Gregoire wins!
The long count in Washington is over.
Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, certified Christine Gregoire as the winner by 129 votes. She'll take office January 12.
Says Reed....
"At this time there is nothing that appears fraudulent. ... I saw serious mistakes being made. I saw them being corrected. That's part of the process. The system itself has worked well."
Also, this great comment by Gregoire spokesman Morton Brilliant on the Rossi demand for a recount re-vote...
"This ain't golf. No mulligans allowed here, folks. It's irresponsible to spend $4 million in taxpayer money on a new election just because you don't like losing this one."
Discuss.
|
Dec. 30, 2004
Posted in in the news 2004. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 30, '04
I believe that you meant that Brilliant was commenting on the Rossi demand for another election, not a recount.
Dec 30, '04
I was told this eavening that in King county 3500 more votes were cast then there were registered voters. Is this true?
7:18 p.m.
Dec 30, '04
I strongly suspect the Republican Secretary of State would have identified that and acted accordingly, were it true...
Dec 30, '04
Steve,
Where or who is your source about this "new information"? If you are not willing to state it then do not make statements of that nature here.
Like Tim stated, the GOP Sec of State would have been all over the King County Elections if there was any monkey business like that going on.
7:35 p.m.
Dec 30, '04
I was told this eavening that in King county 3500 more votes were cast then there were registered voters. Is this true?
I heard the same thing back in November, only it was a small city in Florida and it was 4000 votes (all for Bush, supposedly). Urban voting legend, most likely.
Dec 30, '04
Sure is fun watching the Washington state Republicans make jackasses out of themselves.
Re-vote? SURE! Of course! Why you just go right ahead and get in touch with President Gore and we'll set something up. No problemo.
11:38 p.m.
Dec 30, '04
Steve, there you go "hearing things" again. They have medication for that sort of thing these days.
Just kidding. Seriously Steve, where do you get your (mis)information?
As has already been pointed out, that claim about King County is absurd on the face of it. About one minute of research on the King County elections web page reveals the following:
King County active registered voters: 1,082,406 KC votes in the Governor's race: 899,199
Now we should all take a moment to consider what Steve (and Rossi's minions) would be saying were the Washington SOS a Democrat rather than a Republican.
Another question for you Steve, what motivates you to give credibility to outright lies by posting them? You could know they were outright lies with very little effort but you post them anyway.
When I was a kid, "values" were about integrity, honesty and hard work. Clearly that isn't what today's Republicans mean when they use that word. What is that about?
Dec 31, '04
Steve - You did hear correctly that someone in the Rossi campaign stated that there was a descrepancy of 3500 votes over the number of registered voters in King County.
After reading your post, I pointed my web browser to Google's news page and searched the news for: "King County" + "Registered" and found out quite a bit of information about the Republican disinformation campaign.
First, check out this press realease from King County Elections: http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/news/2004_12_30.htm
Second, understand that the freedom of information act does not allow high and mighty republican elephants or anyone else to see the names of battered women on voter registration rolls. So there will be at least 1000 or so names missing from King County's list by order of various Courts.
Ofcourse you could have looked this all up yourself.... it took me about five minutes.
12:45 a.m.
Dec 31, '04
The Republicans are latching onto a 3500 vote discrepancy, but not, as stated above, "3500 more votes were cast then there were registered voters".
From the Seattle Times:
"As has been the case since Election Day, much of the attention is focused on King County. Republicans are asking questions about why the county's list of registered voters who cast valid ballots in the election shows about 3,500 fewer people than the total number of votes certified in the race."
The question being raised is about the list of names of people who voted vs. the total number of votes counted. In addition to some people's names being exempted from being reported, the current list of names is preliminary as the recounts slowed down the process of reconciliation. Apparently they never get the totals to match exactly but 3500 is more than what they'd normally expect to see.
Dec 31, '04
I have no doubt that there was significant voter fraud throughout Washington state. Voter fraud is one of the side effects of open democracy, and though it can be moderated, it cannot be eliminated. The same is true of any race anywhere in the nation. The fraud only comes to light when races are exceedingly close. No doubt Republicans and Democrats cheated in Massachusetts and Texas as well, but there was no way to tell because the results were overwhelming.
