Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 26, 2020, 03:07:34 pm
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Gass3268, Virgini)
  More ballots found in King county
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print
Author Topic: More ballots found in King county  (Read 12153 times)
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,832
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2005, 08:47:40 pm »

As long as Logan is 'counting' the votes, Sims is s shoo in.

I asked how King County voters will vote, not how in your conspiracy theory world Dean Logan will count votes.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,910


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2005, 10:17:20 pm »

Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,035


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2005, 10:18:48 pm »

Are you Republicans going to tell me that Washington's Republican secretary of state stole this for the Democrats?
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2005, 08:44:39 pm »

Update

The depositions should be publicly available soon.

I have had a look at the crucial ones (Logan and his associate Huennenks).

Bad news for Gregoire.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 26, 2005, 03:48:55 am »

Further update.

Have had a chance to see (with exception of sealed portion)  the Logan deposition.

As much as I despise the little weasel, I almost feel sorry for him.  Its clear he thought he could contain the situation by stonewalling.

He never thought that anyone would take the time to carefully check up on the multiple inconsistencies.

He has already tried to dump the blame on subordinates, which has just antagonized even more people into providing evidence.

The question is, when he realizes he cann't divert blame to subordinates, will he point to others?
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,035


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2005, 03:51:01 am »

Futher update. CARLHAYDEN is a liar.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2005, 04:16:10 am »

Further update.

Have had a chance to see (with exception of sealed portion) the Logan deposition.

As much as I despise the little weasel, I almost feel sorry for him. Its clear he thought he could contain the situation by stonewalling.

He never thought that anyone would take the time to carefully check up on the multiple inconsistencies.

He has already tried to dump the blame on subordinates, which has just antagonized even more people into providing evidence.

The question is, when he realizes he cann't divert blame to subordinates, will he point to others?

While I enjoy the update, this still isn't proof that that Gregoire lost the election or that there are enough invalid votes to throw out the results.

Logan shifting the blame only proves that he's a beaurocrat.  :-)
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2005, 09:51:01 am »

JJ

There already is in hand (in the judge's hands) enough evidence.

We're merely waiting for the process to be completed.

Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2005, 10:55:48 am »

JJ

There already is in hand (in the judge's hands) enough evidence.

We're merely waiting for the process to be completed.



When it's completed, you'll have a story.  We need evidence of the correct count or proof of the invalid ballots.
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 88,712
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2005, 12:43:33 pm »

Oh, come on. The Sec. of State is a Republican. He certified the election, saying there was no fraud. And the Republicans called Al Gore a sore loser. Geez, move on people.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,543


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 29, 2005, 01:33:54 am »

What was that phrase that was so popular with republicans a few short years ago..

Oh yes,

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 29, 2005, 08:10:51 am »

Further update:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/222211_election29.html
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 29, 2005, 09:54:02 am »

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 29, 2005, 08:59:36 pm »

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 29, 2005, 09:04:54 pm »

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.

Officer: "Well, Crazy Jimbob, did you or did you not kill 600 people with a KaBar?"

Crazy Jimbob: "Nope"

Officer: Well, that settles that, you're free to go.  That's all the evidence I need."

Wouldn't we want a little more to go on than the word of established law breakers?
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 29, 2005, 09:06:59 pm »

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.



That law should obviously be repealed.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,419
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: May 03, 2005, 05:21:19 am »

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.
There have been two recent cases in Texas where voters have been required to indicate who they had voted for, one was in a Democrat primary in 1992, and the other was a state representative race in 2004.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2005, 08:26:28 am »

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.
There have been two recent cases in Texas where voters have been required to indicate who they had voted for, one was in a Democrat primary in 1992, and the other was a state representative race in 2004.

Check Article VI., Section 6. of th Constitution of the State of Washington.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: May 03, 2005, 11:35:30 am »

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.

Officer: "Well, Crazy Jimbob, did you or did you not kill 600 people with a KaBar?"

Crazy Jimbob: "Nope"

Officer: Well, that settles that, you're free to go. That's all the evidence I need."

Wouldn't we want a little more to go on than the word of established law breakers?

There better a lot more evidence than Jimbo's answer, either way, to the question.

Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: May 03, 2005, 11:50:19 am »

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.



Here is what the contstitutional section really says:

All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

There is nothing either illegal or unethical in this.
Logged
Emsworth
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 03, 2005, 05:51:13 pm »

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."
Secrecy in preparing the ballot is denied if a voter is compelled to disclose how he prepared the ballot.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: May 03, 2005, 06:31:31 pm »

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."
Secrecy in preparing the ballot is denied if a voter is compelled to disclose how he prepared the ballot.

No, after the fact, the court could order him to reveal his vote.  This cannot influence how he cast his vote.

As pointed out by Jimrtex, there is precedent for it.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: May 04, 2005, 06:15:44 am »

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.



Here is what the contstitutional section really says:

All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

There is nothing either illegal or unethical in this.


First, there is no question that the wording is not a precise as could be desired.

Second, there is a long history in Washington supporting secrecy of the vote (when I have more time I'll try to give you cites on this).

Third, the attempt to compel a voter to disclose how he voted is unethical for several reasons:

a. are you going to imprison someone for refusing to disclose their vote, but not for voting illegally?

b. how do you deal with a witness who lies (and how would you know)?

The bottom line which everyone is ignoring is that there are far more illegal votes counted than the margin of 'victory.'

Lets hold the election where the rules are complied with, and see the results.
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,028
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: May 05, 2005, 01:01:09 am »

Democrats now claim 544 felon voters in 2004 election

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA+Felon+Voters&dpfrom=tsto
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,419
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2005, 01:36:00 am »

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.
There have been two recent cases in Texas where voters have been required to indicate who they had voted for, one was in a Democrat primary in 1992, and the other was a state representative race in 2004.

Check Article VI., Section 6. of th Constitution of the State of Washington.
As I understand it, the persons in question were not qualified electors (under VI.1 and VI.3).  Section 6 only applies to electors.  If the persons in question were not electors, then they are not protected.

In the Texas cases, the voters in question were not eligible to vote in the particular election being contested (one was a Norweigan, though most simply had voted in a district that they were not resident of).  Not all the ineligible voters were able to be contacted.  Ultimately, it was decided that their votes could not be based on a projection of the votes of those who were located.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC