<table height="1" width="511" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr><td height="8">
</td></tr></tbody> </table>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20041230/ap_on_el_gu/washington_governor
Quote:By DAVID AMMONS, Associated Press Writer
OLYMPIA, Wash. - After three vote tallies and 58 days of waiting, Democrat Christine Gregoire was declared Washington's governor-elect on Thursday. But her Republican rival did not concede and wants a new election.
<table align="left" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> </tr></tbody></table>
Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, certified Gregoire, the three-term attorney general, as the winner of the closest governor's race in state history. She won a statewide hand recount by a scant 129 votes out of more than 2.8 million cast.
But Republican candidate Dino Rossi, a former state legislative leader and real-estate investor, said the election was hopelessly flawed and that the Legislature should authorize a new election. He won both of the earlier counts.
Rossi also held open the possibility of contesting the election in the courts.
Gregoire's campaign rejected the idea of a new vote and said Rossi should accept the newly certified tally.
"This ain't golf. No mulligans allowed here, folks," Gregoire's spokesman, Morton Brilliant, said Wednesday. "It's irresponsible to spend $4 million in taxpayer money on a new election just because you don't like losing this one."
A revote would have to be approved by the Democrat-controlled state Legislature.
"The uncertainty surrounding this election process isn't just bad for you and me — it is bad for the entire state," Rossi said, reading from a letter he said he sent to Gregoire. "People need to know for sure that the next governor actually won the election."
An unprecedented statewide hand recount had put Gregoire ahead for the first time, by just a tiny fraction of 1 percent.
Rossi, a real estate agent and former state senator, won the initial tally last month by 261 votes, triggering an automatic machine recount. He won that count, too, by 42 votes.
While noting that he could contest the election, Rossi said a legal challenge could drag on for months. The better way to clear up the mess, he said, would be to ask lawmakers to pass a bill calling for a special election as soon as the state Legislature convenes in early January for the 2005 session.
Asked what he would do if Gregoire rebuffed his request, Rossi said his campaign would take a close look at election data it has requested from King County and go from there. GOP leaders have spent the last several days weighing whether to proceed with contesting the results.
After the election, more than 700 ballots surfaced in the heavily Democratic county, which includes Seattle. The additional votes allowed Gregoire to stretch her lead from just 10 votes in the hand recount to her triple-digit advantage. A legal challenge would have to be filed by Jan. 22, 10 days after Gregoire's scheduled inauguration.
Gov. Gary Locke said he strongly disagreed with Rossi's call for another election. "The people have voted, and all votes properly cast were counted," said Locke, a Democrat who's retiring after two terms.
Amid the weeks of uncertainty, both Gregoire and Rossi have maintained transition offices, appointing teams to work on a state budget, Cabinet appointments and an agenda for the upcoming Legislature.
Rossi had been using the title "governor-elect," and his family even toured the Governor's Mansion.
It's apparent what the Democratic strategy will be for future close elections. It was apparent in the 2000 Presidential election, and may actually come to fruition in the 2004 Washington election: Lose the election, force recount after recount, all the while finding mysterious new ballots everyone magically missed the first time (of course, they could very well be fabricated), and once the count FINALLY favors the Democratic candidate, put a stop to everything, now we KNOW every vote has been counted!
This is so filthy and underhanded it makes me want to puke. I'm glad it didn't work in 2000, when Gore would have recounted until the end of the world if the results didn't favor him, and I'm glad this presidential election wasn't close enough for Kerry to make a spirited attempt to steal it. The endless recounts are blatant election theft, in 2000 and in 2004. I totally agree that a special election should be held. If Ukraine can fix it's faulty system, there's no excuse for letting this stand.
I gotta wonder, do you really think those ballots are fabricated? I'm under the strong impression that the courts have run through such a possibility by now.
On another note, I'll only say this. All voting methods have flaws in them one way or another, just as all tournemant bracket systems do (for example the standard bracket tree has the flaw that one can really only find out which person was the best, but NOT who was second best or beyond). Thus, a voting method can only be fair if it is agreed upon beforehand. Having another vote afterwards saying the first was unfair is, as such, completely illogical. It is totally silly to think one can ever get a perfectly fair voting system. They all allow for strange situations, some less than others, but none are perfect when differening wills are involved.
Now, with a "revote" out of the question in cases where the first vote's validity was agreed upon beforehand, there is one other thing I MUST point out. If the vote that actually took place was somehow flawed in the sense that the agreed upon method was NOT what happened, then, and only then, must something be done about it.
It's one thing to say "this voting method is flawed because the electoral college system is outdated, we need to have a new vote". That is illogical since everyone agreed by that standard before the vote.
However, to say "this election is flawed because countless votes were burned instead of being read" is different, excepting of course that the populace agreed beforehand that burning random votes rather than counting them was part of that election's method :D. In that case, if the election as it was originally meant to happen did not happen, then it is invalid.
