Washington State Recount, Part Deux

[CARLHAYDEN]

For those of you familiar with statistical mathematics, I have a question for you.

If you take the original total for all votes counted for Govenor in the state of Washington this year by county, and then take the square root of that number, which one county has already exceeded adding on more than the square root of initial votes?

Hint, its the one county which has not yet posted its recount total.

Is this a joke?
Why is the square root of the number of votes relevant?  Of course the answer is whatever county is largest, but it has nothing to do with anything.  You are assuming that large counties should find drastically fewer mistakes in proportion to their population, and I don't see why that would be true. 

I would suspect that Carl is looking for statistical anomolies.  While I don't think he'll find any, it would be interesting to check.

NickG really doesn't understand statistics.

The square root principle is a well established parameter for error.

In the first vote count, King county counted 874,928 votes cast for Govenor. 

The square root of this is 935 (rounded to the nearest whole number).

One the first (machine) recount, King counted added 971 votes, which was slightly in excess of the easily explained margin of error (935).

No other county, in neither the first (machine) recount nor the second (hand) recount has had a change from the original vote which equalled, much less exceeded, the square root of the original vote count.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Some additional information from the Washington Secretary of State:


Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2004 7:15 a.m. EST
Wash State Sec'y: Vote Find Is Suspicious

The discovery late Monday of 561 votes in the ongoing Washington state governor's race had both state and GOP officials crying foul yesterday, with Secretary of State Sam Reed saying that vote fraud is a possibility.

Asked if he thought the 11th-hour vote find could be fraudulent, Reed told KTTH Seattle radio host Mike Siegel, "You want to look at that, just because it's so late in the process and the impact it could have on the outcome of this race."

Washington state is currently undergoing its second ballot recount in a race in which Republican Dino Rossi won the initial election by 261 votes over Democrat Christine Gregoire. A machine recount narrowed Rossi's victory margin to 42 votes.

Since the mystery votes were discovered in heavily Democratic King County, state election officials of both parties expect their inclusion would tip the race for Gregoire.

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled yesterday that individual canvassing boards were not required to review votes that were initially discarded because of flaws. But the finding did not affect the 561-vote find.

Secretary of State Reed was critical of King County election officials, telling Siegel that the 11th-hour discovery "strains credibility. Either it is just horrible incompetence ... or something else is going on."

"[People] get very suspicious when, as Rossi pulls ahead, all of a sudden these ballots show up that could easily switch the lead," he added. "I think for the sake of voter trust and competence we're going to have to have a thorough investigation."

King County Director of Elections Dean Logan disagreed.

"I don't think there's any evidence or speculation that fraud has taken place," Logan told Siegel. "There's a clear record of what these ballots are and where they came from."

Logan insisted that the mystery votes were the product of an honest mistake, saying they had been erroneously grouped with ballots that were unsigned or had signatures that didn't match.

Washington State Republican chairman Chris Vance wasn't persuaded by Logan's arguments.

Following Logan on Siegel's broadcast, Vance said, "From where we sit, it's impossible to tell whether this is incompetence or fraud. They look the same from the outside. If you were going to steal the election, the way you do it is to, at the very end, find a bunch of votes."

Vance noted: "This is about the fifth time that votes have been found in King County and Logan always has an explanation for it. But there's just no way for us to know."

[CARLHAYDEN]

You said:
I understand statistics just fine....

Your "square root" principle only works if their is an equal chance that a given county will overcount its vote and undercount its vote.  This assumes that "mean" result after the count will be the same as the mean result before the count. 

I reply:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.

Next you said: 

- The number of overvotes should be linearly related to the population of the county.

I reply:

This is totally absurd,  There is NO one to one relationship between population and changes in voting results!  Do you understand that turnout rates vary by jurisdiction?

Next you asserted:

- The number of undervotes should also be linearly related.

I reply:

There is absoltely NO basis for you assertion.

Next you said:
- If there is an equal tendency for undervotes and overvotes, the NET ERROR will be related by some function of the square root of population.  But if there are only overvoters, the net will still be linearly related. 

I reply:

Again you are wrong.  You seem to have some idiotic idea that my methodology presumes that the recount will result in exactly the same number of votes as counted in the original tally.  This is NOT the case.  My technique is soley to establish paramenters for change.  Note, only one county did NOT fall within the parameters.  Hmm.

Next you said:

- In the real life situation, where there are a few undervotes and far more overvotes, the net result will be somewhere in between, but much closer to a linear function than an exponential one.

I reply:

You must be either extremely ignorant or just lying.  Take any state that had a Gubenatorial election this year and you will see that more people voted for President than for Govenor.  The 'undervote' varies depending upon a number of factors.

Next you said:

Moreover, even if there is an equal chance of overcounting and undercounting, their is no reason why the square root of population will be the "easily explained margin of error".  This would more accurately be the square root of population times some constant, but setting this constant at 1 is completely arbitrary on your part.

I reply:

Once again, turnout rates vary by jurisdiction and are NOT related to population.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You said:
I understand statistics just fine....

Your "square root" principle only works if their is an equal chance that a given county will overcount its vote and undercount its vote.  This assumes that "mean" result after the count will be the same as the mean result before the count. 

I reply:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.

Next you said: 

- The number of overvotes should be linearly related to the population of the county.

I reply:

This is totally absurd,  There is NO one to one relationship between population and changes in voting results!  Do you understand that turnout rates vary by jurisdiction?

Next you asserted:

- The number of undervotes should also be linearly related.

I reply:

There is absoltely NO basis for you assertion.

Next you said:
- If there is an equal tendency for undervotes and overvotes, the NET ERROR will be related by some function of the square root of population.  But if there are only overvoters, the net will still be linearly related. 

I reply:

Again you are wrong.  You seem to have some idiotic idea that my methodology presumes that the recount will result in exactly the same number of votes as counted in the original tally.  This is NOT the case.  My technique is soley to establish paramenters for change.  Note, only one county did NOT fall within the parameters.  Hmm.

Next you said:

- In the real life situation, where there are a few undervotes and far more overvotes, the net result will be somewhere in between, but much closer to a linear function than an exponential one.

I reply:

You must be either extremely ignorant or just lying.  Take any state that had a Gubenatorial election this year and you will see that more people voted for President than for Govenor.  The 'undervote' varies depending upon a number of factors.

Next you said:

Moreover, even if there is an equal chance of overcounting and undercounting, their is no reason why the square root of population will be the "easily explained margin of error".  This would more accurately be the square root of population times some constant, but setting this constant at 1 is completely arbitrary on your part.

I reply:

Once again, turnout rates vary by jurisdiction and are NOT related to population.

Example from 2004 General election:

Turnout (based on VAP)

San Juan          90.25%
Whitman           66.16

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARLHAYDEN, it is obvious that it is much easier for an organization to handle 2,000 votes like in a small county than the number in King County. Or do you dispute something as obvious as this?

Also, why do you feel the need to personally attack anything that moves? I would suggest that you act more maturely if you want to get any measure of respect in your opinions.

Well, at least you're consistent (consistently wrong).

First, it is NOT obvious what you claim.  The large counties such as King county have people employed whose primary job is to deal with elections whereas the small counties have people who deal with a number of different matters, including elections.  I'm sorry you are ignorant of this and make unfounded assumptions.

Second, you seem to be unable to deal with specific matters and when your unfounded assumptions and mistatements of fact (not to mention illogical assertions) are rejected, you take it personally. 

Grow up!

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'm not sure I understand how turnout rates figure into your "square root" idea.

Yes, turnout rates vary slightly from precinct to precint, but not by that much; there is an obvious and overwhelming linear relationship between population and votes.  I ran the correlation between 2004 turnout and 2000 census population data for Washington counties, and the correlation was .995 (where 1.00 would mean absolutely no variation in turnout).   So any formula or correlation that applies to population will also apply to turnout.  And even if turnout were more varied, what does this have to do with your "square root" idea?

You said:

You are very wrong.  The method I employed estimates the likelihood of an error (undercounting or undercounting).  When a recount exceeds the paraments of this methodology, it is highly suspect.


I assume by this you mean "undercounting or overcounting".  This is not a good assumption.  Your  "square root" formulation would be correct (with the caveat that I mentioned before that the constant isn't necessarily 1) if you were talking about two recounts with the same methodologies, in which there was no particular reason why the second count would over- or under-count more votes than the first. 

But in this case, the second recount (the hand recount) is designed to be more inclusive than the first.  Almost all of the changes will be adding new ballots rather than subtracting.   In this situation, the relationship between population and change in votes will be highly linear rather than exponential, which I think is supported by the statistical evidence I posted above.

Let me deal with two fundamental misassumptions you make.

First, you seem to believe that the number of votes cast is little more than a reflection of the population.  I tried gently toi tell you this is not so, and gave you both the concept and specific examples which disprove your assertion previously.  Apparently I was not clear enough as you still do not understand, so I will specifically specll it out with a couple of examples:

County          Population          GE Vote for Govenor          Ratio
                      7/1/03

San Juan        14,762                  9,853                               1.4982

Whitman        40,702                 17,549                               2.3193

Second, you seem to have a rather fundamental misunderstanding of tha law regarding recounts.  Suggest you read the decision of the Washington Supreme Court and the Superior Court judge I previously cited with a link.

[CARLHAYDEN]

[


. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You said:

I'm not misunderstand this at all...it is not an "assumption".

I reply:

Please cite where I said what I am emphatically denying!

You said:

I ran an analysis of the data and found that votes correlated to population in this election with a coefficient of .995...a near perfect correlation. 

I reply:

Your "correlation" is faulty. People used to "correlate" women's hem lines with stock market results, etc.  I gave you a specific example of how turnout rates vary markedly and you reply with with a dam the specific examples.

You said:

Giving me one example of an exception doesn't disprove the correlation for the entire data set.

I reply:

How many examples WILL it take to disprove your fallacious correlation?

You said:

Are you suggesting that the Washington state election law  mandates that the two recounts have an equal chance of gaining and losing votes?  No matter what the law is, this clearly isn't the case.

I reply:

I specifically did NOT say what you are imputing to me.  Your technique of assuming things I did not say is reminescent of the debating style of the late Richard Nixon.

You said: 

In the hand recount, excluding King County, the candidates together gained a total of 1211 votes, and lost a total of 46.

So a candidate is overwhelmingly more likely to gain votes in the recount than lose them. 

I reply:

So, based on this one example, all recounts will result in an increase in votes counted?

You said:

When this happens, the change in votes will be much more closely correlated to population than the square root of population. 

I reply:

I don't know whether you are unable to understand what I have posted or are simply deliberately mistating my posts.  I NEVER based my analysis on population.  YOU based YOUR analysis on population, which is faulty for the reasons I have repeatedly pointed out (giving specific examples).

You said:

Finally, even if all of your assumptions are correct, you haven't given any reason at all why the "easily explained margin of error" should be the square root of population rather than the square root of population times some constant related to the standard deviation.

I reply:

Talk to a professor of social sciences familiar with statistical analysis.  He/She may be able to explain it to you.  It is Generally Accepted as a form of analysis.  Your 'linear' method is rejected!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You said:

 In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I reply:

You really should take the time to look at the structure of the King County government.

Ask Cheryle A. Broom if she is in charge of elections in King county?

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARLHAYDEN, it is obvious that it is much easier for an organization to handle 2,000 votes like in a small county than the number in King County. Or do you dispute something as obvious as this?

Also, why do you feel the need to personally attack anything that moves? I would suggest that you act more maturely if you want to get any measure of respect in your opinions.

Well, at least you're consistent (consistently wrong).

First, it is NOT obvious what you claim.  The large counties such as King county have people employed whose primary job is to deal with elections whereas the small counties have people who deal with a number of different matters, including elections.  I'm sorry you are ignorant of this and make unfounded assumptions.

Second, you seem to be unable to deal with specific matters and when your unfounded assumptions and mistatements of fact (not to mention illogical assertions) are rejected, you take it personally. 

