Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WA Governor Race Ends

pudge posted more than 9 years ago | from the and-on-and-on-and-on dept.

Republicans 119

Republican Dino Rossi decided last night to not appeal yesterday's decision by Chelan judge John Bridges to let last November's governor election stand -- the closest in U.S. history -- which keeps Christine Gregoire, who won by 129 votes after two recounts, in office. The Republicans claimed that fraud and mistakes far exceeded the difference between the candidates, and that statistical analysis showed Rossi might have received more legal votes. Bridges concluded there were thousands of incorrect votes and other major problems, but that the Republicans didn't meet the high threshold of proof that the result was incorrect. He also said he feared current law will make elections problems even worse, and urged the government and voters to work to fix the system.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

News for Fundie AmericanTaliban Nerds... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12747554)

...Stuff that Matters to Pudge

Here's an idea... (4, Insightful)

oldosadmin (759103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747555)

In races this close, call it a statistical tie, and run a revote.

You'll get a bigger turnout, and possibly a true outcome.

Re:Here's an idea... (3, Informative)

whidbey island geek (812051) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747705)

That is exactly what Rossi tried to have happen.

But the courts said "No Joy."


Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (0, Troll)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747774)

Rossi was a crybaby. ha ha.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (2, Insightful)

whidbey island geek (812051) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748041)

Rossi was not being a cry baby. If that were true he would have been asking the courts to hand him the election. (cough cough Al Gore)

What he was asking for was that the questionable results be set aside and the state be given a chance to have an honest election. (i.e. without King County's felons and dead voting)

That being said, I will abide by the rule of law and accept Gov. G. as our overlord for now. On the other hand I sure hope we can all work to prevent this from happening again.

Perhaps those of us in Island county can set the example since it seems we were one of the few places that seem to have a properly working election board.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (2, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749225)

Wow....all you need to do is replace 'Gore' and 'Gov. G' with 'Bush' and 'Rossi' with 'Gore', and you have exactly what Dems were saying after the 2000 election.

Funny how being on the other side of the issue can change your tune, isn't it?

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748391)

Enjoy the short victory.

You have just motivated the Republican voters in Washington to the point you will never see that state go blue again.

Ha Ha yourself.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (1)

Pacifix (465793) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748733)

Not likely. With the red states regressing more and more to the middle ages, the blue states will just get blue-er. Rossi didn't come out looking very statemans-like, a bit but not much. Sure, the GOP faithful are pissed. But the moderates and independents just wanted it over with. I think you're engaging in some seriously wishful thinking. WA is the bluest state in the union right now, with a Dem governor, Dem control of both houses of the legislature, and two Dem senators.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748965)

There are 1600 known bogus votes. For everyone who ever called Bush an illegitimate President, look at Gregoire's 129 vote win and "Eat this".

You seriously underestimate the ill will this will create. Washington is about to become the win-at-any-cost state for Republicans in the next cycle. Republicans are pissed enough to hold onto this for 3 years. Bank on it.

When Washington goes Red in 2008, you think of me.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (1, Troll)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749280)

Yes, Bush has fraudulently won two elections while Gregoire has fraudulently won one election.

"Democracy" is a joke, at least in this country.

Why isn't Bush working to bring democracy here? Oh, that's right, if we could oust him by simple vote we would, and did.

But Bush knows well the maxim attributed to Stalin: It doesn't matter who they vote for, it matters who counts the votes.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749367)

When Chris gets reelected I will likely have forgotten you, and your silly boast. The Soviet of Washington will stay blue for a long time to come. A bunch of yokels in sparsely populated counties watching the roads for the vast armies of the UN come to bring clean water and condoms are not all that numerous. Remember most felonies are committed by Republicans. Stock Fraud, embellzement, bigamy etc. Smoking Pot is not a felony.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (1)

spacecowboy420 (450426) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751536)

Wow, it seems to me we need a verifiable vote, and more measures to ensure the accuracy of said vote.

As an independent, I welcome this change. Every Republican tactic suggests they do not. I wonder how many Red states there would be if/when the elections are fair. In fact, I wonder if the outcome of the last 2 PRESIDENTIAL elections would be the same. You think the reds in WA are pissed, I wonder if they are as pissed as every non-Republican in the country.

You wishing for a "fair" election reminds of the phrase "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."

I know this is not what you said - I wouldn't expect any Republican to wish for a fair election. It might reflect the true will of the people and illustrate just how out of touch you are. Then you would have to go through that whole wrestling with your world view being wrong, then justify changing to the new winning side. We know how Republicans hate to be wrong.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755731)

Neither republicans nor democrats want fair elections. Notice that all their campaign reform laws make it harder for third parties (Eg: you can't spend money unless you money comes from a major party, and you can't get major party status unless you won one of the previous elections, etc.)

I think as long as voting has been going on in this country, political parties have been trying to manipulate the system to concentrate power for themselves-- they've been very successful.

Another example of this is gerrymandering... both parties do it, and they do it ruthlessly.

What we need is for the americans to wake up and realize that our elections are nowhere near close to being fair, objective, or accurate.

Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (2, Insightful)

jwilloug (6402) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749230)

That didn't happen after Bush v. Gore, not even in Florida. I don't see why Washington should expect anything different.

Joy Luck Club (3, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750098)

No, Rossi tried everything he could to become governor, including the fraud that got his original cheating victory thrown out. When he originally won (by the skin of his cheating teeth), he blabbed all about how Gregoire should let him keep the office "for the good of the state", without all that "divisive" complaining. When the tables were turned, Rossi of course ignored all his own self-serving "advice", and the "good of the state", in favor of his attempts to try again in the courts himself. Then, when he got his day in court, he charged Gregoire's campaign with "fraud", but presented no evidence of fraud. Just evidence of the same kind of badly run election we've got all over the country, that usually favors the Republicans running their state election commissions.

You can try to spin this (repeated) Republican defeat in attempting to take office through a court. But it's obvious that Rossi was doing everything he could, even things he couldn't, to take the Governor's office, regardless of the merits, or the damage to Washington. Of course politicians do anything to win, but we don't have to like it.

