Just the facts-Rossi election

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Rossi won the first 2 counts
after a hand recount was done his opponent won
the washington post confirms 24 dead people have voted
every time the votes were recounted, more votes were "found" with his opponent getting closer each time
in all over 2000 more votes than there were voters were found

this is all very strange but i do think rossi needs to give up and reaload for later

but obviously there are problems that need to be looked at

[A18]

He should give up and run for Senate in 2006.

[J. J.]

Rossi won the first 2 counts
after a hand recount was done his opponent won
the washington post confirms 24 dead people have voted
every time the votes were recounted, more votes were "found" with his opponent getting closer each time
in all over 2000 more votes than there were voters were found

this is all very strange but i do think rossi needs to give up and reaload for later

but obviously there are problems that need to be looked at

Strange, but not enough for a revote, for this point.  I'm willing to suggest continuing investigation however.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I agree with both of you

[Alcon]

Rossi won the first 2 counts

Yes.

quafter a hand recount was done his opponent won

Yes.

the washington post confirms 24 dead people have voted

24 is not, in all honesty, that many.

every time the votes were recounted, more votes were "found" with his opponent getting closer each time

Actually, not before the first recount; but, yes.

in all over 2000 more votes than there were voters were found

Yes.

this is all very strange but i do think rossi needs to give up and reaload for later

Yes.

but obviously there are problems that need to be looked at

Yes.

[J. J.]

Are well all on the same page that this should continue to be investigated?

[A18]

Yes, but just to fix, not to overturn the result.

[J. J.]

Yes, but just to fix, not to overturn the result.

I'd need evidence to change the result; I'm not seeing nearly enough to change it at this point.

Now, if there was evidence of 200 illegal votes, I might be calling for a legal remedy.

[A18]

The new Governor has already been sworn in. It's too late.

[J. J.]

The new Governor has already been sworn in. It's too late.

Possibly not, the courts have set aside election results both in WA and in other areas.  There generally has to be proof of voter fraud.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Rossi won the first 2 counts

Yes.

quafter a hand recount was done his opponent won

Yes.

the washington post confirms 24 dead people have voted

24 is not, in all honesty, that many.

every time the votes were recounted, more votes were "found" with his opponent getting closer each time

Actually, not before the first recount; but, yes.

in all over 2000 more votes than there were voters were found

Yes.

this is all very strange but i do think rossi needs to give up and reaload for later

Yes.

but obviously there are problems that need to be looked at

Yes.

Dear god, we agree :0

[Moooooo]

Are well all on the same page that this should continue to be investigated?

Yes for the purpose of future elections.  Rossi should show a little class, drop the lawsuit and concede.

[ATFFL]

The new Governor has already been sworn in. It's too late.

Not true.  There is a precedent of removing the newly sworn in official if a later count or evidence shows they did not really win the election.  I believe it was a mayoral race.

[J. J.]

Are well all on the same page that this should continue to be investigated?

Yes for the purpose of future elections.  Rossi should show a little class, drop the lawsuit and concede.

I believe in following the will of the voters, if that be legitimately determined.  There is enough doubt, in my mind, to say that the investigation should be continued.  

That investigation could show three things:

1.  The result that Gregori (sp) had more votes is correct.

2.  That there were enough illegal votes to make it impossible to determine the winner.

3.  That there is proof that Rossi had more votes.

I suspect that case 3 will be impossible to prove.  If case 1 is courrect, there will be no change.

If case 2 can be proven, one option is a revote, largely because there is precedent for revoting in WA in such cases.  Rossi deserves a chance to prove case 2 or case 3.  So far, there is no proof for either cases 2 or case 3, but I support him having his day in court.

[J. J.]

The new Governor has already been sworn in. It's too late.

Not true.  There is a precedent of removing the newly sworn in official if a later count or evidence shows they did not really win the election.  I believe it was a mayoral race.

And here is the link for the case:

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/085wn2d/085wn2d0629.htm

This one involved a County Commissioner.

There were some Federal cases (Miami for munciple official, Phila for a state Senator), where the courts overturned the election outright, declaring the "loser" the winner.  In those the court made the determination that fraud had been engaged in by the opponent to the extent that the "defeated" candidate would have won, but for the fraud.

[Moooooo]

Im assuming the Supreme court of Washington is fairly liberal and will not overturn this election.  I dont see The United States Supreme Court getting involved and helping Rossi either.  The general assembly is now in session. The Governor has been sworn in.  It is time to concede and allow the state to move oward.

[J. J.]

Im assuming the Supreme court of Washington is fairly liberal and will not overturn this election.  I dont see The United States Supreme Court getting involved and helping Rossi either.  The general assembly is inow in session. The Governor has been sworn in.  It is time to concede and allow the state to foward.

Well, they also should follow precedent and statute.  While the currently no grounds to to overturn the election, these might be found.

The oath has little bearing on the situation.  It would be just as invalid as if I took the oath.

While I know of no revote mandated by a Federal court, as has been pointed out, there is precedent for overturning muncipal and state election by those courts.

[jimrtex]

There were some Federal cases (Miami for munciple official, Phila for a state Senator), where the courts overturned the election outright, declaring the "loser" the winner.  In those the court made the determination that fraud had been engaged in by the opponent to the extent that the "defeated" candidate would have won, but for the fraud.

In the Miami mayoral election, the eventual losing candidate had finished 2nd in the general election, but with barely enough votes to keep the leading candidate from getting a majority and forcing a runoff.  The 2nd place candidate won the runoff handily.  But the courts decided that there were enough fraudulent votes in the general election such that there shouldn't have been a runoff.  One source of fraudulent votes was people who had moved outside the city voting absentee based on their former residence.