Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 21, 2020, 02:09:25 pm
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Gass3268, Virginiá)
  More ballots found in King county
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Author Topic: More ballots found in King county  (Read 12138 times)
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2005, 08:38:03 am »

jimrtex,

The situation in Washington is far more complex.

First, there were a number of votes counted which never went throught the verification process (contrary to state law).

Second, a number of people cast both absentee and precinct ballots (both were counted, again contrary to state law).

Third, a number of dead people rose from the grave and voted (tell me how you're going to hie them into court to ask them how they voted).

Fourth, a number of convicted felons not restored to their civil rights voted (again, contrary to state law).  While those that can be found can be (theoretically taken to court to seek identification of their vote), this will NOT happen in Washington.

Fifth, there are other problems with the vote in that apparently valid votes were discarded (King County).



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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2005, 08:57:52 am »

jimrtex,

The situation in Washington is far more complex.

First, there were a number of votes counted which never went throught the verification process (contrary to state law).

Second, a number of people cast both absentee and precinct ballots (both were counted, again contrary to state law).

Third, a number of dead people rose from the grave and voted (tell me how you're going to hie them into court to ask them how they voted).

Fourth, a number of convicted felons not restored to their civil rights voted (again, contrary to state law).  While those that can be found can be (theoretically taken to court to seek identification of their vote), this will NOT happen in Washington.

Fifth, there are other problems with the vote in that apparently valid votes were discarded (King County).


1.  Can be fixed, or at least determined (though I'd be interested in knowing what law is violated).

2, 3, 5.  Is part of #1.

4.  Why not?
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 #77 on: May 05, 2005, 08:54:06 pm »

You apparently don't understand.

In a number of precincts in King County, ballots were processed which were unverified.  There is NO way whatsoever of seperating them.

With respect you your other statement, let me be equally as pity, abeit on point.  You just don't seem to understand.
Its not that you lack the intellect to understand, but simply have decided that once an election is stolen, the thief must get away with it.

No one (except perhaps you) argues that there were several thousand ballots counted that should NOT have been counted.

The number of ballots counted illegimately (by the way I have previously on other threads listed the Washington Administrative Code sections involved) are far more than the 'margin' of victory.

There is a line between healthy skepticism, and obstinate unwillingness to accept basic facts.

You're now at that line.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 05, 2005, 09:20:10 pm »

You apparently don't understand.

In a number of precincts in King County, ballots were processed which were unverified.  There is NO way whatsoever of seperating them.

With respect you your other statement, let me be equally as pity, abeit on point.  You just don't seem to understand.
Its not that you lack the intellect to understand, but simply have decided that once an election is stolen, the thief must get away with it.

No one (except perhaps you) argues that there were several thousand ballots counted that should NOT have been counted.

The number of ballots counted illegimately (by the way I have previously on other threads listed the Washington Administrative Code sections involved) are far more than the 'margin' of victory.

There is a line between healthy skepticism, and obstinate unwillingness to accept basic facts.

You're now at that line.


First of all, you can quantify the number of improper ballots, and in the case of provisonal ballots, there should be a record of who voted.  I'm not yet seeing a problem of not being able to determine if these voters were legitimate or not, and if now, for whom the voted for.

You seem to have confused "counted illegitimately" with "votes cast by people not entitled to vote."  They are two different things.  There should be a record of who voted, including who cast provisional ballots.  The might be 1000 votes that were "counted illegitimately" and we might find out that 950 of them were votes of people entitled to vote.

What you are suggesting might be the ex post facto deprivation of the right to vote of most, if not all, of these people.  Get some evidence that these people were ineligible to vote, if possible factor out those votes, and then look at the situation.  I will admit that you are closer to the possibility of a re-vote (or judicial overturning of the result), but you still have a long way to go.
Logged
No more McShame
FuturePrez R-AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,083


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: May 06, 2005, 12:52:09 am »

Would Rossi necessarily benefit from a re-vote? It seems to me he gained extra support from evangelicals voting for Bush... Turn-out would be a lower in a non-presidential election, but this election controversy might keep it high.

Washington politics have certainly been interesting lately! Gregoire v. Rossi and now James West, the f****t rapist pedophile Republican mayor of Spokane.

Opebo is a mayor?
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 #80 on: May 06, 2005, 08:31:26 am »

You apparently don't understand.

In a number of precincts in King County, ballots were processed which were unverified.  There is NO way whatsoever of seperating them.