Now that both sides have been hurt in their war over shoddy state election work, maybe there's a mutual interest in fixing the system. Continuing to fight the war after its over will only get in the way of that more important work.

Re:Joy Luck Club (1)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751535)

Yeah, and nowhere here do I see Rossi's reason for not appealing to the Washington State Supreme Court: He said, "Due to the political makeup of the Supreme Court, we are unlikely to win" (not an exact quote, but close). Great way to end the campaign (seven months later) -- by insulting the Supreme Court. What a true Republican! Blame "activist judges"!

The good news for Republican's is that Gregoire ("that bitch") knows she's Governor of a divided state, and she'll lead accordingly, respecting both sides of the issues. Rossi, being a Repubican, would have lead like Bush, as if he had a "mandate" to do as he damn well pleased. Look at the Repubican's recent actions, locally and nationally, and you'll see a group of people to truely believe that Democracy is all about "majority rules" and has nothing to do with "minority rights". Hell, you see this pattern with Republicans going back to the Nixon days, maybe before (I frankly wasn't paying much attention before Nixon).

Re:Joy Luck Club (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755726)

I find it interesting that the above was moderated 4 informative.

But the fact is, there is no evidence of fraud on the Rossi campaign-- the votes were counted and he won.

The votes were counted again, and he won.

Then the democrats made sure the votes were counted a third time-- but this time they used a different methodology, and amazingly, discovered thousands of new ballots! The vote counts went way up between the 2 "recount" and the third "recount" (making them really new counts.)

Finally after adding thousands of "Found" ballots, the democrats won.

That's the fraud- -the democrats threw the election.

King county is heavily democratic and those doing the counting were supervised by democrats.

When someone alleged fraud and makes a lot of disparaging comments and then gets modded up like this, its clear to me that the mods are moding based on their political opinion, not the quality of the post.

In the hope of escaping this biased moderation, let me point out that I think the republicans engaged in election fraud to get Bush re-elected, and that is an even bigger scandal, or should be. But in Washington, the repubs didn't have the power, and didn't cheat... the democrats did.

Re:Joy Luck Club (2, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12756749)

When a Seattle councilmember found that his own vote had been discarded, along with many other votes from disproportionately Democratic King County, he obtained a recount. Which showed that lots of Democratic votes had been discarded.


And the coverup is sick. We do not live in a democracy anymore, because the vote counters are controlled by the local party in league with the vote counting corporation. That merger of state and corporate power is called "fascism" (Mussolini). Nationally, 80% of the votes are counted by 3 corporations, owned by Republicans, who even commit in public to delivering their local Electoral College ballots for their candidate.

Re:Joy Luck Club (0)

ezeri (513659) | more than 9 years ago | (#12761261)

When a Seattle councilmember found that his own vote had been discarded, along with many other votes from disproportionately Democratic King County, he obtained a recount. Which showed that lots of Democratic votes had been discarded.

Either you lieing, or he is lieing and your naively believing him. It isn't possible to "find out" that your vote has been discarded. Voting is anonymous, after you cast your ballot, its purely trust that they are counting correctly (unless you want to get in on the observing). The fraud was on the behalf of the Democrats, and it's so easy to see that anyone who doesn't see it is doing so intentionaly.

Re:Here's an idea... (2, Insightful)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747729)

Define "this close" and someone can make it a law, otherwise a close election is completely subjective.

Definition of close (2, Interesting)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748579)

I think a reasonable margin of victory could be at about 0.1%. For ten millions votes, you would need to win by 10,000. For 100,000 votes, that's only 100 votes.

Currently, Washington State does have a method whereby close elections are handled without long, drawn-out challenges. The legislature can refuse to accept any result with a majority vote. If there was any candidate for the legislature to exercise this power, the governor's race of 2004 was it. It was too close and there were too many weird things happening. It was a Democrat controlled legislature and they refused to accept responsibility, instead telling the courts to fix it. The courts made the right decision and explained that the remedy that should be applied can't be applied because they are bound by the law as it is written. The voters are going to have to have the final say on whether the legislators made the right decision or not.

Re:Definition of close (-1, Offtopic)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749241)

I love it when christians think that all muslims are terrorists, and have a monopoly on it.

Christians were the inventors of the "convert or die" message. And that's what the war on "terror" is.

IF you religious types want to battle it out-- why don't you go fight each otehr and leave us sane people out of it-- and that means, you don't get to waste any of our money on it either.

Notice the USA USA aspect of the republican administration-- that's nationalism. Notice the massive spending and massive increase in regulation of the private sector? That's socialism.

Know what the name of nationalist socialism is?

Re:Definition of close (0, Offtopic)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749638)

Who keeps modding this guy up? He's clearly a flamebaiting troll.

Re:Definition of close (0, Flamebait)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749953)

But he sings the Slashdot anthem (Christians and Republicans are evil tyrants, long live Hillary).

Re:Definition of close (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12752481)

Christians, Muslims, Republicans and Democrats are all labels for movements that have a generally evil agenda.... namely tyranny, oppression and socialism.

Show me someone who thinks the initiation of force is immoral, and I will say "long live..." about them.

But all these groups want to use violence to force people to give to "charity", follow a particular religion, even fund wars between these groups.

And that is immoral.

Unfortunately, most posters to slashdot, I think, are socialists who think capitalism is evil, and so I generally get modded down a lot.

Re:Definition of close (1)

jnaujok (804613) | more than 9 years ago | (#12759561)

Wow, the parent gets modded as flamebait, but this post gets modded up for calling anyone and everyone evil.

The republicans, who follow a generally conservative bent, are supposed to be (although with Bush it's not clear) for smaller, less-intrusive, government. Distribution of control to the local level, not the federal. Personal responsibility and unlimited opportunity. And most of all, a free and unfettered capitalist marketplace. We also believe in a strong national defense against outside forces. We believe in keeping our country safe.

