Slashdot Mirror
Democrat Takes 10-Vote Lead in WA Governor Race
Two major developments in the apparently neverending Washington state governor's race happened on Wednesday. As the second recount wound down, with 38 of 39 counties reporting -- all but the heavily Democratic-leaning King County -- Republican Dino Rossi extended his lead from 42 votes to 49. Then, the state Supreme Court ruled that its December 14 decision which disallowed including new ballots in the hand recount did not preclude county canvassing boards from including new ballots, which paves the way for 735 previously rejected ballots in King County to be processed. Then, King County announced that its hand recount (not including the 735) swung toward Democrat Christine Gregoire by 59 votes, giving her a 10-vote lead statewide (1,373,051 to 1,373,041). More court challenges are likely to follow.
Before this latest gain for the Dems, the Republicans where telling the Dems to quit crying and just give in, that resorting to the courts was proff they where all cry babies. I wonder if their tune will change now.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
See, you're not the only one that can screw up an election! And I'm not just talking about Ohio, either. Nossir, we'll be in the record books for good. Or until the next guys come along.
Man, I really hope we have a governor soon.
What's the big problem?
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
... about WA state is its geography. King County is very big population wise and very Democratic. The counties to the west of the Cascades (which divide the state N-S about 1/4 of the way E from the ocean), are all blue to purple and then all of the counties to the east of the Cascades are blood red republican. Rossi won most of the counties in the state, but King County's population (along with neighboring Snohomish County) almost has the power to make all of those moot. It's like Texas, California and New York all rolled into one. So when Gregoire does win - which I hope she does - it'll really set the stage for a Seattle vs rest-of-the-state animosity that will take years to resolve.
It seems that if there is such a close race that there is only 10 votes in it, then it's not really democracy that's deciding the winner of this. Instead it comes down to combinations of random events. How many car accidents statewide were there on the day of the ballot... How many people couldn't get to the polling booths due to bad health etc. Why not just flip a coin to decide who gets in, it would probably have just as much meaning.
This seems to imply with a note of sarcasm that the state Supreme Court is ruling against itself. I haven't been following your state's results as closely as you have, but this does not seem true to me. From my skimming of the link you gave to the Dec. 14 decision, I see that decision was regarding whether the Supreme Court could order the Secretary of State to order counties to re-check previously rejected ballots. That the Supreme Court refused to order this to be done does not in any way mean it, as you write, "disallowed" it from being done. This seems to me a fairly trivial point.
From the decision you linked to:
And the Supreme Court goes on to address precisely the contradiction I think you're raising, in its second decision, making itself quite clear:
(My emphasis.)
The first decision seems quite clearly limited in its scope, in such a way that there is no contradiction in the second. The Seattle Times story you link to agrees with me on this. If you disagree, you owe it to our readers either to disclose that your disagreement is your opinion, or to explain clearly and factually what parts of the two decisions contradict each other. As I say, you've been studying this a lot longer and more carefully than I have, so maybe I'm all wrong on this. I'd like to see what you have to say about it -- in detail, not just implied in part of one sentence.
My suspicion is that "the Washington Supreme Court contradicted itself, so Gregoire's election is illegitimate" may shortly become part of the GOP's talking points, so this is no small matter.
This blog has some startling facts that you should familiarize yourself with.
* Statistically speaking, Rossi is still considered the winner unless Gregoire pulls out with a 300 vote lead. This is pure math, folks, nothing more, nothing less.
* A survey of the voters in Washington showed that if Rossi wins, he should be declared the winner. However. the majority feel that if Gregoire wins, we should have a runoff election.
* Interesting notes as one of the bloggers investigates the voting rolls. Fraud, anyone?
* Everyone in Washington State now admits that King County has not been following state law in the elections process. Even the Seattle Weekly isn't ashamed to admit it. King County may have been throwing off close elections for the past 10 years.
Check out the information on that blog, consider it scientifically and with an open mind, and draw your own conclusion.
As for me, it's obvious. The democrats have successfully stolen the election, and I have proof.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
...is a recount considered more accurate than the original count? If a recount doesn't agree with the figures from a prevoius counting, shouldn't they count it again until they get two countings that match? That way there couldn't be any dispute. Why is a "margin of error" tolerated, especially when the difference in votes is so close? The numbers should be *exact*.
Random events aren't nearly as big a threat as things that have non-random effects.
In everything from the allocation of resources to polling places to the determination of the order of candidates, non-random, systematic "errors" can be surprisingly powerful in a democracy such as ours.
--MarkusQ
The problem isn't Democrats vs. Republicans, it's honest people of both parties vs. corrupt people of either party.