That being said, I think there was likely cheating from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, and although it may have been enough to tip the race one way or another it was not so widespread as to invalidate an election. It is in tight elections that we see the worst in democracy (votes uncounted, misplaced or created out of thin air) but also when we see the best, which is what happened in Washington. Washnington had a system in place and went through the properly delineated channels, resorting to courts only when there was a genuine disagreement about statutory law, which the court answered in line with previous decisions without the kind of broad judicial activism we saw from both the Florida Supreme Court and the SCOTUS in 2000. Washington's recount is good news for democracy. It would have been good news had Rossi won the third count, too. In a close election, the recount process helps to build legitimacy.
On another note, isn't it strange that so little is made of the fact that Gregoire had won by ten votes even before the Supreme Court ruled that the uncounted 700 ballots should be included? That is the Republican Party's biggest gripe, the "appearance" of hundreds of uncounted votes. Of course, as Reed pointed out, the discovery corrected an error and was, therefore, good. And, indeed, it led to a net gain of only 119 votes for Gregoire, so a good number of them were Rossi votes. But even had they never been discovered, or had the Court ruled against them, Gregoire would likely still have been certified, barring any "discoveries" from Republicans.
7:47 a.m.
Dec 31, '04
I think we should all be careful about throwing around words like "significant" in front of "voter fraud" unless we have something beyond mere speculation to back it up. Having dined with my Republican family members over the holidays, it seems that the conservative media echo chamber has latched onto this topic as the reason why Republicans ever lose anyplace. Voter fraud is a crime and should be prosectued to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of party beneficiary. Voter fraud speculation is not evidence of such fraud, and I don't think we should add into the chant on that one.
Joshua - I totally agree with you on your other points... even if Rossi had won the hand recount, the system and democracy would have been served. Because of the system, however, the state was able to discover errors in the original counts to establish the true will of Washingtonians. Whether it was an 8 or 179 vote margin, the scoreboard still says Gregoire. Now it's time to govern with little to no mandate, unless we use presidential fuzzy math.
Dec 31, '04
I certainly didn't mean to add my voice to the conservative echo chamber, Tim. My point though is not speculative. Although we may have no clear evidence of cheating from either side (my point, by the way, was that all sides commit voter fraud), cheating has been part of the game since it was created. It would be delusional to assume that any election went smoothly. I'm not saying there is organized fraud by either party or by any candidate, but cheating certainly did take place. The same could be said of the Abu Ghraib scandals. Before the story broke it would have been merely speculative to say that torture was occurring. But only a fool could possibly have thought it was not happening. A war without torture is impossible. So is a large-scale election without fraud. The real question is not whether or not these things happen, but how they are dealt with. Washington is a prime example of a good way to deal with it.
Dec 31, '04
Aaron says "Where or who is your source about this "new information"? If you are not willing to state it then do not make statements of that nature here."
Doretta says. "Another question for you Steve, what motivates you to give credibility to outright lies by posting them? When I was a kid, "values" were about integrity, honesty and hard work. Clearly that isn't what today's Republicans mean when they use that word. "
Oh brother. What a drama. Funny too.
On the way out the door with our holiday guests I ask a simple question about a phone call I just got from a Vancouver buddy and you folks launch into this tizzy. Preaching, lecturing and demanding I conform to your lofty peceptionof yourselves. Quite entertaining.
I'm stilll looking for b!x to post the source/author of his earlier post.
At least I was asking the a question with no pretense of confirmation.
Yes there is medication. Some of you need a cald down pill.
[off-topic stuff below deleted -Ed.]
9:13 a.m.
Dec 31, '04
Hey Steve, I was "only asking questions" too. You see how that works?
9:58 a.m.
Dec 31, '04
You know... Steve does have a point. He only asked a question. "Is it true?"
That said, I think it's disinformation spread by conservative talk show hosts and encouraged by the Republican party.
Dec 31, '04
Keni says, "That said, I think it's disinformation spread by conservative talk show hosts and encouraged by the Republican party"
Oh come on. "Disinformation"? spread by talk show hosts? Encouraged by Rep Party?
If it is on a talk show it is no different than discussing it on BlueOregon. A discussion is a discussion. The "spreading" factor is no more than simple conversatiion.
Can I not make the same charge against BlueOregon? That you are "spreading" "disinformation"? According to your approach, if that's my view it is so.
