It now appears that liberal King (Ukraine) County certified about 3,500 more votes than they had voters.  But Rossi, the republican candidate, will not go without a fight.  Of course, after demanding two different recounts, the democrats somehow can say with a straight face that the republicans are the ones dividing the state of Washington.

Link to article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002136418_recount31m.html

Also a new poll says most voters in Washington think Gregoire (the democrat) is illegitimate:

Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
December 31, 2004

A poll of Washington residents released the day Democrat Christine Gregoire was certified as the winner in the state's hotly contested governor's race shows that a majority of voters believes she was not legitimately elected.

The polling firm Strategic Vision, LLC found that 54 percent of voters "do not believe" that the final hand recount that certified Gregoire as the victor "reflects the actual election results," reports Friday's Washington Times.

Only 37 percent believed the recount was accurate, and that Gregoire truly defeated her GOP opponent, Dino Rossi. Nine percent were undecided.

Fifty-three percent of Washington voters say the results in heavily Democratic King County, where hundreds of votes mysteriously appeared on the eve of a final recount, were not legitimate.

The survey is particularly significant since at least some of the respondents who called the certified recount illegitimate were Democrats who actually cast their votes for Gregoire.


--"If our roles were reversed, if you had won twice and I had only won in the less-accurate hand recount, I would support a revote. I would not want to enter office with so many people viewing my governorship as illegitimate." -Dino Rossi, in a letter to Gregoire.

Timeline of events:

Nov. 2: Election Day. Three-term Democratic Attorney General Christine Gregoire finds herself in an unexpectedly tight race with Republican real estate agent Dino Rossi, a former state senator. Gregoire is up by 7,000 votes at the end of the night, with hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted.

Nov. 9: As absentee ballots are tallied, Rossi closes the gap and then pulls ahead by 2,123 votes.

Nov. 12: The state Democratic Party successfully sues King County to get the names of voters whose provisional ballots are in danger of being disqualified. Over Republican protests, Democrats turn in more than 400 signed affidavits from voters to verify their ballots.

Nov. 17: With all counties reporting, Rossi wins by 261 votes. State law triggers a machine recount.

Nov. 30: The secretary of state certifies the result of the machine recount, making Rossi the winner by 42 votes.

Dec. 2: Democrats declare they will seek an unprecedented hand recount of the 2.9 million ballots cast in the governor's race.

Dec. 8: Counties begin recounting ballots by hand.

Dec. 13: King County announces it has discovered more than 500 ballots that were mistakenly rejected by election workers. By the end of the week the number tops 700.

Dec. 14: The state Supreme Court unanimously rejects the Democratic Party's petition to force counties to reconsider about 3,000 invalidated ballots – including the 700-plus from King County – in the hand recount.

Dec. 17: Republicans seek and get a temporary restraining order blocking King County from counting the newly discovered ballots. With every county reporting but King, the state's largest, Rossi holds a 49-vote lead in the hand recount.

Dec. 22: King County's unofficial results tip the race to Gregoire, giving her a 10-point margin of victory over Rossi. The Supreme Court rules that King County may reconsider the 700-plus mistakenly rejected ballots.

Dec. 23: Gregoire wins the recount by a margin of 129 votes, after King County counts the newly discovered ballots and certifies its final results.

Dec. 29: Rossi calls for a new election, saying problems with the recount cast a cloud of doubt over Gregoire's legitimacy as governor.

Dec. 30: Secretary of State Sam Reed certifies the election, declaring Gregoire governor-elect.

Jan. 12: Inauguration Day. Legislature scheduled to issue certificates of election to new office holders.

Jan. 22: Deadline for any registered voter to file a lawsuit challenging the results of the election.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/041230/w1230102.html

The election has been certified, it's over.  As Gregoire said,
"'Do-overs' only occur in golf, and only during practice. This is not golf and this is not practice."
Now, if Gregoire was a Republican, and Rossi was a Democrat, you would be cheering her statement, and her reference to the favored GOP rich-pr*ck past time of golf. 