With respect you your other statement, let me be equally as pity, abeit on point.  You just don't seem to understand.
Its not that you lack the intellect to understand, but simply have decided that once an election is stolen, the thief must get away with it.

No one (except perhaps you) argues that there were several thousand ballots counted that should NOT have been counted.

The number of ballots counted illegimately (by the way I have previously on other threads listed the Washington Administrative Code sections involved) are far more than the 'margin' of victory.

There is a line between healthy skepticism, and obstinate unwillingness to accept basic facts.

You're now at that line.


First of all, you can quantify the number of improper ballots, and in the case of provisonal ballots, there should be a record of who voted.  I'm not yet seeing a problem of not being able to determine if these voters were legitimate or not, and if now, for whom the voted for.

You seem to have confused "counted illegitimately" with "votes cast by people not entitled to vote."  They are two different things.  There should be a record of who voted, including who cast provisional ballots.  The might be 1000 votes that were "counted illegitimately" and we might find out that 950 of them were votes of people entitled to vote.

What you are suggesting might be the ex post facto deprivation of the right to vote of most, if not all, of these people.  Get some evidence that these people were ineligible to vote, if possible factor out those votes, and then look at the situation.  I will admit that you are closer to the possibility of a re-vote (or judicial overturning of the result), but you still have a long way to go.

Let me make it simple for you.

First, (as I previously noted) how are you going to determine how the dead voted?

Second, how are you going to determine that when it is clear that a convicted felon voted illegally, the way that person voted?  Will you just take their word for it?  Will you take their word for it that they were never guilty of the crime(s) for which they were convicted.

Third, due to the failure of King County to follow the procedures established by law, it is impossible to selecte out the multiple votes cast or in many instances the provisional ballots improperly tabulated.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: May 06, 2005, 10:19:33 am »



Let me make it simple for you.

First, (as I previously noted) how are you going to determine how the dead voted?

Second, how are you going to determine that when it is clear that a convicted felon voted illegally, the way that person voted?  Will you just take their word for it?  Will you take their word for it that they were never guilty of the crime(s) for which they were convicted.

Third, due to the failure of King County to follow the procedures established by law, it is impossible to selecte out the multiple votes cast or in many instances the provisional ballots improperly tabulated.

Let me see if I can make it simple for you.  You will have to show that that the there were enough dead/fiticious persons voting to have affected the result.  You have not.  That it did occur is not enough to challenge the election.

Second, some have come forward in the press, and disclosed whom the have voted.  Yep, saying how they voted, under oath is one way of determining this and some have stated that voted for Gregoire.

Third, in King County there should be a record of the voters, not whom they voted for.  You are claiming that because the county didn't follow the procedures, that the votes of potentially legitimate voters shouldn't be counted.  Before throwing these out, there should be a check to determine if these voters are legitimate.  That hasn't happed yet.  You are very probably talking about disqualifying the votes of some legitimate voters.

There is, IIRC a 126 difference between the two candidates.  Show that 126 votes were not cast by legitimate voters and that the cannot be factored out, and we can begin to talk about changing the result.

Until that level is reached, you have a whole bunch of nothing.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,399
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: May 07, 2005, 03:25:35 am »

The situation in Washington is far more complex.
I would not count on that.  Texas House contest there were 13 categories of votes that were either illegal votes, or were legal votes and should have been counted.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Can these ballots be identified, or the person who cast the vote be determined?   In Texas there were provisional votes without the correct retrieval code.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That is category 6 in the Texas case.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Find the person who cast the ballot, or you are out of luck.  I don't see any dead people in the Texas contest, but there was a vote by a Norwegian, and several Nigerian-Americans who had their registration address switched to an adjacent district, where a Nigerian-American was challenging an African-American in a primary contest, and some voters were denied the right to vote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Then Rossi has lost.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Where are the ballots.

If the Washington court adopts the standard used in Texas, then Rossi has lost unless the choice of the illegal voters is determined.  "Might of won" is not going to get a new election.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,399
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: May 07, 2005, 03:35:32 am »

First, (as I previously noted) how are you going to determine how the dead voted?
I doubt that any dead people voted.  Find who cast the ballot.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If you are going to discard a vote, you better have very good proof that the vote was illegal.  Right to vote trumps right to get elected.
Logged
MissCatholic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: May 07, 2005, 05:57:00 am »

Is this the republican version of Florida 2000. please dont bother to be the lawyer and provide a case of why its different. result is a result.

you know the feeling when you know your hockey team clearly deserved to win but some how finds a way to lose. you feel frustrated? same feeling here for republicans?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: May 07, 2005, 10:46:05 am »

Is this the republican version of Florida 2000. please dont bother to be the lawyer and provide a case of why its different. result is a result.

you know the feeling when you know your hockey team clearly deserved to win but some how finds a way to lose. you feel frustrated? same feeling here for republicans?

MissCatholic,  please note that several of the people here demanding proof of violations before there is any attempt to overturn the results are Republicans

Just for the record, I did not oppose the initial recounting in FL, only the attempts by Gore to expand the scope of it after the first ones were unsuccessful.  Had he asked for a full recount immediately after the election, I would have been supportive.
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 #86 on: May 07, 2005, 10:59:02 am »

First, to list all the specific names of the persons who:

a.) were deceased at the time they supposedly voted, or
b.) cast more than one ballot, or
c.) where not legally entitled to vote but did so (felony convictions) would take up too much of this forum, and my time.  There has been an implication made that I am some how making up these points.

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.

In the category of those casting more than one ballot in the 2004 gubenatorial election is Dustin S O'Coilain of Seattle.

A rather lengthy list of the convicted felons who cast votes in the 2004 Governor's race despite not having had their civil rights restored, is available, although the Democrats are NOT denying this in court!

In yet another specific example, Precinct 1823 in King Counted counted 343 ballots, while there were only 272 voters listed as having voted!!!

Finally, this thread started with the citation of ballots which were found but not counted because they came from precincts in King county carried by Rossi.
Logged
No more McShame
FuturePrez R-AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,083


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: May 08, 2005, 09:17:39 pm »

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.


Let's ask them how they voted Tongue
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 #88 on: May 08, 2005, 10:00:18 pm »

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.


Let's ask them how they voted Tongue

I'm waiting for JJ to suggest using voodoo to bring them back from the dead!

Seriously, its nice to see one person who has a grasp of the problems.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: May 08, 2005, 10:34:29 pm »

First, to list all the specific names of the persons who:

a.) were deceased at the time they supposedly voted, or
b.) cast more than one ballot, or
c.) where not legally entitled to vote but did so (felony convictions) would take up too much of this forum, and my time.  There has been an implication made that I am some how making up these points.

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.

In the category of those casting more than one ballot in the 2004 gubenatorial election is Dustin S O'Coilain of Seattle.


So far, you have a total of three invalid votes, assuming that there are not two Mr. O'Coilain's out there.  (Junior and Senior would be a possibility.)  Rossi lost by more than three.

I have implied that you are "some how making up these points."  I have stated, point blank, that you have to show there were not yet enough of this to void the election, and you still have not.  I have also stated that, prior to any revoting or declaring Rossi the winner, efforts should be made to clear up how illegal voters voted.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,399
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2005, 02:13:24 am »
« Edited: May 09, 2005, 02:15:18 am by jimrtex »

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.

Let's ask them how they voted Tongue
That'll take some digging.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: May 09, 2005, 03:03:13 am »

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.

Let's ask them how they voted Tongue
That'll take some digging.


Yes, and if Rossi lost by two votes, there would be a case.  He lost by more, so it still hasn't been shown, as of yet.
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 #92 on: May 09, 2005, 03:19:36 am »

I'm going to venture back into this thread and ask a question i asked a few weeks back.  No one answered then, either Carl or JJ.

How many ballots were cast improperly?  That is how many people voted twice, how many voters were dead, how many voters were ineligible to vote but did anyway, etc.

What is the margin of victory in the race?
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 #93 on: May 09, 2005, 07:14:02 am »
« Edited: May 09, 2005, 07:36:33 am by CARLHAYDEN »

I apologize that your questions were not answered sooner.

First, the most recent 'certified' margin of victory is 129 votes.

Second, the number of questioned votes amounts to several thousand.  They're broken down into the following categories:

a. In many counties, more ballots were counted than there are registered voters identified as voting.

b. In at least one county, many provisional ballots were placed directly into counting machines on election day rather than being reviewed and validated to ensure that they were cast by eligible voters who did not cast another ballot.

c. Illegitimate votes were cast by convicted felons whose civil rights were not restored, deceased persons, and persons other than the registered voter whose ballot was voted.

d. Ballots were “enhanced” and altered in a manner that permanently obscures the original mark of the voter, in violation of state law.

e. Counties treated voters inconsistently in their decisions whether to count ballots that were incorrectly rejected.

f. Inconsistent and changing standards were employed in determining when a ballot was an overvote or and undervote.

g. Private information about provisional ballot voters was released, and third parties were allowed to use that private information to procure documents seeking to validate the ballots.