If Kremer and Abrahms on Sunday discuss the exact same topic with the same thread of comments is that also spreading disinformation or is it something else because Marc is contributing? Or the upcoming new show with Randy Leonard and Larry George? Will every word Larry speaks be "spreading disinformation" and Randy intellectualy sharing?
Dec 31, '04
Steve
Hey if Randy and Larry did a show--it would be more interesting and in-depth than your rants and tirades.
Dec 31, '04
Aaron says "Steve Hey if Randy and Larry did a show--it would be more interesting and in-depth than your rants and tirades."
Well that speaks for itself.
Since I am "Steve on a cell phone from Tualatin", referred to as the most "serial participant in local talk radio", I'll stick with my own assessment of talk radio shows. And there is no "if". The show starts in January.
Call in and share your intellect. But be carefull. It's won't be the Randy Leonard Show.
3:01 p.m.
Dec 31, '04
bring the fraud or sit down, Dino.
Dec 31, '04
Give it up.
as the most "serial participant in local talk radio", I'll stick with my own assessment of talk radio shows.
See, that's backwards. Stuck on your own assessment is what starts the vortex into the void that sucks you down. It's like the drunk at the bar announcing he will say when he can't have another, only he can assess that. What's the difference between a sotted slouch and a celebrity stalker?
Call in and share your intellect. But be carefull. It's won't be the Randy Leonard Show.
Share!? Share!? Bwwaa-haaha-haaaa. Brain droppings are free. U-pick is extra. And, sure, I can be carefull, (heh-heh; uh, er ... oh, nevermind), and try not to splash any of reality's hard facts on the delicate bubble-worlders.
And no, it very loudly "won't be the Randy Leonard Show." Just like there is no Abrams in the Kremer and Abrams show. (Which is an attempt to rephrasing an old old comment I made which is, I suppose, where I could have gotten off on the wrong foot stepping in here. Marc hurt. But my take on the K & A shtick continues to be that it's all K and no A. Not merely that K sets the agenda, not that he rants more minutes, not entirely but still the biggest K brand on it, (I mean, K & A isn't even alphabetical), is KREMER IS LOUD, dumps callers, has one dozen repeat groupies sucking up -- repeat offenders, and limits the discussable facts to the few he already has, and Marc, in the interest of 'sharing' the air, NEVER SPEAKS UP AND TELLS K HIS DATA IS LIES and tells listeners K is a liar. Marc shouldn't have to. K is the embarrassment. Marc is good peeps -- what is he doing slumming with sots drunk on lies? For example, Fact: Bush is a military deserter. Beyond AWOL, DESERTION, and throw in Insubordination and Conduct Unbecoming, too. No statute of limitations on DESERTER, either. Just for example. But the topper, if it was none of the others the topper that embarrasses me for Marc, is that the entire station line-up so completely makes a puke of its market -- KXL is on all five radio AM sets of the Anger Monkeys; that's what AM means -- and the treatment is medication for them -- that isn't Marc, not a target -- that's Marc. I mean, don't feed the trolls. Get out Marc, you're better than that. And they would lie that you weren't even if you ever went ahead and proved it. So I was trying to patch it all up, if it was cut there. I like Marc, and that's why I hurt when he hurts himself. Get out of the Liars lair, Marc, it's a contagious brain infection. Angry Now Disease.)
Randy Leonard: Same same. Please, Randy, tell the loser Liars thanks, no thanks. Do what you do, and let radio come to you and deal with that. Actually, the latest 'in' thing is for you to sit home? office? camped in a blog discussion, and the radio sets up to watch. And what you say in the microphone is what's going on on the blog ... so that the narrow-bandwidth AM stragglers hear how much they are missing -- like FACTS, over on the internet where the cool, and the hip, and the reality people are.
One thing, Steve Schopp has got the perfect spellchecker for radio.
(Answer to the riddle: The celery stalk can pronounce it.)
<h1></h1>Dec 31, '04
Excuse me for waxing legalese, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the way the word 'fraud' is being used on this thread. I prefer to distinguish it from, well, less than fraud.
Def.: fraud (n) intentional deception resulting in injury to another person.
Many of the mistakes that occur during an election are not intentional. For example, the forgetful voter(s) who sent in an absentee ballot and then voted in person did not intend to. The second part of the definition is also difficult to apply in this context. If enough people commit voter fraud the body politic is harmed, but not individuals.