Anyway, if I had my druthers, I'd give Rossi the "do-over."  Of course, the GOP would probably demand a do-over in which only registered Republicans could vote! 
Seriously, even if Rossi won the re-vote, It would set a precedent for the next time the Dems want to recount a narrow GOP victory. 

it's over. 

Not really:

Rossi, Republicans Reveal Voting Irregularities
State GOP leaders say it's clear something wrong with election
http://www.kvewtv.com/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=182791
   
"Washington State Republican Party leaders say they've found 8400 more ballots cast than the number of voters registered in the state's five largest counties. State GOP Chairman Chris Vance says the mismatching numbers in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark and Kitsap are troubling.

Republican Dino Rossi won the first two counts in the governor's race, then lost a hand recount to Democrat Christine Gregoire by a mere 129 votes. Republicans are mulling a possible legal challenge to the election, and Vance says discrepancies like the ones they found so far are clear indications that things went wrong. County auditors have said it typically takes a while for election results to be reconciled with voter registration records."

The election has been certified, it's over.

Read the timeline:

"Nov. 30: The secretary of state certifies the result of the machine recount, making Rossi the winner by 42 votes."

It can be certified and then changed.  Though Sec. of state Sam Reed needs to be fired for doing it twice.

"Washington State Republican Party leaders say they've found 8400 more ballots cast than the number of voters registered in the state's five largest counties. State GOP Chairman Chris Vance says the mismatching numbers in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark and Kitsap are troubling.

Sounds to me like you guys really ought to get your electoral processes in order...

..but seriously, GWB, doesn't it worry you in a similar way that there are also examples of overcounting in Florida and Ohio for the presidential elections?

Sounds to me like you guys really ought to get your electoral processes in order...

..but seriously, GWB, doesn't it worry you in a similar way that there are also examples of overcounting in Florida and Ohio for the presidential elections?


Not really.  The international observers said America's voting was fair, clean, and said something like: "America's election should be an example for every country." 

It's just that all counts are said to be 99.9% accurate, and with 2.8 million votes cast in Washington, and with such a close race, the results can switch back and forth with recounts when you got 280 votes that can go either way.  Since Rossi won by 261 votes in the original count.

As for Florida 2000, from what I can remember no over-counting was done.  The democrats just kept demanding a million recounts, wanting to get a Gore win so they could demand Bush concede and scream he is dividing the country.  As for Ohio this time around, the recent finished recount had Bush winning by over 118,000.  The count was said the be 99% accurate by the office of the Sec. of state of the state of Ohio.  No way you can recount a 118,000 vote Bush win into a Kerry win.

If you want to read about the recent recount in Ohio, try the following link: http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=60790

The fact that over 3,500 more votes happened in Washington's most liberal county, and that every count the republican candidate fell some votes while the democrats gained.  The fact that the democratic candidate won only 1 out of 3 counts, and the count that the democrats won was the least-accurate hand recount (do you trust you or a calculator more) shows something.  And that votes in liberal King (Ukraine) County kept strangly popping up out of no where tells me the democrats stuffed the ballot box (what else is new, and no wonder the democrats hate e-voting.)

Think about it this way.  Rossi (the republican candidate,) won 36 out of Washington's 39 counties.  The three he lost are: King, Pierce, and Snohomish.  If you look at the vote totals, five counties over-counted, 8,400 in all, 3,500 in King (Ukraine) County, those counties were: King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, and Clarke.  So the democrats won only three counties, and all three over counted!?  Smell the rat?

So you only care about possible election fraud if *you think* it might have affected the result?

I have been reading about the Ohio recount, which has highlighted the complete inadequacy of the electoral kit used, in that it wasn't possible to *do* a proper recount, as there weren't paper ballots from the initial round of voting in all cases ("so WTF is the point?", I hear any concerned citizen ask).  So, to do the 3% recount required, they checked that the voting machines in question counted provisional ballots accurately - and even this doesn't seem to have been fraud-free, in the opinion of the Deputy Director of Elections of Hocking County: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

I agree, the Washington result looks extremely dodgy - so do the presidential results from Ohio and Florida.