Grow up!

I am very glad that you are sorry for my ignorance. I never knew that the technology of robots has evolved this far already.

You are the one, my friend, who is wrong. In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I know this because I have seen the process in Pend Oreille County, Clallam County, Asotin County, and Pierce County. They are very different.

I do not so much take it personally as when you provide lovely quotes such as these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, these are not personal attacks, but rather your keen personal observations about the irrelevant personality flaws in others. Thank God, Mr. Hayden, there is someone out there to graciously tell us we are stupid so we can start on the track to rehabilitation! Now I wonder why none of your fellow GOPers are coming into defend you?

And now you tell me to grow up? Why don't YOU grow up, poopyhead? (This is sarcasm - it's what us carbon-based lifeforms use as a weak form of humor.)

Oh, and a brief quote from the Washington Secretary of State website:

In the State of Washington, elections are administered at the local level by County Auditors (except King County, which has a Department of Records and Elections). These offices are available to help you with registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and other elections-related services

[CARLHAYDEN]

As I said before, Logan would 'find' enough votes to install Gregoire.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARLHAYDEN, it is obvious that it is much easier for an organization to handle 2,000 votes like in a small county than the number in King County. Or do you dispute something as obvious as this?

Also, why do you feel the need to personally attack anything that moves? I would suggest that you act more maturely if you want to get any measure of respect in your opinions.

Well, at least you're consistent (consistently wrong).

First, it is NOT obvious what you claim.  The large counties such as King county have people employed whose primary job is to deal with elections whereas the small counties have people who deal with a number of different matters, including elections.  I'm sorry you are ignorant of this and make unfounded assumptions.

Second, you seem to be unable to deal with specific matters and when your unfounded assumptions and mistatements of fact (not to mention illogical assertions) are rejected, you take it personally. 

Grow up!

I am very glad that you are sorry for my ignorance. I never knew that the technology of robots has evolved this far already.

You are the one, my friend, who is wrong. In Washington, every county has a county auditor who handles the elections. Everyone else is a mix of volunteers and staff from the auditor's office. King County has more volunteers.

I know this because I have seen the process in Pend Oreille County, Clallam County, Asotin County, and Pierce County. They are very different.

I do not so much take it personally as when you provide lovely quotes such as these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, these are not personal attacks, but rather your keen personal observations about the irrelevant personality flaws in others. Thank God, Mr. Hayden, there is someone out there to graciously tell us we are stupid so we can start on the track to rehabilitation! Now I wonder why none of your fellow GOPers are coming into defend you?

And now you tell me to grow up? Why don't YOU grow up, poopyhead? (This is sarcasm - it's what us carbon-based lifeforms use as a weak form of humor.)

Oh, and a brief quote from the Washington Secretary of State website:

In the State of Washington, elections are administered at the local level by County Auditors (except King County, which has a Department of Records and Elections). These offices are available to help you with registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and other elections-related services

Yes, it does have an individual department. But no matter how many people are handling something, the bigger it is, the harder it is. This is why the U.S. government is so screwed up - it's so big.

Once Logan posts the results of the 'votes' he 'found' for Gregoire, I hope to be posting a detailed analysis.

In the meantime, I suggest you look at the results from two counties with respect to your belief there is a correlation between the size of the county and or number of votes cast in a county and the efficenty of the vote counting operation in such county:

Hint, compare Thurston county (population 110,942) and Adams county (population 16,602) and which had a better match between initial count for govenor and manual recount?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thank you.

Should be interesting if the Supreme Court of Washington upholds the earlier Superior Court ruling preventing Logan from 'counting' the ballots not previously included.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fact: Dean Logan claims to have 'found' votes on at least four seperate occasions, some of them weeks after the election.

