials felt were marked unclearly were 'enhanced' with Wite-Out or pens so that some had their original markings obliterated. "Most disturbing is the revelation last week by King County officials that at least 348 unverified provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines."

I should add, btw, that the 3rd count wasn't mandated by law, it was permitted by law, if one of the parties wished to pay for it. If the party paid for it, and was later found to be the winner through the recount, they would have the payment of the recount fees paid back to them.

So, to be clear, there were 2 mandated counts (the initial count, and the first recount) and one discretionary count, after which the results of the first two counts were over-turned, but only, of course with neat little tricks like the ones quoted above in play.

Oh for godsake, they recounted the bloody votes three times.  This is worse than Florida and shows how petty politics has become.  By the way, in the Washington case, the recounts were mandated by state law.

What's funny is that they decided after they had won to stop the recounts. It's definitely suspicious.

Actually I do believe that the most recent ballot has to be accepted, because it was a hand count was it not? Or at least in the close counties. If republicans demand another election then they will have stolen another election, and therefore I would feel justified in demanding another election now for the 2000 election, and so if Gore were to win it would declare Bush's term void and annuled, Bush would be disavowed and all the damage he has done would have to be undone. Yet I can't do this, nor can you demand another election in Washington. Also, I would like to note that the democrats did not oppose any of the recounts, considering they were the ones who paid for the last one and the second one was not opposable, it was state mandated.

Hello....
Washington state resident here....The first recount was done because the law here states that if the results are within a certain percentage they do an automatic recount. The third one was because the democrats had a certain amount of time to appeal that result. They did and they had to pay for the han recount. They paid for a statewide recount. Now, Dino Rossi is appealing to the courts for a do-over. We will see what happens.

The funny thing is I moved to Washington state from Palm Beach County! I swear it is not my fault!

Actually I do believe that the most recent ballot has to be accepted, because it was a hand count was it not?

Isn't it possible that hand counts can have at least a minute chance of error or cheating?

If republicans demand another election then they will have stolen another election, and therefore I would feel justified in demanding another election now for the 2000 election, and so if Gore were to win it would declare Bush's term void and annuled, Bush would be disavowed and all the damage he has done would have to be undone. Yet I can't do this, nor can you demand another election in Washington.

What if the Republicans demanded infinite recounts, as Gore did in 2000? After all, he had three, and yet, because he wasn't allowed to continue indefinitely, Bush supposedly stole the election, so unless the Democrats allow the Republicans to have infinite recounts until they win again, they're going to steal the election.

Reply By: sandy2    Posted: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Actually I do believe that the most recent ballot has to be accepted, because it was a hand count was it not? Or at least in the close counties. If republicans demand another election then they will have stolen another election, and therefore I would feel justified in demanding another election now for the 2000 election, and so if Gore were to win it would declare Bush's term void and annuled, Bush would be disavowed and all the damage he has done would have to be undone. Yet I can't do this, nor can you demand another election in Washington. Also, I would like to note that the democrats did not oppose any of the recounts, considering they were the ones who paid for the last one and the second one was not opposable, it was state mandated.

Sorry Sandy, but I count your post as complete and utter trolling.

You, Al Gore, and the rest of the people that are still carrying around that 4 year old baggage, have no one to blame for that loss except Al Gore and perhaps his team of advisors (and if you want to extent the blame a little, Bill Clinton for not being smart enough to walk away in the 7th year of his Presidency and hand off almost a year of the job to his VP).

If Gore's team had asked for recounts of the ENTIRE STATE of Florida, the counting wouldn't have been "stopped early"

Now, if you've done a little reading since then, you'll realize that unless you had very specific counting methods in place following very specific sets of rules for including some votes while discounting others, Gore would still have lost. (Try goggling on election 2000 hand count usa today or some similar string for that info). That report is courtesy of several media outlets, all of which went back in and did the hand counting of EVERY vote in Florida. They actually (by what I recall) show a widened lead for President Bush in that count.

Also, btw, I guess you could toss back in some blame to the friends of the Democrats in the media back in 2000 that were all too eager to call the election in Al Gore's favor -- before voting had finished in the pan handle area of Florida, but... be sure to keep in mind that the Florida pan handle area is well known as Republican territory, and had the media not "discouraged" voters in those areas, it's possible the theft you desired would have come about.

Finally, given the problems with voting in precincts around Philly, where AGAIN WELL MORE THAN 100% TURNOUT was counted, all in heavily Democrat areas, and the failure for such votes to really sway the election, I'd again point at you and go Phhhhhhhttttt!


Now, you can say all you want that you want election 2000 undone, but again, if the Democrats had lost the 3rd count in Wash State, you can be damn sure that they'd be scrutinizing every friggin' vote and would be crying for a re-vote.

Again, in my mind the answer is to give Gregoire the job for just long enough to pull off a recall vote. When she gets her tail handed to her then, justice would be served and you'd go back to crying about Election 2k and Ohio 2k4.

As someone who lives in Washington state, I find it funny that everyone else is so much more concerned about this than the residents. Few of us outside of the capital even discuss it.

For my part, I just see it as partisan bickering, and I know that the party with the most money will win. Recounts have to be bought--legally, of course.

-A.

Reply By: Angloesque    Posted: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 As someone who lives in Washington state, I find it funny that everyone else is so much more concerned about this than the residents. Few of us outside of the capital even discuss it.

It's not that funny or amusing, at least not to me.

Like several others that frequent these blogs and forums, I am concerned whenever there are problems in elections. Though those on the left might look at me and say I didn't raise these concerns about Ohio, that's not entirely true either. I just didn't choose to toss that many more words onto a pile that already existed, and further, it didn't make much sense to really raise complaints about a state where the vote margin was so wide.

There have been been plenty of places where election fraud has run rampant again though -- including Wisconsin (reportedly), Washington State, Pennsylvania, and a host of other places.

As noted in comments in some other threads, voting in this country must be fixed.

One person, one vote. That's it.

All voters should be made to prove identity before voting. Voting over the internet should be possible in a safe, secure manner which allows for the same ease as Internet banking from most major banks. Internet voting, and all electronic voting, should include the ability to verify the vote that was registered. By using such internet voting, voters that need to vote absentee should be able vote from any where, without concern for where they go to obtain the ballot, and without having to be concerned that a ballot was delayed because Democrats and Republicans are arguing for or against Nader being on the ballot.

Parties, or their representatives should not be permitted to pay for voter drives. Campaign workers should not be able to pay for get-out-the-vote drives at all. Voters should be able to register easily, yet still be proven to be a valid voter, as in is a resident of the state, attests to the fact that they are entitled to vote (not a convicted felon, etc.), and the voter should receive a voter card or something similar with a unique identifier on it that is paired with some personally verifiable information that the voter has which is used to prove identify on electronic voting systems, or via internet voting systems.

There's a ton of room for improvement, and we should make it better. Not by complaining about it in Congress in the middle of the certification of the Presidential ballot, but by passing national standards, funding the localaties or helping to fund them, and otherwise working to ensure that voting is easy for all, with easy access to all.

There's a ton of room for improvement, and we should make it better. Not by complaining about it in Congress in the middle of the certification of the Presidential ballot, but by passing national standards, funding the localaties or helping to fund them, and otherwise working to ensure that voting is easy for all, with easy access to all.

I just have to ask: Is this a bunch of idealistic blogging, or do you actually *do* something about it? I don't disagree with what you've said; I'm just tired of people whining over politics and doing nothing to solve it. People who only care just enough to complain. So if you've written your congressman or inspired anyone else to do so, or have actually done something, then hat's off. Otherwise my previous remark stands.

-A.