And I'm sorry, but "it wouldn't have affected the result" isn't a suitable response: either you think your electoral system can have a few percentage points either way 'cause of fraud or errors, or you want a your vote counting to be trustworthy.

So you only care about possible election fraud if *you think* it might have affected the result?




Never said that.  But that, believe it or not, is the law over here.  Any time a court hears a case of fraud, the fraud must be enough to overturn the results, not just decrease a vote total for the winning candidate. 

I have been reading about the Ohio recount, which has highlighted the complete inadequacy of the electoral kit used, in that it wasn't possible to *do* a proper recount, as there weren't paper ballots from the initial round of voting in all cases ("so WTF is the point?", I hear any concerned citizen ask).  So, to do the 3% recount required, they checked that the voting machines in question counted provisional ballots accurately - and even this doesn't seem to have been fraud-free, in the opinion of the Deputy Director of Elections of Hocking County: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

The provisional ballots weren't enough to put Kerry over the top.  Even if all were counted, and Kerry got every single one of them, he still wouldn't have won.  Though the provisional ballots decreased Bush's win from over 136,000 votes to just over 118,000 votes. 

As for the tinfoil hat type theory that the voting machines were somehow changed.  Do you really think that couldn't be investigated?  After this final recount, the state government could investigate the machines by just typing in votes.  See if the votes go for the correct candidate.  To say that the machines can't be checked for fraud, and that the machines can't produce an accurate recount is absurd.  Ohio recounted the votes, Bush won, it really is over.  The fact that the democrats target this state, and this state only (leaving out other battleground states that Kerry won like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan) only serves to show that they will do anything to try and case a shawdow of doubt in peoples' minds about Bush's win.  Remember Pennsylvania just before the voting started on November 2?  Some machines in the big cities (which trend democratic) had 2,000 votes before any votes were cast.  I somehow doubt those were for Bush.  And it is odd that the democrats remain silent on that, and Pennsylvania as a whole, most likely because Kerry won Pennsylvania on election day.

I agree, the Washington result looks extremely dodgy - so do the presidential results from Ohio and Florida.

Dang right it does.  Especially when all those excess votes are coming from liberal King (Ukraine) County and highly liberal Seattle...which is in King (Ukraine) County.

God, please tell me you are talking about Florida 2000, when the democrats and there liberal New York state lawyers were trying to steal the election from then governor Bush.  Florida this time around was not even close, and quite frankly I would stay away from anyone trying to claim that a state that has ALWAYS went for the republican candidate would somehow go for a Massachusetts liberal.  Same for Ohio really.  To say a state with very lax concealed weapons laws, a state that voted to not only ban gay marriage in this election, but even ban civil unions, a state that Bush won by 4% in 2000 was somehow going to go for John Kerry was insane.  I said that before the election on this messageboard, Kerry's biggest mistake was spending to much time and effort in conservative Ohio, I still don't know why his advisers told him to do that.  Idiots.

And I'm sorry, but "it wouldn't have affected the result" isn't a suitable response: either you think your electoral system can have a few percentage points either way 'cause of fraud or errors, or you want a your vote counting to be trustworthy.

Well think about it this way, Washington's recount was suppose to be 99.99% accurate.  2.8 million votes were cast.  That is 280 votes that can swing any way in any vote-count.  Every state is the same way, so I don't get what you're driving at, the counts were 99.99% accurate in Ohio, in Florida, in Washinton, and anywhere in this election.  No election is perfect, the results are as close as they are going to get.  Again, the international observers seem to think our election should "be an example to every country."  Every country includes England.

"Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic."
--Greg Palast

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0

There's lots of great information at this site, though I haven't read it all yet.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud

I mean, it's for anyone interested, not so much for people who will never cop to the kind of sleaze the Republican partisans get up to.

"Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic."
--Greg Palast




Oh God...again?  Did Palast's tinfoil hat rust?