I happen to be a Republican, but I'm quite willing to accept Democratic politicians when they win honestly. When they win by cheating, I want to see them (and/or whoever cheated on their behalf) behind bars. Likewise, when someone "of my party" cheats to win, I want them nailed.
The problem is, it's very hard to get the leaders of either party to take a stand on this issue because they know (as many of us are begining to realize) just how often there is cheating by both parties. Instead, they try to get is tangled up with us vs. them debates as if one side was pure as the driven snow and the other was corrupt to the core. That's not the way it is.
There are a lot of honest people in both parties. They are being run into the ground by the cheats, and "we the people" need to put a stop to it.
--MarkusQ
Does this give you any faith in the system? I sure as hell don't want to blame a side as much as I want to say the american voting system just isn't good enough to deal with the fact that our nation is split 50/50. Everyone in Washington just wants a governor at this point. I may note that despite what you hear it was the Deomcrat Christina who decided to have the recount so its her fault that we are making this a big scene. I voted democrat in the fall but I sure as hell wish they would shutup right now.
is not to find out who really won, it's to recount until you win (both sides).
the Political Inquirer
Ye Gods America, who is running your elections? The lawyers or the TV networks?
I have heard this point many times. I do not accept it, at least as presented. I don't dispute that there may at some point in history be more active corruption in one party than in the other (Tamany Hall was a Democrats-only institution, Watergate was a Republicans-only scandal), but that is no reason to change parties.
Consider: I am male, and I oppose rape. Should the fact that most rapists are male motivate me to get a sex-change operation?
No, of course not.
But the fact that there are rapists (of either gender) or corrupt politicians (of either party) should motivate me to work to oppose them, to stop rape, to stop corruption.
And that I do.
--MarkusQ
Call me a proud Washington voter.
Plus, I volunteered to get out the vote, so I may be responsible for more votes than my own.
If there's one lesson to take from these last two elections, it's that voting matters.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
It's a problem when some votes are double counted in the machine count, or not counted at all due to mechanical error.
It's a problem when voters who followed the rules when voting, don't have their vote counted due to officials messing up.
It's a problem when both sides can't agree to simply have every vote count.
Personally, I'd prefer Gregoire to win over Rossi. But still, no matter the results, I'd rather have a run-off when the election is this close.
what I want to know is why isn't this same thing happening with the national elections? Sure, the first recount was tripped automatically because of a close election, but all the shenigans that follow are a result of people thinking there's something wrong with the system.
Is there _anyone_ that doesn't think something is wrong with our national system?
Blech.
1. 2.
It's the whores and the pimps.
I voted for Gregoire. (I'd rather vote for Locke again.) But, they're both kind of image obsessed, smarmy, fuck-ups. Strategically, a Republican might make a little more sense when it comes to attracting our due from DC, but strategically, a Democrat makes sense to keep bullshit like "intelligent design" out of schools.
The vast majority of Republicans are good and honest people. Our party has been usurped by a small, vicious band of "Neo-Cons" who claim to speak for us, but do not. This exactly parallels the national situation; the vast majority of Americans are good and honest people, but their country has been usurped by the same jerks.
Now, in addition to being dishonest the usurpers are also devious. One of their favorite tricks is to sow conflict amongst their enimies. Presently, they have the good and honest Americans divided into two roughly equal camps, and have them convinced that they have nothing in common--so there's no point in banding together to route out corruption. Besides (as they paint it) the problem isn't really corruption, it's red vs. blue, and which ever colour you got assigned you should blame everything on the entirety of the other team.
I, on the other hand, am doing my best to convince people of both parties that the real enemy is the corrupt politicians of both parties. We can always go back to fighting amonst ourselves about who should pay for health care, and how much, once we make sure we won't be living in a police state run by the people who "count" our votes--or a glass crater created by other nations holding us all accountable for the acts of a few, just as you want to hold all Republicans accountable for the acts of a few.
--MarkusQ
The signitures weren't in the database. The election workers didn't follow proper proceedure, and in so doing incorrectly disallowed 735 legal ballots. And, in accordance with Washington state law, and previous legal opinions on said law, election officals are allowed to go back and correct exactly those kinds of mistakes.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are arguing for the preservation of known, quantifiable error (so long as it serves their ends). I note that they don't think people who've had their legal votes rejected should be able to have some sort of redress, an exemption for having to pay any sort of tax would be fitting, or the ability to sue the state for their inconvience. Instead they advocate a position of "Them thar's the breaks, so long as we have the lead." How about this, ever legal vote should count. And legality shouldn't be determined by the convience of the counter, or the would-be victor seeking to preserve a margin, but by whether the voter did the minimum that was necessary to register their vote in good faith. I would submit that anyone who suggest anything short of that test, is a fucking coward, a freind to tyrants, and a foe of freedom, deserving of only the inequities they would foist on others.
the sobering thought I take away from elections is we get the leadership we collectively deserve. That those who do prevail can is a credit or an indictment of a people.
I'm talking to other Republicans, pointing out things like 1) isn't it odd that so many of us object to Bush, yet (according to the media) we all support him, 100%? 2) what's "conservative" about spending like there's no tomorrow, invading other countries based on lies, etc.? 3) My "moral values" don't include sending people with guard dogs to other countries so they can force people to mastrabate, do yours?
And so forth...
What keeping my registration does for me is give credibility to my points. I'm not the one walking away from what we stand for, Bush is. He's the one who should change to another party. The rest of us will get along quite nicely without him.
So, one way I differ from you: I don't withhold aid based on how I think people will vote. Instead, I try to make sure that everyone has full access to the facts, and expect that they will make rational choices.As for your argument about the Neo-cons using "the bulk" of the Republican party, etc., doesn't the same thing apply to the country as a whole? Have you given up your citizenship, or refused to pay taxes?
But to push the point further--why do you think most Republicans support the Neo-con agenda? Because the administration tells you so? Aren't they the same people who've been telling the world that America gave them a mandate? And that the Iraqi's love them? And so many other things...why would you believe them?
On that, I 100% agree.--MarkusQ
Republicans would have done the same thing. They do anything to win.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
I believe it's safe to say that no one likes filling out forms, whether paying taxes, filing for government assistance, or just general business stuff.
I believe it's safe to say that no one likes being forced to pay taxes on business income.
I believe it's safe to say that no one likes being poor.
I believe a compromise is this...
Keep taxes as is, just do a few slight modifications. We have 6.5 state sales tax (then localities add on more). Raise the state sales tax by 1-3 cents on the dollar, and give univeral rebates to all 6.1 million Washingtonians. That will help the poor some. I figured if 1 cent equals $1 billion in revenue, then this could very well work.
I wish our future governor would do this. As the executive of the state, the one who carries out the laws, he or she could one, halt the death penalty citing that it's cruel and unusual, especially with the chance someone may be innocent. And two, halt foreclosures on homes based on government leans due to medicare/medicaid/whatever. Instead they could just take the house when it's unoccupied by anyone.
Election reform. I would think it would be a good idea to fix our system by doing this...
1. Implement Instant Runoff Voting.
2. Whether or not we implement IRV, write this into law. "Anytime there is an one percent difference between the top two candidates in a plurality race, there will be a run-off election. Additionally, in the run-off election, a machine count would be forbidden, just skipping down to a hand recount, no matter what the cost is to tax payers."
this is how florida 2000 would have played out had the court not stepped in. Now, the question remains, what is to stop the republicans from recounting till they win? which recount is the final one? especially with a 10 vote margin.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Since the democrats are so obviously evil for their role in this, it might be fun to note the turn things have taken not that Gregiore leads by 130 votes.
The Republicans did something similar. They tracked down people who voted for Rossi, but didn't sign the affidavit of a voter on their absentee ballot. No. They're not the victims of less than dilligent election workers, they just can't read clearly printed instructions on what they must do in order to properly cast their ballot. And somehow the view the situations of these voters as somehow similar. Further more, they only propose to count the votes of the limited number of people they've found, not the entire population of absentee ballots without a signed affidavit. But no, they're not hypocrits, and it's unfair to characterize their championing the cause of institutionalized unfairness as anything but filled with charity and christ love. What a joke.
Wow--my spelling is horrible on this keyboard I'm not used to and without the magic spellcheck extension. I hope that my message is not lost in the careless mistakes...otherwise I'd have to invest the time and expense in a retyping......
Rossi and Gregoire are both rather weak, divisive candidates. The problem is the first-past-the-post system tends to produce such candidates. Alternative voting systems like approval voting or Condorcet Voting would get around much of this problem
Count and recount until you win, even if you have to "find" votes that weren't originally there.
"Hey, I just found some votes that weren't counted in this here closet! I know they're all for the Democrat, cause I marked them myself!"
Folks, it's obvious. The only way Dems can win nowadays is in the court system because the country is fed up with their lies and corruption.
From a Dem's point of view, the only "fair" election is one that they win.
BULLSHIT!
All the democrats did is maintain that the state law should be followed. It was, they won, and now Rossi wants another election "just to be sure," oh and he wants ballots where those that cast them didn't sign the affidavit of a voter.
The GOP might not own all the hypocrisy, but they've got enough for it to be considered a monopoly.
... our Princess is in another castle.
Washington St., as I recall, has a pretty accessible absentee ballot system. Never used it myself; I believe in actually showing up for my civic participation, but nevertheless it is possible to avoid traffic etc. if you arrange in advance.