49 Governors but Washington Ain't One

[drg]

But between recounts Gregoire cheated.

Prove it. Or face the fact that this is just sour grapes.

By the way Gregoire was leading after the manual recount, before the "extra" ballots were counted; the 700 more only widened the lead.

The broad timeline was this:

1. Initial count had Rossi up by 260 votes or so, small enough of a margin to trigger an automatic recount.

2. Machine recount showed Rossi's lead dwindling to 42. Democrats requested a hand count, which is allowed by state law.

3. Hand count showed Gregoire up by 10 votes. Court was deciding what to do about 700 votes found during the process, and had actually blocked the 700 ballots from being counted at the time this result was returned.

4. Court allows the 700 votes to be counted, Gregoire's lead widens to 130 votes.

It appears your beef comes between the hand count and the court decision, but the outcome does not change based on the court's ruling. At point 2, Rossi and his sympathizers called on Gregoire to accept the results and not request a recount. At point 3, the process is technically over, but now Rossi suddenly won't accept the results.

Do note that Gregoire has been certified governor-elect of Washington, so the title of this post is really not true. It's only a figment of some Republicans' imagination.

[Albinonewt]

Prove what?

That in King county there are more votes then voters?
That dead people were voting?
That every recount the Democrats "find" more votes?
That the hand recount was selective?

Link

Even CNN is saying the election is curious.


But regardless, If I were the National GOP chair I'd tell the Washington Republicans to throw in the towel. The statement I'd have them read would go something like this

"As the representitive of the law abiding party I am forced to concede defeat to my opponent's tactics. It is obvious to me now that it doesn't matter who's side the law is on because my opponent has no respect for the law. I apologize to all of you that voted for me this year and the Republican party vows to not let this go unanswered."

Then I would spend the next two years cataloging all the obvious fraud and learning as much about it as possible. And in the next election cycle my get out the vote effort would include ads about Washington that would basically say "IF IT'S CLOSE THEY WILL CHEAT"

I'm sure the state Republican party disagrees with me. But that's because they care who the governor of Washington is, and I don't.

[Albinonewt]

Also, about your 10 vote win scenario. I can find nothing to support that nonsense, but let's pretend for a moment it's true.

You honestly think that Gregoire can claim to be the legitimate winner based on a 10 vote win in a 3 million vote contest?

I mean, I think the 100 vote, 200 vote, margins were too narrow to declare a clear winner, but you want to do it based on 10 votes?

Seriously?

There doesn't even have to be fraud in order for that to be completely insane. You're telling me that there could possible have been 11 errors in the 3 million votes counted?

Are you for real?

[Albinonewt]

Do note that Gregoire has been certified governor-elect of Washington, so the title of this post is really not true. It's only a figment of some Republicans' imagination.

The title is clever, so get over it. Heck, the second reply is pro-title, so get over yourself.

[drg]

Link

Even CNN is saying the election is curious.

CNN is "saying" nothing of the sort. I know you righties are used to your media "saying" things on their own, but AP (the actual source of this piece, if you read the dateline), being a respectable news organization, is simply reporting what Republicans are doing and saying. So it's pretty laughable that you present this as proof of anything, of course it supports the GOP position. Duh.

The article does prove one thing though, unfortunately for you it's one of my points:

Washington isn't the only state where election drama is unfolding. In North Carolina, a judge ordered a new statewide election for agriculture commissioner because of a voting machine error that wiped out 4,438 ballots in one county.

So much for machines being more reliable and accurate. Problem is they can make a hell of a lot of mistakes in a short amount of time. That's why the hand count is considered the most trustworthy count.

[drg]

Also, about your 10 vote win scenario. I can find nothing to support that nonsense, but let's pretend for a moment it's true.

No need to pretend. The information is extremely easy to find. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...imeline30.html

You honestly think that Gregoire can claim to be the legitimate winner based on a 10 vote win in a 3 million vote contest?

I mean, I think the 100 vote, 200 vote, margins were too narrow to declare a clear winner, but you want to do it based on 10 votes?

Seriously?

There doesn't even have to be fraud in order for that to be completely insane. You're telling me that there could possible have been 11 errors in the 3 million votes counted?

Are you for real?

It doesn't matter one bit what the margin is. It could be one vote. That's all you need to win. Once a count is certified, it's over. The numbers are final.

The idea of a mandatory runoff is silly anyway:

1. There is no more guarantee of reaching a "legitimate" winning margin in a runoff.
2. There is no saying what a "legitimate" winning margin is anyway.
3. It's costy.
4. It won't do anything at all if there are only two parties in a given election.

It's one thing to count votes over in hopes the result changes. It's another, ridiculous thing entirely to suggest voting over in hopes the result changes.

Do you really expect the basic principles of majority-rules, winner-take-all elections to be changed just because your party's candidate lost? "Seriously?" "Are you for real?"

[PyRo]

So much for machines being more reliable and accurate. Problem is they can make a hell of a lot of mistakes in a short amount of time. That's why the hand count is considered the most trustworthy count.