My favorite "every single vote was for us" style of democrat, Greg Palast....the same wacko who said the republicans stole Florida in 2000, and cheated to gain midterm elections in 2002.  He is crying wolf now, and it really is getting old with this guy.  Anything short of a clean sweep for the democrats in 2006 will produce the same idiotic response.

I especially love those sources, all left-leaning nutjob blogs.  Hmm...no newspapers.  No media outlets?  Anything at all besides BS usually posted at the DU?

Let's all focus in on Ohio.  You know what?  I'm starting a campaign, Kerry stole Pennsylvania.  I'll have a website, no proof, and repeat the line over and over again.  Same sh**.

Let's see who says they investigated the election and said it was fair:

ABC
CNN
Fox news
New York Times

Those are the ones I know of.  Let's see just one of you post a good piece of info about the widespread election fraud from anything over then another left-leaning nutjob site with nothing to stand on since they have no standards.

Oh God...again?  Did Palast's tinfoil hat rust?

My favorite "every single vote was for us" style of democrat, Greg Palast....the same wacko who said the republicans stole Florida in 2000, and cheated to gain midterm elections in 2002.  He is crying wolf now, and it really is getting old with this guy.  Anything short of a clean sweep for the democrats in 2006 will produce the same idiotic response.

I especially love those sources, all left-leaning nutjob blogs.  Hmm...no newspapers.  No media outlets?  Anything at all besides BS usually posted at the DU?

Let's all focus in on Ohio.  You know what?  I'm starting a campaign, Kerry stole Pennsylvania.  I'll have a website, no proof, and repeat the line over and over again.  Same sh**.

Let's see who says they investigated the election and said it was fair:

ABC
CNN
Fox news
New York Times

Those are the ones I know of.  Let's see just one of you post a good piece of info about the widespread election fraud from anything over then another left-leaning nutjob site with nothing to stand on since they have no standards.

Nobody's actually debunked Palast, they've just called him "wacko."  But like I said, those links were not for you as you have the President's name as your on-screen namesake.  If I post anything about the 2004 election, just assume I'm not addressing you.

Never said that. But that, believe it or not, is the law over here. Any time a court hears a case of fraud, the fraud must be enough to overturn the results, not just decrease a vote total for the winning candidate.

Is that for an individual case of fraud, or the overall effect of dozens of individual ones?


Remember Pennsylvania just before the voting started on November 2? Some machines in the big cities (which trend democratic) had 2,000 votes before any votes were cast. I somehow doubt those were for Bush.

No, I don't remember that, as I don't believe it's been mentioned before, certainly not anywhere I've been on-line since November - do you have a source?


God, please tell me you are talking about Florida 2000, when the democrats and there liberal New York state lawyers were trying to steal the election from then governor Bush.

OK, so which of these do you dispute actually happened?


No election is perfect, the results are as close as they are going to get.

That's the sort of complacency that worries me most: for example a 1% "undervote" was considered "good" in Ohio, down from a nearly 3% undervote last time around - an "undervote" is one that is NOT COUNTED... possibly because the voter might have wanted to record a null vote, but usually because something went wrong with the voting process.  Over the whole country, that's more than a million votes that those counting simply don't care about.  What a wonderful democracy - do you honestly believe this:

Again, the international observers seem to think our election should "be an example to every country." Every country includes England.

Which international observers were those?  They certainly haven't published in anything submitted to google - could you provide a source, please?  I assume you don't mean this respected international observer

After all, over here in England we have had no proven allegations of voting fraud on whatever scale (offhand, I can't think of an allegation made for a general election at all - the occasional council election, and even the allegation is front-page news), there is NEVER any intimidation at polling booths - if a constituency lost 1% of the votes cast, the returning officer's job would be on the line.  There is a difference in scale between the accuracy of UK and US elections - so don't give me any sheesh about the pile of faecal dung that is the US election process being any kind of good example to anywhere in the world, thank you very much: if that were the case, we wouldn't be here arguing now.


Did Palast's tinfoil hat rust?

Phil's basic chemistry, part one: tin doesn't rust.

Phil's basic chemistry, part one: tin doesn't rust.

