Slashdot Mirror
Democrat Certified Winner in WA Governor Race
Washington's secretary of state certified the result of the hand recount (the third count) in the governor's race, reversing the first two results -- which Republican Dino Rossi had won -- and making Democrat Christine Gregoire the election's second governor-elect, by 129 votes out of 2.9 million. The inauguration is January 12. Predictably, the two sides have switched arguments, too, with the Democrats saying Rossi should concede and the Republicans saying they have a duty to make sure the will of the people is followed. The next step may be an election contest, which could take months, and result in a court awarding the victory to a candidate, nullifying the entire election, or sending the matter to the legislature. Rossi is calling for the legislature to pass a special law calling for a new election, which would bypass a contest procedure.
Which makes it clear that neither side cares about the will of the people, as long as they win.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
As a Republican I root for the elephant's, but I am not about to go turning over flaming cars and seceding from the union if a Democrat gets in office.
What ever happened to "reasoned" debate? A legitimate difference of opinion? At the risk of sounding like we should all just get along, there is merit to the idea that if we, the left and the right, are working for the betterment of the people... then no one loses.
Of course, as long as government suckles at the teat of corrupt corporate influence peddlers, as well as letting the dog get wagged by the tail of the marginally disenfranchised then we will have partisan bickering that lowers us all.
Whoa, better step down from this soap box... it gives me such a head rush...
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
As mentioned in an earlier post, 266 ballots seemed to disappear, while 325 magically materialized. Again, these are not just a matter of reinterpration of marks on paper, these are entire sheets of paper that either vanished or appeared out of thin air. Christine Gregoire added a net 47 new votes to her total, Dino Rossi lost a net 12 from his.
In the first count, Rossi was ahead by 261 votes. In the second count, Rossi ended up ahead by 42 votes. In the final count, Gregoire was ahead by 129 votes. The total number of votes cast were 2.8 million. Anyone see a problem here?
The problem is that we're well within the margin of error. To get an accurate count, we need to be more precise than 0.01%. The fact that a few votes here and there seemed to disappear and reappear are just statistical anomalies. That alone is not proof of fraud.
If Rossi just keeps his mouth shut and behaves as a gracious winner...
Right, because it is good for your Democrat to follow the legal process to challenge the election result when she lost, but not good for the Republican to do it when he lost.
The hypocrisy of the Democrats here would be stunning if it weren't so predictable.
"The hypocrisy of the Democrats here would be stunning if it weren't so predictable."
:)
As a Republican I think saying that is hypocritical of you sir.
Re-vote. Not recount. "Rossing is asking for a re-vote" ... Sorry.
If we were to have a run-off vote, it's like saying that the first election was botched, that we messed up and didn't fix it.
You cannot fix a significantly flawed election. You can only fix it for next time, and you can fix the results by holding a new election.
That when we went out to vote, our vote didn't count, cause now we have to re-vote.
Yes, it is a serious step, and one that should not be undertaken lightly.
If we have a re-vote, who should pay for it? Should we really make the taxpayers pay for it?
Yes, of course. There's no one else who could or should. This is the people's business, and the people should pay for it.
I would think the hand recount would make a clear winner, with a Democrat, Republican, and neutral party, looking over each ballot. Or was there voter fraud somehow?
Hand recounts are not accurate. There is no reason to think that just because we did a hand recount, that we did a better job. In fact, there's reason to suspect the opposite, as handling of ballots can make them more susceptible to damage and loss.
Beyond that general principle -- which even the King County officials agreed with before the hand recount started -- there are many questions about how the hand recount was conducted that point to serious problems, including the allegation that depending on who was counting the ballot, it might be more likely to be counted for Gregoire.
Anyone have any ideas on solutions to make sure this doesn't happen again?
Better electronic voting systems, with paper trails. Earlier primary, so that there is more time to get the absentee ballots out (the primary is held less than two months before the general election, and many military people overseas did not get their ballots in time to vote), and also perhaps earlier required postmark date (maybe a week before the election, instead of election day).
All of these things are already being considered or are slated for implementation for the next major election. I'm sure there are more things that can be done, too.
Dino Rossi has no more legal process.
He has two options, both outlined in the story: asking the legislature to step in, and contesting the election.
Rossi is asking for a recount - something not provided for in the legal process.
Yes, it is. The legislature making laws is very clearly provided for in the law.
He has lost.
And Gregoire had lost before yesterday. So what?
Gregoire asked for what she's entitled to under state law and won, Rossi's asking for a whole new law
Something he is entitled to ask for.
Sorry, there's simply no difference. There are legal avenues open, and Rossi is taking them as he sees fit, which is his right. Just as Gregoire did.
Look, I didn't say Gregoire should concede. I supported her right to pursue all available legal avenues. And now I support Rossi's right to do the same. I won't be a hypocrite, like most everyone else.
We had an election under the laws as they stand. We followed the law and ended up with a result.
Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.
On what grounds could the leg possibly step in or Rossi contest the election?
I can't speak to the legislature stepping in, but rest assured, if it happened, it would be on reasonable legal grounds.
As to the contest: that is perfectly obvious. Hell, we've seen more than 129 examples of military people who didn't get their absentee ballots in time, and there are other forms of problems too, such as the counties who did not re-consider ballots with signature problems as King County did, which means their votes were not treated equally.
Legally he might contest or beg for a mulligan to be granted, but pragmatically you have to agree he should use this loss as a jumping off point for his next campaign.
