Washington State Recount, Part Deux

[Alcon]

I don't see any source on that other than that it was "counted for Gregoire." How exactly would they know this?

Still, that sure is weird.

Whoever wins this will not be a legitimate governor to anyone. We didn't choose a governor - we chose a tie. And we got one.

[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.

[Alcon]

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.

Why would it matter if he did?

[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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hereis one:

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

All I see are 2 blogs linking to each other.

[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?

[Andrew]

Gregoire won.

Get over it.

[Hitchabrut]

Gregoire cheated.

Get over it.

[ATFFL]

Gregoire won.

Get over it.

Bush did in 2000 and we still hear about that.

Smell that?  That is a double standard.

[bgwah]

Gregoire won.

Get over it.

Bush did in 2000 and we still hear about that.

Smell that?  That is a double standard.

Because Rossi still had a half million vote lead, huh?

[A18]

Gregoire won.

Get over it.

WTF? This is the guy still talking about Ohio.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gregoire won.

Get over it.

Bush did in 2000 and we still hear about that.

Smell that?  That is a double standard.

Tell, you what. We'll admit Gregoire stolen this election(even though she didn't) if you admit that Bush stole the 2000 election.

[Alcon]

I'd like to point something out that people tend to ignore.

Candidates RARELY steal elections. Parties RARELY steal elections. It's usually individuals or groups that believe in the party but are not really affiliated with them that commit the fraud if it is committed at all.

[bgwah]

I'd like to point something out that people tend to ignore.

Candidates RARELY steal elections. Parties RARELY steal elections. It's usually individuals or groups that believe in the party but are not really affiliated with them that commit the fraud if it is committed at all.

Yes, and in this case, Carl Hayden is accusing Dean Logan of cheating.

[Alcon]

I'd like to point something out that people tend to ignore.

Candidates RARELY steal elections. Parties RARELY steal elections. It's usually individuals or groups that believe in the party but are not really affiliated with them that commit the fraud if it is committed at all.

Yes, and in this case, Carl Hayden is accusing Dean Logan of cheating.

I don't think he is a cheater, I think he is an incompetent. Stupid until proven guilty.

[J. J.]

I'm actually going have to see some evidence that those votes were invalid before I jump to the conclusion that there was any cheating.

[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.

[bgwah]

so what?? each county should find exactly the same number of votes (in correlation with their population)??/

[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.

[ATFFL]

Gregoire won.

Get over it.

Bush did in 2000 and we still hear about that.

Smell that?  That is a double standard.

Tell, you what. We'll admit Gregoire stolen this election(even though she didn't) if you admit that Bush stole the 2000 election.

Why?  Bush won the hand recount there.

Hand recoutns are less accurate than machine recounts. 

If you disagree why don't you let me count all the ballots and I will tell you who really won in Washington and in Florida.

And if you do not trust me to count votes by hand why should I trust Logan or any democrat?

[bgwah]

It was so close I doubt finding the real winner is possible.

Hopefully, riots will erupt through out the state and Civil War will break out in Washington. After a while, the state will be split in two. Eastern Washington joins Idaho and Western Washington changes its name to something cool.  Maybe we can take Portland too, and give Eastern Oregon to Idaho as well. And then, when America takes over Canada, we can take Vancouver and Victoria.

[ATFFL]

It was so close I doubt finding the real winner is possible.

Hopefully, riots will erupt through out the state and Civil War will break out in Washington. After a while, the state will be split in two. Eastern Washington joins Idaho and Western Washington changes its name to something cool.  Maybe we can take Portland too, and give Eastern Oregon to Idaho as well. And then, when America takes over Canada, we can take Vancouver and Victoria.

You are correct that it is hard to know who really won.  We can do a second manual recount and get Rossi the winner.

He should get the office for winning two out of three counts though.

It would be interesting to see what happens if the Republicans try to swear ROssi in as Governor.

It would also be interesting to see hwo a revote in a month would go.

[Alcon]

It was so close I doubt finding the real winner is possible.

Hopefully, riots will erupt through out the state and Civil War will break out in Washington. After a while, the state will be split in two. Eastern Washington joins Idaho and Western Washington changes its name to something cool.  Maybe we can take Portland too, and give Eastern Oregon to Idaho as well. And then, when America takes over Canada, we can take Vancouver and Victoria.

You are correct that it is hard to know who really won.  We can do a second manual recount and get Rossi the winner.

He should get the office for winning two out of three counts though.

It would be interesting to see what happens if the Republicans try to swear ROssi in as Governor.

It would also be interesting to see hwo a revote in a month would go.

That is probably unlikely; another manual recount would be unlikely to change the count by more than 100.

Your second idea is interesting, but unfortunately is sort of against state law, which considers a manual recount the final, last-ditch count, or something of that sort.

If Republicans try to swear in Rossi, they will be summarily ignored and probably made fun of. But it would be in character for a stupid election season.

Hard to say who would win a revote.