Another thing that strikes me is that real voter fraud requires power. Diebold could do it. So could a conspiracy of elections officials. Or, as in the old days, the capos of a political machine. But, Average Joe individuals are hard put to commit significant voter fraud.
As for any discrepancy in the totals, I expect that to be pretty much rectified by a more careful perusal of the rolls. You would definitely need more than has been offered to make a claim of voter fraud a court would consider. A discrepancy is not enough in absence of proof it occurred because of 'fraud,' within the statutory definition.
Dec 31, '04
Wow, Tenskwatawa. You sound pretty angry. Hope to hear you on the radio. What name will you use?
Happy new year anyway.
6:21 p.m.
Dec 31, '04
Another thing that strikes me is that real voter fraud requires power. Diebold could do it. So could a conspiracy of elections officials. Or, as in the old days, the capos of a political machine. But, Average Joe individuals are hard put to commit significant voter fraud.
There are at least a couple of ways I can think of for Average Joes to commit voter fraud with limited means:
You could run off a bunch of leaflets that say things like if you vote, you'll get investigated and arrested for things like back child support, unpaid parking tickets, etc., and distribute them through the "urban" neighborhoods. Chief Justice Rehnquist got his start doing that in Arizona back in the day, when he was just an average thug.
You could be the vote challenger at a poll, and challenge everyone that doesn't look like your targeted demographic (or who does, depending on your definition of 'target').
Technically, those two things are voter suppression, not voter fraud, but if done on a large enough scale, even by just a few "Average Joes," that amounts to voter fraud.
Willful, mass deception, with the intent to injure not only the voters themselves, but the candidate they would likely vote for.
Jan 1, '05
Good point, John. If voter suppression is broad and successful enough, it is not even necessary to attempt voter fraud. And, with the Voting Rights Act imperiled, we will be seeing more voter suppression.
Jan 2, '05
One quibble to keep distinction between 'voter fraud' and 'ballot fraud' -- the latter comes later, after the voters have left the building.
<h1></h1>-Dino Rossi, Republican candidate for Governor of Washington, in open letter to Democratic candidate Christine Gregoire: “Our next governor should enter office without any doubt about the legitimacy of his or her office. The people of Washington deserve to know that their governor was elected fair and square. Unfortunately, the events of the past few weeks now make it impossible for you or me to take office on January 12 without being shrouded in suspicion.”
Rossi’s argument is equally applicable to the Presidential election. Following an extremely flawed and probably illegal “recount” in Ohio, no one can say for sure who won that state’s 20 Electoral College votes, and these 20 votes are necessary for either George Bush or John Kerry to claim a victory in the 2004 election.
Following the example of the people of the Ukraine, we should demand that Ohio’s 5.5 million voters be given a chance to vote for president again in a fair and transparent process. ...
-- from Re-Vote Ohio
<h1></h1>.........by Ted Glick January 01, 2005
12:49 a.m.
Jan 3, '05
Kenji,
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is the venerable example. "Only" is not accurate when applied to some kinds of questions.
Steve could have looked into what he "heard" before repeating it. But better not to know too much when innuendo is your game.
Now that he's progressed from "hearing things" to "having feelings" I'm sure there are some real howlers in store.
By the way, apropos the "feeling" thread, I'm really Kevin Mannix.
Jan 4, '05
To quote something I once saw:
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
Feel free to blast me for this; I have no intention of ever visiting this site again. Not that it will stop any of you that the quote applies to.
Jan 5, '05
Well now folks I remember being lambaster as a rumor mongeror for simply asking about the 3500 ballots.
Denise's post needs to be re-posted for some follow up comments.
Denise posted:
Please keep this in mind...
Elections workers “enhanced” more than 55,000 ballots, but contrary to state law, they permanently obscured the original marks on many, preventing a review of their decisions.
Poll workers fed some provisional ballots directly into counting machines, commingling them with legal ballots and circumventing the process of keeping them out of the count if they proved to be illegal.
There are numerous reports of military personnel either never receiving their ballots or getting them too late to vote.
King County has counted 3,539 more votes than they can provide voter’s names for.
The County “discovered” additional ballots to be counted on nine separate occasions. Questions exist about whether those ballots were always secure, as required by law.
I am calling on the Washington State Legislature for a revote (revotewa.com), it worked in the Ukraine.
Posted by: denise | January 4, 2005 10:39 PM
Jan 5, '05
Steve,
What thread did you get this "Denise post"?