The exact number in each category is yet to be determined by the court, but, BOTH sides in the court action in their filings agree that the number is far in excess of the number constituting the margin of victory!

It is my informed judgement that when all is said and done, the court will find that somewhere between six to seven thousand vote counting errors occured.

These errors disprorportionatedly occured in areas that added votes for Gregoire relative to Rossi, and in ways that disproportionately aided Gregoire (note that 'found' votes from precincts won by Gregoire in King county were counted, but 'found' votes in Rossi precincts were NOT - see link at start of this thread).
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: May 09, 2005, 10:59:52 am »

I apologize that your questions were not answered sooner.

First, the most recent 'certified' margin of victory is 129 votes.

Second, the number of questioned votes amounts to several thousand.  They're broken down into the following categories:

a. In many counties, more ballots were counted than there are registered voters identified as voting.

b. In at least one county, many provisional ballots were placed directly into counting machines on election day rather than being reviewed and validated to ensure that they were cast by eligible voters who did not cast another ballot.

c. Illegitimate votes were cast by convicted felons whose civil rights were not restored, deceased persons, and persons other than the registered voter whose ballot was voted.

d. Ballots were “enhanced” and altered in a manner that permanently obscures the original mark of the voter, in violation of state law.

e. Counties treated voters inconsistently in their decisions whether to count ballots that were incorrectly rejected.

f. Inconsistent and changing standards were employed in determining when a ballot was an overvote or and undervote.

g. Private information about provisional ballot voters was released, and third parties were allowed to use that private information to procure documents seeking to validate the ballots.

The exact number in each category is yet to be determined by the court, but, BOTH sides in the court action in their filings agree that the number is far in excess of the number constituting the margin of victory!

It is my informed judgement that when all is said and done, the court will find that somewhere between six to seven thousand vote counting errors occured.


My particular problem is that we have yet to establish the "six to seven thousand vote counting error" or a six to seven hundred or a six to seven vote error.  For example, a lot is being made of the inclusion of the provisional ballots in the count.  We don't how many of those were due to legitimate voters voting.  In some cases the "felons" have come forward and stated that the voted for Rossi (and seem to be willing to do so under oath).

When there is a demonstration that a net 129 of these votes were either for Gregoiri or that at least 129 votes were illegally cast and that who they voted for cannot be determined, I'll be the one questioning the result.  Rossi has not yet reached that level of proof.
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 #95 on: May 09, 2005, 08:25:55 pm »

You have yet to answer the earlier question.

Specifically, will you take the word "under oath,' of the convicted felons that they were NOT guilty of the crime(s) for which they were convicted?

Should their convictions be overturned soley based on their sworn testimony?

Then why do you give any credibility other statements on their part?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: May 09, 2005, 09:30:35 pm »

You have yet to answer the earlier question.

Specifically, will you take the word "under oath,' of the convicted felons that they were NOT guilty of the crime(s) for which they were convicted?

Should their convictions be overturned soley based on their sworn testimony?

Then why do you give any credibility other statements on their part?

I tend to give them a lot of credibility, expecially since this isn't a "self incrimination" situation (and I'd be willing to see them given immunity).  I doubt it there was an organized effort to get ex-felons to vote.

We've seen (mentioned in another thread) one voter state that they voted for one candidate and one vote for the other.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: May 09, 2005, 11:06:19 pm »
« Edited: May 09, 2005, 11:08:03 pm by J. J. »

One thing that should be pointed out is what the Secretary of States office says about felons voting:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Now, I wonder how many people released thought that because they were not under parole and had discharged their sentences, that the DoC had restored their right to vote?  DoC seems to be able to do that under its own authority, possibly without telling the ex-felon.

I'm seeing a conspiracy of ex-felons to throw an election.

I'll add that this doesn't make their votes valid, but with these regulations, I can understand the confusion.
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 #98 on: May 12, 2005, 08:59:52 am »

Here's a pretty good explanation of the wide variety of provisions in state law which were violated in King county.

http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/05/repeat-after-me-state-law-requires.html
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 #99 on: May 14, 2005, 03:12:54 am »

Thanks for the answers, guys.

From all outward appearances, I have determined the following.

Average turnout is say, 55%.  "Turnout" in some counties was over 100%.  This is fraud on a massive scale.  At this point, FEC oversight/management of future Washington election is an order as its plainly obvious that these people have no intention of running a legitimate electoral system.
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