People cheat, machines don't. Enough said.
Perhaps the election needs to be decided by a coin toss?

[Albinonewt]

No need to pretend. The information is extremely easy to find. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...imeline30.html

Well, now I'm convinced. Rossi held the lead until when? Until King "of fraud" County had their say. When they were afraid the "found" ballots wouldn't count they just found a new way to cheat.

It doesn't matter one bit what the margin is. It could be one vote. That's all you need to win. Once a count is certified, it's over. The numbers are final.

You mean, once the count that you like is over.

The idea of a mandatory runoff is silly anyway:

You think that a 10 vote margain from a disctrict overwhelmed with irregularities and alleghations of fraud is ok, but re-voting is silly?

1. There is no more guarantee of reaching a "legitimate" winning margin in a runoff.
2. There is no saying what a "legitimate" winning margin is anyway.
3. It's costy.
4. It won't do anything at all if there are only two parties in a given election.

1) No, there isn't. But it's certainly possible to do things, like make sure only legitimate voters are casting ballots, and not dead people
2) Well, my threshold for the first re-vote is any margain 1/10 of 1%. After that I say tough, these are the results.
3) And the re-counts were free?
4) The libertarian candidate , Ruth Bennet, got 63,000+ votes. Drop her from the total, do a runoff with only the two candidates.

It's one thing to count votes over in hopes the result changes. It's another, ridiculous thing entirely to suggest voting over in hopes the result changes.

Right, your way is stupid, proves nothing, and is prone to more fraud and innaccuracey then anything in the world. Mine, is to have a democratic run-off election between the two highest vote getting candidates.

Do you really expect the basic principles of majority-rules, winner-take-all elections to be changed just because your party's candidate lost? "Seriously?" "Are you for real?"

Run-off elections are common all over the world, and right here in the US (Louisianna).

And for the last time, I don't care who wins. I'm happier with Gregoire winning the election based on lies and fraud so conservatives can start an anti-election fraud 527 for the 2006' cycle. Also, as far as affiliation goes I do not really consider myself a party faithful Republican. I'm a conservative. I care about the conservative agenda, not the Republican agenda. I would rather the senate have more conservatives even if it meant having less Republicans. I would vote for a conservative Democrat long before a liberal Republican. In an instant I would trade Olympia Snow or Arlen Specter for Zell Miller. I don't really care about the Republican party. And I really don't care about the governor of Washington. I care about democracy being thwarted by ambition and fraud, as it is here. So go shove all your "I don't have anything to say so I'll accuse you of partisanship". You'll note I don't have to accuse you of being partisan, because the fact is Gregoire has a slightly higher margain because of the fraud commited in Kind County. And the fact is a 260 vote margain in 2.9 million votes cast is statistically meaningless. A 2 party run-off is the best thing, and if it had been the first option this whole mess would be over by now. But the idiots needed their recount first, and now Washington is probably going to have to accept the results of an obviouslyt fraudulant election.

I found this site today that talks a lot about all the fraud and inconsistencies during the election. I skimmed through it a bit today and it looks like this guy did a research and homework. I don't know his political affiliations, he might be pro-Republican or just pro-honesty, but he's definitly pro-revote. There's some pretty interesting stuff in here.

[drg]

Well better minds that are better informed than you are in a position to pursue the fraud allegation. Consensus is that there isn't much, if anything, there. But we'll see what the final say is in the days to come.

Basically, you're just salty because your preferred candidate lost, it really can't be any more obvious. This thread would not exist had Rossi maintained the lead, even if Gregoire's camp raised fraud allegations.

Fraud can surely be alleged on both sides in an election this close, but the bottom line is, the counts proceeded according to law and at the end of the final count prescribed by law, Gregoire was ahead, making her the winner.

[Albinonewt]

Well better minds that are better informed than you are in a position to pursue the fraud allegation. Consensus is that there isn't much, if anything, there. But we'll see what the final say is in the days to come.

3,000+ mote votes then voters, but don't worry, no funny business here.

Basically, you're just salty because your preferred candidate lost, it really can't be any more obvious. This thread would not exist had Rossi maintained the lead, even if Gregoire's camp raised fraud allegations.

I DON'T CARE WHO WINS!!!!!!

Get it through your head.

Although, you're half right. This thread probably wouldn't have existed if Rossi had won (although maybe, it is a really good example of why run=offs are better then recounts). But not because I care if Rossi wins. I don't know who he is or what he stands for. I imagine that in Washington State both candidates are left leaning, so if I HAD to support someone it would probably be Rossi (depending on the Libertarian candidate's posistions). I now only care about the election based on the usurping of Democracy.

Fraud can surely be alleged on both sides in an election this close, but the bottom line is, the counts proceeded according to law and at the end of the final count prescribed by law, Gregoire was ahead, making her the winner.

What fraud are the Democrats alledging?
And only after getting rulings overturned by ultra-liberal courts did the election get "won"



But I see your arguements basically boil down to just two points:

I'm a baby eating partisan
And the Democrat won


Am I missing anything?

[drg]

Of course you care who won. You hate the fact that the Democrat/liberal/whatever you don't like candidate won, so you want to "do over." You know full well that the margin is small enough that it's very possible that fraud ON EITHER SIDE could exceed the margin. So you talk about changing the system.

But, a runoff won't solve the basic issue you present, which is that the election is too close for anyone to have confidence in the outcome. You do not present the case for getting a majority, which is what runoffs are for. A majority can be determined by one vote, which in your estimation could never be good enough. A runoff is not inherently less prone to fraud, and if you were really concerned about fraud you would realize that there is no need to change the basic voting paradigm.

Lastly, it is far less expensive to recount than revote, so the cost issue is a factor no matter how much you downplay it.

You do realize that the current system can always help either side, right? The situation would be exactly the same if Rossi came from behind and won. The rules are the rules, no matter who benefits.

[Albinonewt]

Of course you care who won. You hate the fact that the Democrat/liberal/whatever you don't like candidate won, so you want to "do over." You know full well that the margin is small enough that it's very possible that fraud ON EITHER SIDE could exceed the margin. So you talk about changing the system.

What alledged fraud did the Rossi supporters commit?
I don't care who wins. You know how one could know that? I literally didn't start paying attention to the race until the fraud allegations started hitting the waves. Until about 3 weeks ago all I knew was that it was close.

But, a runoff won't solve the basic issue you present, which is that the election is too close for anyone to have confidence in the outcome. You do not present the case for getting a majority,

Um, eliminating all but the two candidates with the most votes and pitting them against each other wouldn't create a majority? Remember, with only these two candidates there are 60,000+ votes that weren't part of the close election that would be put into the pool

which is what runoffs are for. A majority can be determined by one vote, which in your estimation could never be good enough. A runoff is not inherently less prone to fraud, and if you were really concerned about fraud you would realize that there is no need to change the basic voting paradigm.

It may not be by virtue less prone to fraud, but in practice it is. For a few simple reasons. Everyone knows what fraud was alledged in the last election, so they can look out for it. And because the last election was so close both sides will have observers there to make sure no new fraud happens. Is it guaranteed? Of course not, but it's a far better system then "count till you win"

Lastly, it is far less expensive to recount than revote, so the cost issue is a factor no matter how much you downplay it.

A) I'm not so sure about that. We're talkinga bout 2 recounts and 60 days of the Washington state government having to contend with recount related expenses (litigation and the like).
B) So what?

You do realize that the current system can always help either side, right? The situation would be exactly the same if Rossi came from behind and won. The rules are the rules, no matter who benefits.

And as I've said before I don't think the 260 margin was enough either. I would have gone straight to the re-vote. Saying "both sides can cheat so it's ok" is moronic.

But its what I've come to expect from you

[drg]

Um, eliminating all but the two candidates with the most votes and pitting them against each other wouldn't create a majority? Remember, with only these two candidates there are 60,000+ votes that weren't part of the close election that would be put into the pool.

I said you have not made the CASE for achieving a majority. You made the case for margin. So the thing runoffs are designed for is not the thing you have made the case for.

"Count till you win" is an invention of the losing side. "Count till the counting's done" is what the real system is. You continue to ignore that the recounts are prescribed by law and that law has been followed to completion here.

[Albinonewt]

I said you have not made the CASE for achieving a majority. You made the case for margin. So the thing runoffs are designed for is not the thing you have made the case for.

With exactly two candidates how exactly would you NOT get one candidate with more then 50%?

"Count till you win" is an invention of the losing side. "Count till the counting's done" is what the real system is. You continue to ignore that the recounts are prescribed by law and that law has been followed to completion here.

The recounts are not required by law, they are an option.

And you fail to say anything to counter my point that recoutns are useless. Who cares who won by .0001%? The point is that no recount will be sufficiently accurate. Your point is the democrat won so live with it.

[aaron_mag]

Oh please, give us all a huge break. Rossi was even more hypocritical, saying Democrats should just accept the results, now suddenly it's all wrong and he's going so far as to ask for a re-vote. A re-vote? NOWHERE in the law is that allowed for, however the recounts are. And if the result changes, so be it. Do note that the last TWO recounts showed Gregoire ahead, the additional ballots allowed by the courts only widened the margin.

Contrary to your constant vote-fraud conspiracy theories, recounts are intended to get CLOSER to the actual result, not further. No further votes have been cast since election day.

I like how once the same thing is thrown back in the GOP's face, they start whining and screaming just the same. Given that they've repeatedly taken a holier-than-thou attitude on this issue, I'd say they are much the worse.

Heh heh heh...

Totally agree with you.

Yeah it is only hypocrisy when your on the side that is upset. It is like when everyone was calling Gore 'self serving' for wanting a Florida recount and contesting ballots. As if the other side would have been any different if the results were different.

The winner always is able to pretend to be magnanimous and 'interested in the welfare of the voters' and 'lets move past this and put us behind us'. But put them in the losing position and they whine and ***** like everyone else.

And both sides do it. You can count on that!