Example A: Bush gets electoral victory in 2000. Some democrats get infuriated by this and demand that the electoral system be changed because their guy would have won, and should have won, because he got the popular vote. This is invalid because the electoral system was agreed upon by everyone involved, voters and all, from the start. A revote can't take place due to this.
Example B: Some Floridians complain that the ballot was confusing to them and they accidentally voted for the wrong person. Some democrats demand that the election be redone in Florida with new ballots. This is also invalid because the original ballots were agreed upon as being valid by both parties, as was the amount of explaining that would be done to people before they voted. The instand the confused voters submitted their ballot rather than asking for help or taking the time to examine the ballot so they could understand it properly, they were agreeing to the method, and thus they can't take it back. They may have made a mistake, but they will have to live with it. The people running the places may have not informed people well enough, but since everything was agreed on beforehand, they will just have to live with that too, and learn for next time.
Example C: Some ballots have holes that aren't punched, but rather slight dimples in them. The machine discards these as being incomplete. Some democrats complain that this also demands a total recount. However, since it was agreed beforehand that the method for determining a voter's intent was a total hole punch, NOT a dimple, then any change in the method of determining intent is not valid. They may get it wrong any other way they choose just as well. The only valid method for determining intent is the original one, which means that the machines were right after all.
Example D: Some mystery ballots were discovered to be stolen/discarded/destroyed rather than counted in Florida and other places. These were apparently not discarded for any previously agreed on reason, such as being incorrectly filled out or being filled out by a fellon. In this case alone, the complaint is valid because the election did NOT take place by the agreed upon method. To correct this, these discarded votes, after being confirmed (via phone calls to the people on them and checking the database of other voters to make sure there was no double voting for example) need only be counted themselves and added to the tally. A revote is not needed nor would it be desired as it would invalidate the whole point of adding these votes.
In the end, one thing is for sure, hand counting to be sure a machine got it right is supreme stupidity. What is this, the 50's? Just check the machine for glitches and assume it got it right. It's sure to be a lot more accurate than a hand count. And, a touch screen system with a closed circuit database is the best way to go for storing voting data. Closed circuit to prevent any sort of hacking mind you, up until the moment when the final results are sent to wherever on a dedicated line.
When the vote is really, really close you'll never know who really had more votes. All you can do is recount until the courts say to stop recounting and keep the last vote taken as the "correct" one... who knows who got more votes in Washington. No one ever will, probably. But the Democrat was ahead after the recounts so the Democrat wins. There is nothing underhanded about it... it's about not giving up until you're forced to and it's the obvious thing to do for anyone! If it was the Republican 150 votes behind after the first count the Republicans would have done EXACTLY the same thing.
Yeah, hating the Democrats simply because they're corrupt is just dumb. All politicians, regardless of party, will do whatever it takes to get elected.
I'm just barely old enough to vote and I'm already tired of politics.
But doing whatever it takes to win isn't exactly the right thing to do ya know. My comment above wasn't really for or against this situation or anything mind you, but I just must say that it's not okay to do absolutely anything you can to win in all cases. Shouldn't there be lines you don't cross? You know, "moral standards" or whatever they call those things?
Now in THIS case, I must only say this. If in fact some votes were tossed out, then a recount is in order. If in fact it's just a matter of someone being upset because their guy lost, then a recount would actually do more harm than good. Again, in the latter case the original vote was the one agreed upon before the election.
However, I will also say that while a voting SYSTEM is arbitrary, it's actually VERY possible to make sure, despite the system, that all votes are counted, at least to a believable margin. Again, a hand recount is a BAD idea. It is LESS accurate. If a recount is actually a valid course of action, which is rare but happens often enough, then it MUST be done by the most accurate method. That method is MACHINE, not man!
Great Rumbler Wrote:I'm just barely old enough to vote and I'm already tired of politics.
I'm with you on that one. Politicians are corrupt either way. We voters are just picking our poison.
People definitely aren't perfect, DJ, but machines aren't either. There will be a margin of error in both counts so both will not be completely accurate. For the case of the Washington vote what really matters most wasn't that, it was the votes that had been accidentally not been counted... that's what really tipped the balance. And I absolutely believe that what the King County officials said about them is completely accurate and that they are votes that had been thrown out that should not have been. They wouldn't lie and invent votes, I'm sure of that...
Quote:They wouldn't lie and invent votes, I'm sure of that...
You only say that because you're as far right as Weltall and want to grasp at anything you can to discredit the other party. It's not going to work when it isn't true.
People lie about things all the time, ABF. In politics more so than just about anything else. It's got little to do with party afilliation, unfortunately.
Yeah, that's pretty cool.
Quote:You know it.
You should have posted that one picture.
Ah crap... you're totally right.
Of course I'm right! I'm always right!
...
...
Except when I'm wrong...but that's not very often!
Yes. I think we've been over this already...
Some things don't show up at work for me.
![[Image: lazer4ix.gif]](http://home.comcast.net/~john_keir/lazer4ix.gif)
![[Image: buttflame.jpg]](http://www.allfunnypictures.com/images/buttflame.jpg)