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.
Uh, Rossi won Snohomish.
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.
Why is a recount considered more accurate than the original count?
Because the law says so. There are good reasons why that is the case, but the bottom line is all that matters: follow the law.
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?
Only if the law says so. It does not. Following the law is all that matters.
The law has already been changed here. There is only to be one recount whose standings are absolutely final.
That is incorrect, sorry. There is one mandatory recount if the margin of difference is within 0.5% or 2000 votes, and after that, the parties may request a recount, on their dime. They get a refund if the recount changes the result in their favor. This is quite clearly spelled out in state law, even down to how much the parties have to pay.
Most states specify a method to resolve contests where the count results in a tie, and in some cases, it really is decided by a coin flip! (example)
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
You don't follow the news much either, do you? The election workers followed the same procedure they had in the primary. This was part of the way they did things, it was not a simple mistake.
And the Republicans were arguing to follow the previous Supreme Court decision that stated that the hand recount was to be a retabulation, not a reconsideration of previously rejected ballots. That the canvassing board had already rejected these ballots is not in question. The only question is whether the Supreme Court sill preserved all the discretion to the county canvassing boards, and they affirmed yesterday that they did.
Note that there's only one case so far in this entire affair where a judge has ruled to change the law, and that was in King County, where Judge Lam violated federal law by compelling the county to provide lists of provisional voters and their personal information to the Democrats.
I note that they don't think people who've had their legal votes rejected should be able to have some sort of redress
You note a lie. Goody for you!
How about this, ever legal vote should count.
No one ever disputed that. You're just showing your own abject ignorance by contending otherwise. The question is what constitutes a legal vote, not whether legal votes 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.
No. It should be determined by the law. That's what "legal" means. And Washington law does not recognize "the minimum that was necessary to register their vote in good faith" as its standard.
For example, the law states, "A ballot is invalid and no votes on that ballot may be counted if it is found folded together with another ballot or it is marked so as to identify the voter." Even if the voter registered his vote in good faith, it is invalid under those conditions. Sorry. That's the law, and the law is what determines legality.
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.
I submit that anyone who suggests anything different from the law as that test is an anarchist or a moron. You're spouting unintelligent rhetoric that sounds good to people who don't know any better (which may include yourself).
See this news report
King County Elections Director Dean Logan said that when workers were verifying signatures on absentee ballots, they erroneously disqualified voters whose signatures hadn't been entered into a computer system. Instead, Logan said, they should have double-checked with signatures on voters' registration cards on file with the county. "We take full responsibility," Logan said. "An error has been made that has prevented valid ballots from being counted. We need to correct the error and count those votes."