Conclusion

1. Logan is an incompetent, and should be fired.

2. Logan is corrupt, and should be fired!

3. Logan is corrupt, but he 'finds' vote for the candidate you prefer and should keep up his work of 'finding' votes for preferred candidates in the future.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks for an honest answer.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Again I note that there has you have yet to have an intelligent post.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's another report of the vote counting methodology in King county:

One write-in ballot had Christine Rossi written in. [Ed. - the candidates are Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire.] Instead of throwing it out because there is no one with that name running for office, the canvasing board gave it to Christine Gregoire. Alot of people are calling for a new election. I would agree with that. This whole process is so corrupt there is no way correct it without starting over.

If this is true (and I would like a real investigation of the voe 'finding' and 'counting' in King County), did Gregoire receive other questionable votes?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hereis one:

http://king-of-fools.com/blog/weblog/posts/ballots_making_like_rabbits/

[CARLHAYDEN]

As I have previously stated, we need a REAL investigation.

I don't KNOW that the allegation made is true, but it sure sounds like something Dean would pull.

We're still waiting for the vote total from King county which were supposed to have been made available yesterday afternoon.

It will be interesting to see if Dean 'finds' any more ballots for Gregoire.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If you want to know WHY Dean Logan engaged is a series of shenanigans on the Gubenatorial vote, try reading the following article:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/146500_election01.html?searchpagefrom=5&searchdiff=418

If he didn't 'find' enough votes to elect Gregoire, Logan was history.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's another source on the problems with the votes Logan and cohorts have 'found' for Gregoire:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1290582/posts

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's yet another source of information on the shenanigans by Logan and associates in the recount:

http://www.wsrp.org/news2004/2004_11_21.htm

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's the key substance of one of the hyperlinks were you were unable to find anything:

King County's 336 Mystery Ballots
While most of the attention last week was on King County's 700+ surgically enhanced haruspex ballots, it is also the case that King County discovered 336 brand new ballots that weren't counted the first time. Richard Pope pointed this out in a comment to an earlier post. I poked through the County's precinct canvass files, posted here.

There are indeed 336 ballots that were not counted during the first count, but somehow showed up in time for the recount -- 198 Absentee ballots, 33 Polling ballots and 105 "Add-on" ballots (provisional and other exceptions). These are in addition to the 717 improperly filled out ballots that were examined by the canvassing board to divine voter intent. 134 of these 336 Mystery Ballots came from Seattle (40%), which is slightly higher than Seattle's share of the County's registered voters and total of votes cast (35-36%).

I called the King County Elections office and asked Superintendent of Elections Bill Huennekens to explain the 336 Mystery Ballots. Apparently there was a batch of 160 or so absentee ballots that "simply didn't show up the first time around". He had no other explanation, other than observing that these things always happen and out of 900,000 ballots [898,238 to be exact] the error rate is very low and proportional to other counties. I pressed him on the 33 newly discovered "Polling" ballots. Shouldn't these have been reconciled with the precinct poll counts? Every voter who shows up at a poll signs in and can be counted. Wouldn't the number of ballots be reconciled against the number of voters at each precinct? They were reconciled during the first count, he explained. Nevertheless, 147 brand new Polling ballots appeared and 114 previously counted Polling ballots disappeared, as if by magic, for a net change of 33 brand new ballots. Likewise, the net new 198 absentee ballots came from 813 newly discovered absentees, less 698 previously existing and reconciled absentees that somehow vanished.

Huennekens said quite honestly that this is a "human process", that "inspectors are fallible and they're human". Fair enough. So increasing the role of the fallible human inspectors, who can make errors in the reconciled ballot counts by the hundreds will only introduce more error into a manual recount that should be rejected before it even begins.

Who voted, anyway? What are their names?
One of the clearest indications I've seen that the Ukrainian election was rigged is this map showing an astonishing increase in voter turnout in the eastern Ukraine, in the regions favoring the old guard. If it was known who these mysterious new voters were, observers could count the number of voters and reconcile whether all of these ballots were attributable to living eligible voters who only voted once.

Likewise, here in WA we would have more confidence in our election if we knew that every counted ballot was cast by a living eligible voter who only voted once. The easy way to do that is to simply post the list of the names of the voters who cast ballots along with their precinct and address. The number of voters per precinct would have to agree with the total number of votes recorded per precinct. Other voters could verify whether everybody who voted is a living eligible voter who lives where they say they live. All of this information is part of the public record. At least in King County, anybody can obtain a copy of the voter registration roll with all of this information. All you need is to pay a nominal fee and sign a pledge to use the information only for appropriate purposes. The question is, when will this voter list be available? It should be available as part of the same deliverable as any certified count and recount.

But it's not. Bill Huennekens explained that updating the voter roll is a lower priority task and won't be completed until sometime after the recount is certified. It's not necessarily his fault, those are the guidelines he's working under. On the other hand, how can the rest of us have much confidence in our election system if we don't even know who voted and whether the number of actual voters is the same as the number of votes cast?

[CARLHAYDEN]

[

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK Nym, I said when the data was in I would post how the supposed linear correlation doesn't work as you alledged.

You shifted back and forth between using 'population' and the original vote as the basis for your supposed linear correlation, so, rather than simply SAY the 'correlation' is fallacious, I will show it so that anyone capable of basic mathematics can see the fallacy.

1. Population

According to the census bureau, as of 7/1/03 (the most recent county information available), the population of Washington was 6,131,445 and the population of King county was 1,761,411, which means that the population of all the other counties in Washington was 4,370,034.

Now, according to the Washington Secretary of State, in the initial vote, the three candidates received a total of 2,805,913 votes.  In the hand recount, the three candidates had 2,810,059 votes statewide.  This equals a net increase of 4,146 votes.  Of the 4,146 additional votes, 1,524 came from King county and 2,622 from the rest of the state.

So, if we divide 4.370,034 by 2,622, we find that outside of King county there were 1,667 people per additional vote.  However, if we divide 1,761,411 by 1,524 for King county, we find that there were 1,054 people per added vote.

2. Initial vote comparison

In the initial vote there were 874,928 cast for the three candidates in King county, and 1,939,985 in the rest of the state.   Now, if we divide 1.939.885 by 2,622 you will find that there were 740 intially counted outside of King county for every vote subsequently added by the final (hand) count.  If King county had the same rate then (874,928 divided by 740) there would have been 1,182 votes added in King county rather than the actual 1,524.

Now, I have given both specific examples (in previous replies to both you and Alcon) of how the addition of votes votes are NOT correlated to the size of the county, and an aggregate example.

I have also cited in a couple of previous posts (with links) of observed flaws in the vote counting process in King county.

BTW Nym, do you acknowledge the TANG memos were frauds?

The vote count in King county smells just as bad.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Jesus, you really should go back and look at Nym's argument.

He contended that the additional votes in King county were NOT out of line with the rest of the state.

He says he used a linear comparison.

For a variety of reasons I have previously posted, I do NOT find a linear comparison to be valid,

However, even with a linear comparison, the vote 'finding' in King county is way out of line with the rest of the state.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CarlHayden, I think you are confusing me with someone else. I merely asked for proof that the votes aren't valid. It would seem that you've proven that King County was incompentent relative to the other counties in the State, but you still haven't proven that there was fraud.

As a similar example, it can clearly be proven statistically that Pat Buchanan's vote in Palm Beach County, Florida in 2000 has something wrong with it, but that doesn't prove that the Republicans cheated and took away votes from Gore. I know it's not the same thing, but incompetence on the part of election workers can cause weird things, like people who want to vote for Gore accidentally voting for Buchanan (poorly designed ballots...yeah, it was a Democrat who designed it, that doesn't make the design any better in my opinion...and I'm not alleging fraud, just that Gore was the legitimate winner from a moral standpoint due to the fact that the votes were incorrectly cast), and like ballots being misplaced, lost, etc.

So it would seem you've proven statistically that King County was statisitcally significantly more incompetent than the other 38 counties, and I wouldn't disagree with that. As for the TANG memos, yes, they were fakes.

I apologize Nym, it was NickG that alledged that by some abracadara mathematics, King County hadn't 'found' more votes than other counties considering the size of King county (NickG kept changing his basis from population to percentage of statewide vote, so I gave both comparisons).