Phil's basic chemistry, part two: foil isn't tin, it's aluminum.  Or, as the Brits like to say, "aluminium."

Anyway, remember how in all those cavalcades of Professional Wrestlers, all the good guys and bad guys would show up together in the same limos?  That's the case with the "corporate" media.  The New York Times, ABC, and FOX have one thing in common, they just won't investigate stories that might fundamentally upset the faith of the people in the Corporate-Occupied-Government and the Military-Industrial, Military-Petroleum, Prison-Industrial Complex!

Is that for an individual case of fraud, or the overall effect of dozens of individual ones?



It's for all of it.  The party claiming fraud has to put all the fraud together and take it to court.  They have to prove the fraud beyond a reasonable doubt and they have to prove that the fraud was enough to change the results.

No, I don't remember that, as I don't believe it's been mentioned before, certainly not anywhere I've been on-line since November - do you have a source?

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/11/02/20041102_180406_vote1.htm

Which international observers were those?

How about a story from your own BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2004/vote_usa_2004/3987655.stm

Over the whole country, that's more than a million votes

Not to say that is great, but as you wrote, it is down by a lot.  Plus since Bush won by over 3.5 million, even all those votes wouldn't switch the popular vote results.  Isn't that what the democrats wanted?  A vote based soley on the popular vote.

http://www.mattmargolis.com/images/DeaNC.gif

Here is a great article on the subject of this thread:

(Excerpt)

If you don't win the election on the first count -- demand a recount and litigate until you get the result you want (or the U.S. Supreme Court says enough of this foolishness).

That has become the Democrats new mantra as seen in the past week's certification of Christine Gregoire as governor of Washington following three counts of the ballot; two of which she lost.

The third, a manual recount with dubious ballots suddenly discovered in heavily Democratic King County that were not counted previously gave her the election Now we must stop counting ballots or contesting irregularities, cry the Democrats because they might lose again.

Full story: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/206360_gov04.html

It's for all of it.  The party claiming fraud has to put all the fraud together and take it to court.  They have to prove the fraud beyond a reasonable doubt and they have to prove that the fraud was enough to change the results.

In other words, fraud in US elections is perfectly legal, providing nobody can prove that one particular fraud, or the sum of all provable frauds, actually affected the results?  You sure 'bout that?




http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/11/02/20041102_180406_vote1.htm

...you mean this story? (from the Philadelphia Inquirer - it's a subscription-only site, but this is pasted from the google cache):
Cathie Abookire, spokeswoman for Abraham, said poll workers misinterpreted numbers they found on voting machines before the polls opened. Abookire said the city's new electronic voting machines have two windows that display voting numbers - one that shows the total number of votes ever cast on the machine, the other that shows the number of votes cast today.


How about a story from your own BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2004/vote_usa_2004/3987655.stm

"Mostly free and fair" (my italics)... that's not exactly 
international observers seem to think our election should "be an example to every country."
is it? ...especially considering:
However, they were barred by state law from polling places in Washington DC, Florida and Ohio.
...so observers weren't actually allowed into the states about which we've been arguing.  ::)


Not to say that is great, but as you wrote, it is down by a lot.  Plus since Bush won by over 3.5 million, even all those votes wouldn't switch the popular vote results.  Isn't that what the democrats wanted?  A vote based soley on the popular vote.

At the risk of prolonging this debate by taking a slight diversion, would you have anything against having voting hardware & software that was
  a) open-source and provably unhackable
  b) kept full audit trails at machine-level and at each level the data was collated
  c) requested confirmation of any blank voting request, so that there would be *no* "undervotes", only registered intentions of a desire not to vote
  d) actually tested before use, with *more* votes than expected at the most populous of all regions

Can you think of any conceivable reason why a politician (or other electoral body, partisan or otherwise) should order voting kit which *didn't* conform to the above criteria?

Can you think of any conceivable reason why a politician (or other electoral body, partisan or otherwise) should order voting kit which *didn't* conform to the above criteria?



Uh, maybe so they could monkey around with it and insure a Bush victory?