If he had not won the first count and first recount, I would agree. But as he did, no, I don't agree at all with this. In every poll I've seen, the majority of people said Gregoire should concede, by a good margin, and even now, a significant number are saying they don't see Gregoire as legitimate (might even be a majority).
New Theme, Count till you win. If that is not enough, a magical box of ballets will apear and then count till you win. If that is not enough, repeat previous....
Oh, but this is a troll.
But this is the what happened...
Sad...
The hypocrisy of the Democrats here would be stunning if it weren't so predictable.
Hehe those of us outside the two party system see it for what it really is.
The Democrats and Republicans are simply trying to make sure their person wins. Does it matter if they actually won? Hell No!!! If we've seen anything there is no such thing as morality in politics. The ends always justify the means.
Its okay if we stuff the ballot with our candidate because the other side is probably doing it too, and even then, their candidate is just good at making people believe his lies, so we're actually doing the public a favor by cheating.
I KNOW people who would agree that cheating is morally acceptable for those reasons. Its sickening.
The way to motivate people is to make them believe that THEY are under attack from the "enemy". Or that they are in danger from the "enemy". Or their families, values, etc.But the politicians aren't out for the betterment of the people. They are out to get power and to keep power.There is that, also.
Although I'd look at it differently. I see it as people fighting to get the power so they are the ones getting the corporate attentions.
Politics is now about getting power and holding power. The easiest way to do that is fear and hate. The worst way is through rational discussion and mutual respect.
Yeah, the Democrats cry when they're losing and there are votes that weren't counted that might give them a win.
Yeah, the Republicans are demanding that every vote should be counted now that might give them a win.
!!!BUT!!!
NEITHER side demands that "every vote be counted" when their side is winning. Then it is all about the other side being a "gracious loser" and such.
And that tells you that neither party is interested in counting all the votes, just enough so that they win.
It's all about winning. Not Democracy.
So your little jabs at the Democrats ring a little hollow. Instead, why don't you look at why the Republicans haven't been advocating improvements in the voting process?
The only democratic outcome of the 2004 election is to organize new elections. If the Ukraine can do it, the US should be able to do the democratically right thing too. Of course the legal context and its current implementation is deeply flawed so that needs to be fixed as well. Three recounts and three different outcomes is unacceptable. Obviously sombody has trouble counting or someone is manipulating rather than counting the results.
It's unbelievable that two times in a row, the US gets a president whose election victory is all but certain. I'm not saying Bush didn't win. I'm just saying that it is pretty hard too establish that he won (and with how many votes) given the many legitimate (amd not so legitimate complaints) about the voting procedure, the way of counting votes, etc.
IMHO Bush should fix democracy in his own country before spreading it to the rest of the world.
Jilles
Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.
Mental blocks? What about your mental block? As if following existing laws to their conclusion is remotely similar to passing NEW laws for your convenience. You are fighting windmills here, Pudge.
This just in, possible fraud in Washington's King County.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I didn't say Diebold voting machines were used.
You implied it by mentioning it in response to a discussion about Washington, and Republicans in Washington. Diebold electronic voting systems have nothing at all to do with anything I have been talking about. You decided to change the subject of voting in Washington state to some larger pet peeve about something marginally related.
Here's the fact that you cannot seem to accept: He has been feted as a guest at President Bush's Texas ranch, joining a cadre of "Pioneers and Rangers" who have pledged to raise more than $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign. Most memorably, O'Dell last fall penned a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."
I can't accept it? I'm the one who quoted it, after you misrepresented what was said!
Ummm, "Diebold" is a company. A company cannot say anything because it is not a person. The people who own and run the company can make statements.
Companies have official statements made on its behalf by its officers. Those are said to be statements made by the company. That is what is meant when one says a company says something, as you did. This was not one of those statements, as it was not said on behalf of the company.
Because I gave a clear example of Sam Reed blocking attempts to fix problems.
You're lying. You gave a clear example of one person saying that Reed was blocking attempts to fix an alleged problem.
Further, the initial statement was that Republicans do not trying to fix voting problems. Even if it were true that Reed was blocking attempts to fix voting problems in one case, that does not show that he is not trying to fix other voting problems.
So you have one example that does not show what you say, and cannot prove what you hope. Yay for you.
what exactly leads you to believe that the machine recounts are so much more accurate than the process used in the so called "hand recount?"
Well, for starters, all the elections officials said so, including the current and previous Secretary of State and Dan Logan, the King County elections director.
I don't place that much faith in those two people (the current SoS and Dean Logan). Besides, King County is apparently "famous" for doing some "fancy footwork" on the election results database. Google for
King county is famous for it
and see what pops up.
Also, you say "people are much better at reading than machines," but that's only true in the sense that people are more *subjective* than machines: that is, if a line is not drawn or bubble not filled perfectly, a human can pick it up perhaps where a machine cannot. This is true, but it necessarily also means that the same people open themselves up to a host of possible mistakes (both false positives and false negatives). i.e., the truth your statement is based on does not help the idea that hand recounts are more accurate any more than it hurts it.
The 2001 CalTech/MIT study of voting errors -- as measured by residual votes -- showed that hand-counted paper ballots, optically scanned paper ballots, and lever machines were the most accurate voting methods. Punchcards and paperless DREs were significantly less accurate. Counties that switched to DREs from other methods saw an average increase of undervotes of 1% of the votes cast (i.e., from 2% to 3%, as opposed to 2% to 2.02%).
Just trying to lay out the facts.
-jdm