On the other hand, a small group of Muslim terrorists, upset about the fact that the U.S. has become the world's policeman and happens *not* to want to see Israel wiped from the face of the Earth, has decided that the best way to strike us is to engage in cowardly, unprovoked attacks on our unarmed citizens. They would like to kill as many of them as possible, but fear a frontal confrontation because that would reveal them as a small minority that cannot maintain their power if faced with the majority. So they strike from the darkness with fervor and whatever weapons can be improvised and stolen.

If they had a weapon of mass destruction, they would use it. Immediately. On a civilian target, not a military one.

So, the conservative viewpoint is this case is simple. We cannot wait for such an attack, because our people will die. We cannot negotiate with these terrorists because, a) they're fanatical and won't negotiate with us, and b) they represent tyranical minorities who do not represent their people. This pretty much leaves four options. One - throw them into a cage that they can't get out of -- but such a thing doesn't exist, two -- give them what they want and hope they go away (the Saudi Arabian method), three -- convert to a police state to prevent anyone from sneaking in or out or doing anything bad (some people will point at the Patriot Act, but the fact those people aren't currently in "dissident prison" shows that it's not *that* all-encompassing), or four - kill the terrorists before they kill you.

In this case, we didn't initiate the violence, 19 Muslim terroists did that by hijacking 4 planes and killing 3000 people.
As for your statement that they all use violence to enforce charity, well, conservatives are against most taxation, could care less about your religion (yeah, really, we don't want you all to be bible-thumpers), and only want war as a last resort, although we won't compromise our core principles to stay out of a war (think Neville Chamberlain vs. Winston Churchill).

I will agree that the level of socialists/socialism on SlashDot is somewhat frightening, as I can't imagine a worse system of government and economy shy of the extreme socialist view (i.e. Communism or National Socialism).

Re:Definition of close (2, Insightful)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12761685)

Germany's invasion of poland was an attempt to combat terrorism. Poland was a clear and present danger to germany.

Government's always have a good excuse... but if you look at their actions you can see the truth. If Republicans wanted to protect the country from a diffuse threat like terrorism, they would support a diffuse defense, like private ownership of guns.

But they have taken the anti-gun position, with Bush calling for renewal of the AWB, etc.

After 9/11 Bush took no action to restore gun rights, but lots of action to make it harder on gun owners, and everyone else who might want to fly.

9/11 is an excuse, like the reichstag fire.

"convert or die" also a main theme of later Islam (0, Offtopic)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750031)

in the first few hundred years Christian and Muslims lived side by side. Including a flowering of culture from the followers of Allah. During the expansions of Islam the mood changed. Much of the Crusades where reactions to Muslim incursions into Europe. (see Vlad Tepes [] the basis for Dracula) It taught them a lesson about respect for other cultures. Europe had more resources and population. Islam in general has outgrown that sort of stuff with a few exceptions. But then again we still have Pat Robertson and the Beast of Lynchburg (Jerry Falwell)

as to the other allusion please read this Godwin's Law FAQ []

Re:"convert or die" also a main theme of later Isl (0, Troll)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12752426)

Godwins law? I'm amazed you deny the holocaust. Its well documented. But you must because you believe that it never happened and thus any reference to it is a reference to fiction.

But the fact is it did happen, and there are reasons it happened, and as they say "those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it".

Godwins law was meant for people who had no argument and were just calling people names. But it is invoked by those who have no counter argument-- ironically-- to call those who do names.

Re:"convert or die" also a main theme of later Isl (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12756121)

'One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in".'

As to saying I was denying the holocaust or some such drivel You must be a loon. You alluded to nazis not me. Neither do I nor does the FAQ defend them. And as far as I am concerned you invoked Godwin's law, and I see no reason to argue with an unbalanced mind. However I cannot let such an accusation go un-challenged. However will ignore you in the future.

as the author points out in;

'3. Author's Note on the Holocaust Over the years, I have received several emails regarding this FAQ regarding the Holocaust itself, either disputing the holocaust or the numbers listed in this FAQ. I'd just like to make it clear that I don't have any particular desire to debate these points; this FAQ is meant to point out and explain a quirk of human nature, not to codify the history of World War II. '

Follow the Constitution (0, Troll)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747969)

What they should have done is follow the Constitution, which means turning to the Legislature. Bringing up a challenge in court is completely unconstitutional. I would have loved to see this go to the state Supreme Court, because I bet that's exactly what they'd say. As it stands, Rossi left the door open to another court challenge in the future since nothing was really decided here.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748458)

Well, actually state law which was passed by the legislature allows for court challenge in cases like this. The state Constitution also provides for checks and balances just like at the Federal level. What they were asking for wasn't a court-appointed governor, but rather an affirmation that the results were indeed legitimate. Nothing wrong with that.

That being said, while I'm a big fan of Rossi, I think that the Republican challenge was pretty weak. When you have to rely on stats to make a decision then the choice is pretty clear - do nothing. The judge did the right thing here. He told our citizens that we'd better clean up this mess ourselves. In King County where I live, that means throwing out Dean Logan, the appointed county elections director. Since his boss doesn't think that this is necessary [] , it's time to remove Ron Sims as well.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749195)

No, they had to rely on stats because the Judge told them that was the only way they could try to make their case.

Since the ballots are secret, they can't tie the ballots to the voters. So they can't say definitively whether the manufactured and illegal votes were for gregoire or rossi.

But a little thinking will make it obvious-- in fact, the judge in his summary talked about incidence of fraud (my word) covering what I think was as many as 10,000 ballots.

Its clear from this trial that wholesale fraud occured.

The problem is, that they can't prove that the fraud was for gregoire, even though it was obvious: Every time they recounted, the king county election workers "Found" a bunch of new gregoire ballots. Often many hundreds of them at a time.

This is a stolen election. Its a small picture of the election stealing that went on nationwide to get bush into office. (Does anyone really believe that all the counties in florida voted the exact opposite of their party affiliciations? EG: %70 democratic counties went exactly %70 republican, while %70 republican counties also went %70 republican?)

Election fraud is part of the strategy. IT is flagrant, it is proven many times, and it is ignored by the mainstream media. Since both parties engage in it, neither party wants to do anything about it.

And this means our democractic "checks and balances" is no longer effective (if it ever was.)

No evidence of fraud (2, Insightful)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749565)

The Republican judge in this case found against every point the Republicans brought up for their case, including the fraud charges.

Re:No evidence of fraud (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12752393)

Not true. I listened to him read much of his ruling, and he found, as findings of fact, that ballots were added, and many other discrepencies.

He didn't call them fraud because he wasn't ruling on the intent of them--- but when more ballots are cast than there are registered voters, that's pretty clearly proof of fraud.

LIES (4, Informative)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12753936)

From the Seattle Times [] (emphasis mine):
[Judge] Bridges said there was no evidence to suggest fraud, intentional misconduct or any attempt to manipulate the election. He said election officials "attempted to perform their responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner."

While he had stern words about how King County ran the election, Bridges said that even there, Republicans failed to show any intentional wrongdoing.

"While there is evidence of irregularities, as there appears to be in every election based on the testimony of various county election officials, there is no ... clear and convincing evidence that improper conduct or irregularity procured Ms. Gregoire's election," the judge said.
Now please stop spreading your lies.

Re:TRUTH (-1, Flamebait)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755716)

How can it be unintentional when more ballots are counted than there are registered voters or people who voted?

Think for yourself.

The judge read off a litany of fraud when I heard him.. I'm surprised to hear him say something as idiotic as what you quote, but then I probably shouldn't be.

But the facts are the facts.

Where did all those extra ballots come from? And what possible way could they have been creted that wasn't fraudulent?

Try arguing the facts, rather than quoting someone else who agrees with you-- that's the fallacy of authority.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750804)

No, they had to rely on stats because the Judge told them that was the only way they could try to make their case.

Actually, the judge was very skeptical about this. He basically said "I'll let you try to convince me, but the burden of proof is very high". I think that the judge did this only because he wanted to allow the Republicans the air time to make their case. We all know what would happen if we relied on stats to determine elections.

Since both parties engage in it, neither party wants to do anything about it.

So vote for a third party candidate then.

Since the ballots are secret...

So let's get rid of the secret ballot. I guess I've never understood why this is necessary.

it is proven many times

Proven by whom? It seems to me that even this judge said that hard evidence was not available.

manufactured ... votes

You have proof of this, or do you just suspect that this was the case?

For as much as I wanted to see Dino win, we have to abide by the law. If you don't think that it's working then do something about it other than complain.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1)

zors (665805) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751402)

The ballots are secret in order to prevent voter intimidation. This way i can't be pressured in to actually voting one way or another (though i can be pressured into public support) because those who seek to intimidate me do not really know how i voted.

Re:Follow the Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12759645)

They just changed the law to allow further reductions in secret ballots replacing them with mail in ballots.

Mail in ballots are ripe for low level fraud. Surely hundreds or thousands of people scooped up thier wives, husbands, parents, childrens ballots and filled them out in this election or coerced them into voting differently than they would have otherwise. Many others filled out ballots for people incompetent to vote because they "knew how they wanted to vote", they caught a few old people who had done this for their recently dead spouses in the election contest, I'm pretty sure my grandfathers ballot found its way in for the election and that he has no idea who is running for governer.

Eh, anyway close election: result arbitrary. There were plenty of mistakes found in other counties (relative to population) and other counties weren't scrutinized nearly as closely as king. A close election now and then is good for the system though.

Sadly it seems like they aren't going to fix the most obvious problem by moving the primary forward a bit (it is only about two months before the general election, making it unnecessarily tough to print and distribute the ballots), just as they didn't fix the most obvious problem in florida (the official in charge of administring the election should not be the campaign director for any candidate on the ballot, let alone the candidate for president).

Re:Follow the Constitution (0, Troll)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12752503)

What, by the way, would you suggest I do about it besides complain? Change who I vote for?

Do you see the irony in voting to try and change the fact that the voting system is rigged?

By definition, if they are counting more ballots than there were voters, there was fraud.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755505)

What, by the way, would you suggest I do about it besides complain?

How about any or all of the following:

  • Find a candidate you like and volunteer for his/her campaign. Tell all your friends to vote for them. Campaign as hard as you can.
  • Find a candidate you like and give them money. Tell all your friends to give them money. Hold a fundraiser at your home, just like all the rich people do.
  • Volunteer to become an election monitor. Report any problems to the Elections department and to your local news media.
  • Campaign for election reform. If allowed by law, sponsor a citizen's initiative to clean up the system. (You can do that in the state of Washington.)
  • Run for elected office on a "clean up the system" platform
  • Run for elections commissioner. Once elected, fire all the staff and start fresh.
  • Become a respected news reporter, search for dirt, and print it.
  • Start a newspaper or blog. Print your accusations and back them with hard evidence.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755664)

All of those suggestions are based on the assumption that the election is conducted in a valid manner, except the last one.

As for the last one, the fraud in our election system has been printed in newspapers and blogs across the country, and has been backed up with hard evidence regularly.

I'm complaining in the hope that some people will actually wake up and stop living in the fantasy land idea of what this country is that their government sells them.

As for me, I have retirement plans in place. The US will not be getting my tax dollars for too much longer.

I'm voting in the most effective way-- with my feet.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1, Insightful)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749386)

No, Rossi didn't go through the proper channels to the Legislature because it is predominately Democrat.

He picked his court venue based on the politics of the court, which leaned Republican.

Re:Follow the Constitution (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755757)

Which is his right, by the way, underr the constitution.

The idea that the legislature is the only proper channel is false, and is not supported by the state's constitution.

If the courts didn't have authority to rule on matters of law, according to the constitution, then there would be no use for courts at all.

The constitution gives them this authority.

I've a much better idea (1)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748032)

Have all future elections run by The Amazing Race, but "accidently" lose their maps when they're on the Pitcairn Islands. No airport, no ships, Washington State might be able to get some work done for a while.

What if you get the same outcome? (1)

OldManAndTheC++ (723450) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748195)

Would you have another revote?

Another possibility is to extend the same law that many jurisdictions have for dealing with actual tie votes, that is to decide the election by chance, usually by flipping a coin. The difficulty with this approach (and in general with having a revote) is that whether you are discovering whether the threshold has been achieved or simply trying to decide a winner, the process of qualifying votes is the same. For instance, if you define it as being within 100 votes statewide, well then you still have to count votes to know if the difference is under the threshold, and then you are back to fighting over what is a valid vote, whether to count miscast provisional ballots, etc, etc.

A recount is more sensible, if it can be done in a uniform and fair manner, which unfortunately did not seem to be the case in Washington. If the laws were more clear about how what types of votes were valid, a recount could be performed at a much lower cost than holding a new election.

Vote again and again (1)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748754)

In standard parliamentary procedure (in other words, how group of people agree to thigns), if you don't have a majority behind a candidate you vote again until you do. Robert's Rules sets the standard pretty high by default - not a plurality, but a majority. It isn't fair to have the group ruled by a candidate that actually represents a minority of the group.

What this means is that in order to win, one of the candidates will have to do something to gain the support of people who wouldn't normally support him. If they can't do this, then they obviously can't lead the entire group.

A "Dark Horse" candidate is a third party candidate that represents the smallest minority of three. However, sometimes the group may compromise by elected the Dark Horse rather than one of the two leading candidates in the event none of them can get the support they need. In the Washington election, that would be the equivalent of a large group of republicans and democrats backing Ruth Bennet, the libertarian candidate, because it is a good compromise and will probably represent all three groups better than any of the other candidates could.

If they can't decide on a candidate, and a majority can't be united behind one, then the position remains empty. In this case, that would be the equivalent of having the Lt. Governor step up and become governor until one can be chosen. This isn't a bad alternative because the Lt. Governor actually won a majority and is supported by both Democrats and Republicans. (He's a Lieberman-type democrat.)

If you think carefully, this is actually a good way to handle it. Rather than have a controversial and divisive leader, have one that is less controversial and more uniting.

Re:Vote again and again (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755751)

Yes, that is a superior solution.

And you recognize one of the inherent problems with democracy-- by definition, the minority is not represented.

Some would argue that even if that minority is %1, the majority doesn't have a right to initiate force against it... or put another way, that a just country would have a very limited government such that you wouldn't have the "tyranny of the majority".

Looking at the last two presidents we've had in office, its clear that we have tyranny of the majority here.

I say politicians should be replaced with proxies-- real representatives.

IF you show up in congress, and your constituants are %70 opposed to a given bill, then your vote is split 70/30. And if someone no longer represents your positions, you should be able to change your proxy at any time--- no need for elections. Let the members be anyone who has proxy documents for %1 of the population or more.

Do it electronically, so that if the bum violates his mandate, he can be thrown out as people shift their allegience to other politicans.

I don't care if this makes the life of a politican more difficult-- it should be-- they are wasting our lives by extracting our lives out in the form of taxes to spend for thier pet projects, often at our own detriment.

They should be held accountable.

Thus, democracy-- any election-- is a violation of the minorities rights, if the elected person does something they disagree with.

Otherwise, its "Three wolves and a sheep voting to see what to have for dinner".

Re:What if you get the same outcome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750800)

Would you have another revote?
Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748805)

In races this close, call it a statistical tie, and run a revote.
1) revotes cost lots of money.
2) unless the relevant law has this an an option, this is not an option. I realize that this sounds redundant, but it's true and important to keep in mind.

Ultimately, when a vote is this close, half the people want whatever makes candidate A win, and half want whatever makes candidate B win. They don't seem to care how this win happens, they just want the win. So invariably the losing candidate will push for a revote, recount, disqualifying votes -- anything that has a non-negligable change of making them the winner. And once they're the winner, they push for everything to stay the same.

We've seen this happen time and time again when the elections are close, with both parties being on both sides of the argument, often even switching sides in the middle (as happened here.)

When things are this close, the only absolute is the law that governs the entire election. If it doesn't allow a recount, there's no way you can have a recount, unless a large majority agrees, and if a large majority agreed, there'd be no need for a recount.

Ultimately, if we want get rid of all the fraud and inaccuracies that keep showing up in voting, we need to get rid of the anonymous vote. If there is a record of who voted how somewhere, then individual voters could somehow verify that their vote was counted correctly and not altered, and the election officials could correctly disqualify votes later that are found to not be valid.

I realize that we are not likely to give up anonymous voting any time soon, but it would be the best way to fix the problem. Vote counting would become sort of like accounting, easy to audit, even down to the exact vote. etc. We could have exact, accurate figures. But it's not likely to ever happen, as there's always going to be a side, with approximately 50% of the vote, pushing for the status quo ...

Short of non anonymous voting, electronic voting needs to at least have a paper trail, one that cannot be easily altered, and can be easily inspected by the voter to make sure that his vote was counted correctly before being put into the locked box ...

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

oldosadmin (759103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749080)

2) unless the relevant law has this an an option, this is not an option. I realize that this sounds redundant, but it's true and important to keep in mind.

That's what I meant. Make a law.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750311)

They did, two revotes and they came to a conclusion. And the judge said that's it! Game over. Go Home! That was the law, the other law was the legislature could toss it out, but being as their Democratic controlled Rossi would never get a shot. They were holding on mostly because the Senate elections are coming up and Rossi might have had a shot if they had a good case for fraud. They don't and now he's damaged goods. If he had pulled out a bout a month or so ago he might be in a strong position to run for senate, now he's branded a whiner.

actually recounts, not revotes (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750453)

mia culpa.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751337)

That's what I meant. Make a law.
Adding in possible revotes to the law is not a solution either. Why?

Easy. Right now, people start freaking out and whomever is on the losing end starts crying shenanigans whenever the vote is like 50.5%/49.5% or so. (Ok, the exact cutoff point may not be quite right, but it's a gradual process -- the closer it is, the more the losing side screams that it's wrong and the more the winning side screams that it's right.)

Adding a recount if the vote is too close merely shifts the possiblities for these fiascos. Suppose the law says that there will be (it must be absolute -- it can't be a maybe thing) a revote if the vote is within 0.5%. Fine. Suppose it turns out to be within 0.51%. The losing side will be saying `it's too close to requiring a revote! Recount! Recount!' until they get their revote. The winning side will be saying `no! it's not close enough! No revote! And besides, we won!' (Which they did.)

And why would you do a revote anyways? The only valid reason for a revote that I can see is if 1) proven vote fraud, fraud that actually affected the results of the election, and fraud that can be eliminated if we can vote again, and 2) an exact tie (i.e. everybody got exactly the same number of votes.) If neither of those conditions are true, then somebody has won by getting more votes than the other guy, and why should he be denied his victory just because it's close?

If a basketball game is 112-111, do they play the game over just because it's close? No. Do they put an asterix next to the winner's name because they barely won? No. (Of course, the score on a professional ball game can be carefully audited ...)

Dupe. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12747565)


..outlaws (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747660)

when accountable voting is outlawed, only outlaws will be able to vote accountable.. or something.

Who Votes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12747710)

Which party do felons and dead people vote for? The party of criminals and the culture of death.

Re:Who Votes (0, Troll)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749360)

Yeah, I think they vote republican too. But that's the national level where we have a mass murderer in office who's flagrantly violating the constitution.

On the local level, its not clear that they voted for Rossi.

For sure all those fabricated ballots in king county were for gregoire, so that goes to show you that democrats can be just as criminal as republicans.

Re:Who Votes (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12753942)

I love how my comment is moderated as a troll, but the parent, which really IS a troll, isn't.

So What? (3, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747719)

GW Bush won his office through some questionable means. Not once, but twice. Every single instance of an election problem worked out in Bush's favor. When a voting machine screwed up, it was inevitably adding votes to Bush, or counting Kerry votes as votes for someone else. Right now in Ohio, there's a big scandal where money meant for investment wound up in the pockets of Republican campaigns.

I predict that some people will try to mod me down to suppress the truth, but they will fail.

More information: [] m []

Re:So What? (1, Offtopic)

snorklewacker (836663) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747802)

I predict that some people will try to mod me down to suppress the truth, but they will fail.

Then repost it, but for gods sakes, do any of the rest of us give a rat's turd about your fucking persecution complex? I may even agree with some of your points, but if I had mod points, I'd still stuff your whiny ass into the earth's fucking core.

This goes for all the "I'll probably get modded down for this" fucknuts out there as well.

Re:So What? (-1, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747864)

There you go folks, If conservatives could kill you, they would.

Re:So What? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12748053)

Actually I think the best you can pull out of that quote would be... "If conservatives could kill *him*, they would", but even that would be stretching it.

What counts as justifyable homicide these days? Perhaps killing slashdot trolls should count.

Re:So What? (-1, Offtopic)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748470)

It wasn't a troll, but was related to the article. The Republican accuses Democrat of stealing the Washington governor election, but there's far more evidence that someone meddled in the election on behalf of GW Bush.

Pull your head out of the sand and quit modding me as a troll. If I were a troll I'd post goatse or something. This is serious.

Re:So What? (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748907)

The Republican accuses Democrat of stealing the Washington governor election, but there's far more evidence that someone meddled in the election on behalf of GW Bush.

So why didn't you start out with this line instead? Or better yet, leave off the "GW Bush" and just say "meddled in our presidential elections" and then provide some proof to go along with your accusations. A sure way to get modded a troll is to bring up President Bush. You might not like him, but get over it. The 2008 election is well under way, and you're pissing and moaning about something that happened five years ago? And by the way, if you think that the system is so broken, what have *you* personally done to fix it? Griping on /. doesn't count.

I'll give you this much - at least you're willing to identify yourself. I'm getting tired of all the Anonymous Coward /. posts. There's too much guerilla warfare happening around here, especially when it comes to politics. Everyone should be required to log in, and the number of anonymous posts should be strictly limited.

Re:So What? (1)

Kevin Burtch (13372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749022)

Um... the e-voting scandal was less than a 1/2 year ago.

Watch the video - []

Re:So What? (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750011)

E-voting scandal? There's an e-voting scandal? That's news to me. I haven't seen it on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, or

Give me a break. Anytime anybody uses the term "gate" in something political like VoterGate, it's meant to invoke memories of Watergate. The sad fact is that Watergate was truly an American tragedy. Richard Nixon was a sitting President who abused the power of his office to win an election. He was an amazing individual who let the power go to his head and destroyed an otherwise great career.

VoterGate is nonsense, although I really like their "Take Action [] " section minus the paper ballot comment and the link to There's a lot of really useful stuff there. Perhaps if you took the time to observe an election then you'd feel better about its outcome. Better yet, lobby to get rid of the secret election so that people can directly challenge the results if they find that their vote was incorrectly counted.

Re:So What? (1)

Kevin Burtch (13372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12753448)

I was going to reply with references to articles from major publications (like the New York Times) on things like some counties with 50,000 more votes than residents, Pittsburgh receiving voting machines that each had hundreds of votes preloaded, a massive lawsuit in Ohio over the handling of the election, lawsuits in California against Diebold for supplying voting machines with software that was different from the approved version, voting machines that would change votes when you hit the submit button (during public testing immediately before the election), the announcement that the CEO of Diebold made before the election that he was going to ensure Bush won, the fact that the CEOs of Diebold and it's main competitor (the other major supplier of voting machines during the election) are brothers, etc.

But then I realized you are either a troll or have a big "W" sticker on the back of your full-size 7MPG SUV - either way it's a waste of time.

If you really believe that the useless "news" sources that you mentioned would publicize something like this instead of Janet's breast or her brother's perversion, you really need to read [] for a while and learn where the money comes from, and where it goes.

I suppose you also think that Bush supports our troops, eh?
That's why they have to armor their vehicles with scrap metal they scavenge and steal, and their family members have to buy army/navy surplus flac-jackets for 'em, and why their pay AND their family's benefits got cut so horribly, etc.
Where's the news publication of that?

Where's the news publication of Bush giving a $90 Billion tax break to the super-rich?
Oh, sorry... this time around it's another $109 Billion (that's a "B", not an "M").

The media you mentioned is beyond useless for anything of this sort... especially - WTF?

Keep your head in the sand... it'll never effect YOU... really.

Re:So What? (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12755601)

But then I realized you are either a troll or have a big "W" sticker on the back of your full-size 7MPG SUV

Actually, it's a "Support our Troops" sticker on the back of my full-size, 7MPG Dodge Pickup truck. I also watch NASCAR and defend the right to bear arms.

... especially - WTF?

You obviously have NO sense of humor

I suppose you also think that Bush supports our troops, eh? ... Where's the news publication of that?

I think that it was buried somewhere underneath the story of local mothers showing up at military recruiting centers saying "Not my kid" when the recruiters are just trying to do their job.

I find it interesting that you try to paint anyone who doesn't buy into your view of the world as being a troll. But that just ain't the case in most circumstances. Yes, I like George Bush (x2), but I also have a measure of admiration for Bill Clinton. He certainly had more fiscal discipline that either of the Bushes. I really liked Jimmy Carter, even though his policies promoted high levels of inflation. (To his defense, he inherited some of this from Nixon/Ford.) What made Carter a great President wasn't his policies, but rather his ability to stand up for what he thought was right regardless of the pressure. I have to respect a man who follows his heart and not the latest poll numbers.

I'd encourage you to think of one thing that you like about our current President. And not some backhanded comment like "He doesn't clip his toenails in public". Make it something substantive. If you can't think of a single thing that you like about him then I'd suggest that you're not looking at the situation realistically. If you can then maybe you can find some common ground on which to build an open dialog.

Re:So What? (1)

Kevin Burtch (13372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12758389)

That's a tough one... really.

Let's see:
- He signs any bill that comes before him, especially if it stomps on the Bill of Rights (or any part of the Constitution, for that matter) and benefits huge corporations
- He is the first president in our history to START a war and invade another country... a war that's undefined so there can be no "win" or "lose" or even "end"
- He supports the super-rich at the expense of the entire remaining population (3 TIMES the money spent on the "war on terror" was given to the super-rich the first time, this time it's $109B, $19B more)
- He supports corporate conglomerates above all else
- He took the first government surplus we've seen in many decades and, in a single term, turned it into the biggest deficit we've ever seen
- He has driven the US Dollar into the ground, our exchange rate is horrid now
- He uses religion as a weapon, and chastises those of other religions who do the same, labeling anyone who doesn't follow his exact sect as "evil" (hint: freedom of religion means ANY religion)
- His policies have made our great country into something the entire world despises (thankfully, many understand that it's our current administration, and not all of us)
- He has absolutely no respect whatsoever of the American people (I'm sure you've seen the video clip where he flips-off the camera and says "that's my one-finger victory salute")
- He manipulates his conferences (by extreme screening of all attendants) to the point where they're nothing more than an ass-kissing session, downright humiliating to our official values (have you seen the video where someone asked a question that wasn't approved, and was arrested? This is when he was only a Governor!)
- He speaks with a cheesey western accent when he was born and raised in new-england (just to be seen as a good-ole-boy)... haven't you ever noticed he's the only one in his family that sounds like that?
- He has ruined every business venture he has started, even with his daddy's funding (how can someone incapable of running a business run a country?)

Sorry, but maybe you can help me out here - just what is it that you find likable about him?
Maybe the fact that he knows how to get away with military desertion? (I have no respect for that)

As far as Clinton goes... he did a few things I despised, like giving Groom Lake total exemption to EPA regulations, the fiasco with the powerplants in California (created by emissions loopholes), etc.
Having said that - in general, I believe Clinton was probably the best president we've had in my lifetime. He eliminated the deficit, our foreign relations were phenomenal, our economy was the best I've ever seen, etc.

It's amazing how quickly and how drastically two presidents can change our country. One for far better, one for (by far) the worst

By the way, even NPR has talked about how we are heading into an irreversible aristocracy, and how we have the biggest separation of classes that we've had since immediately before the great depression. When less than 0.1% of the nation holds the vast majority of the money (what was the number? 70%? 80%?), it becomes entirely unsustainable.

Also look at Europe... they are working towards a common constitution. Once they sign this, we will no longer be the military or finanical superpower of the world, we will be a distant second in both.
Do you really think that pissing off the entire world is a good idea under these circumstances?

Speaking of Europe, notice we have almost no tourism here from Europe recently? With the exchange rate as bad (for us) as it is, vacationing here is an absolute bargain! They're avoiding us as the thought of coming here turns their stomaches! This is a very sad state for us to be in.

Re:So What? (1)

Kevin Burtch (13372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748993)

No kidding.

If, for some unknown reason, anyone thinks anything he said was made up, watch this video that includes a grandmother verbally walking a congresscritter through "hacking the vote database": []

It's pretty shocking just how easy it is, due to the total lack of authentication or encryption.

Irresponsible at a minimum, criminal neglect more likely.

Re:So What? (0, Offtopic)

snorklewacker (836663) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749764)

> Pull your head out of the sand and quit modding me as a troll.

I don't actually care about your content. I actually agree with some of it. I just want you to cease your fucking whining about moderation. How hard is that to understand?

I'm just making you an example. You're hardly the only one this is addressed to.

The importance of Slashdot (3, Insightful)

waynegoode (758645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747784)

I sure am glad that SlashDot covers these important technological issues because we sure won't be able to read about this story in the mainstream press.

No Kidding (-1, Offtopic)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747998)

Since when does the governor's race in Washington have anything to do with technology?

Elections and Technology (1)

anonymous lion (874105) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748151)

Re:Elections and Technology (2, Informative)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749247)

You need to read the news. The largest problems were supposedly with absentee ballots, which don't use those electronic voting systems.

Re:Elections and Technology (1)

anonymous lion (874105) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750227)

While this particular case revolved around non-technical issues, in general the issues involved in close elections, regardless of your operational definition of 'close election', are effected by the technical; and the technical effects how close elections are dealt with. Ultimately the laws and court rulings in this case and others like it, may effect or be effected by technology. Thus, this is Slashdot related.

Re:Elections and Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750341)

Affected. Dammit.

BS (1)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750548)

Your original point was that this was a voting machine issue, when clearly it was not.

Just give up now. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

C'mon... (2, Funny)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747793)

You got the white house, give us one governor in one state.

What ever happened making every vote count? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12747922)

Sure. Whatever the hell you want. There's actually evidence of vote fraud in King county. Just because more people voted than registered voters who actually fucking live there, I guess that's OK because you don't like Bush.

BTW, Sir Democrat. Don't ever count on winning Washington again in your lifetime. You have just created a deep red state.

Your point? (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748501)

Actually, that happened in many States, including Republical ones. Wasn't it Ohio that, in several districts, voting machines started with non-zero votes in favour of the Republicans?

This doesn't justify the errors in Washington, but it doesn't justify villifying one side either. Just about everyone cheated, somewhere.

I believe that it is vital, if democracy is to have any meaning, to work on developing a system that is provably reliable. It is possible to create essentially tamper-proof cryptographic signatures. If you add votes via a version control system of some kind, then sign every "version", you can "prove" the stream has not been modified since being created.

The vote would be in the form of a written-out XML file, so that it was absolutely clear as to what a vote was. Signatures would be in the form of an RSA public-key signature, where the signer was the voting machine, not the voter.

The first "signature" would cover the first vote. The second would cover both the first and second votes plus the first signature, etc.

This would prevent tampering, but it would also prevent database corruption as votes could only be added via the intended interface, as the signature entry would not be present.

There are other methods. I've suggested before that you could have "anonymous" encryption - unassociated private keys, with the voter using a public key they were provided with as their "voter registration card". That way, the vote would still be anonymous, but as only valid decryption keys would be used, only valid encryption keys could be used to generate the vote and provably only used once.

Indeed, you wouldn't even need high-tech voting. Anti-counterfeit measures used on currency would work just as well on ballot papers. Voting stations would then need to account for every ballot paper (unused, discarded, vote) going through them. It would make it considerably harder to add votes prior to the election, or for anyone to swipe a ballot box in transit and change the contents.

In the first two cases, system errors would not add valid information and therefore not produce fake votes, and the requirements to perpetrate electoral fraud (by a voter, candidate or party) would be raised sufficiently high to put it beyond the reach of the usual suspects.

In the third case, the bar would be lower than with the high-tech solutions, but definitely raised from where it is now. The idea is not to make fraud impossible, but to put it beyond the reach of "opportunists" and outside the realm of "accidents". There will always be people who try to beat any system, but you can reduce the number of people who have the skill to succeed from a few hundred million to a few hundred.

In other words, we don't need faulty systems in this day and age. Faulty systems are a choice, not a necessity, and I personally regard them as a remarkably stupid choice.

Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748636)

Don't ever count on winning Washington again in your lifetime. You have just created a deep red state.

Ok, I'm conservative and live near Seattle, and even I don't believe this bullshit. There are a lot of pissed off people here for sure, but this one case isn't going to change people's perceptions all that much.

I'm just happy to see the Democrats now running amok and raising taxes and pushing an agenda where getting a Botox injection is treated something like a crime. I have at least some measure of faith that while the people of our great state are left-leaning, they have a lot more common sense than to buy into this agenda. There have been huge anti-tax movements in this state, which has impacted nearly every liberal agenda item, both social and economic. The Democrats have more to fear from the initiative to repeal their centerpiece gas tax than they do from the judge's decision yesterday.

Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (1)

VultureMN (116540) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749053)

"I'm just happy to see the Democrats now running amok and raising taxes ... "

Yeah, because actually PAYING for infrastructure improvements (the viaduct, light rail, the monorail, the 520 bridge, etc) through taxes is liberal hogwash. Everyone knows the real way to do things: Just borrow the money and let your grandkids pay! BushCo has shown us the way.

If conservatives want to have low taxes, they need to start actually picking specific gov't services to cut, instead of just bellyaching about generalities. When you start talking about specific, real things to cut, people balk and don't want to do it. Until you can convince people to accept cuts in services, stop bitching about taxes.

"pushing an agenda where getting a Botox injection is treated something like a crime. "

What the hell does this mean? (I've been out of town for a couple of weeks, and may have missed a news item.)

Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749150)

If conservatives want to have low taxes, they need to start actually picking specific gov't services to cut, instead of just bellyaching about generalities.

Ok, lets start with the "Housing and Urban Development" program that gives individuals over $20k a year in housing vouchers. All they have to do is get to the top of a list to recieve it and not make more than x ammount of (reported) money a year. Followed up by slowly getting the feds out of health care (so the prices will finally come down). Say, increase the minimum age of medicare/medicaid by 1 year every few years for the next couple decades.

When you start talking about specific, real things to cut, people balk and don't want to do it. Until you can convince people to accept cuts in services, stop bitching about taxes.

Problem is more on the lines of who balks at what. What I balk at is probably different than what you balk at. Hence we could rarely (if ever) come to an agreement.

Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749325)

That's a good point-- both Repbulcians and Democrats have shown themselves to be irresponsible with money, and the only real difference is how they choose to damage the economy to do it.

That's why you should vote for another party! Oh, wait, it seems the republicans and democrats have made running a third party campaing effectively illegal with their "Election reform" laws.

No big surprise there.

Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750617)

Botox - What the hell does this mean?

Botox is now being taxed with a "sin tax" in the same way that cigarettes and liquor are. Last I knew, Tacoma was still trying to outlaw smoking in public establishments, as though it were a crime to smoke. (For the record, I stopped smoking 20 years ago and I hate it. But I don't have a "right" to go into a smoke-free bar. If they want my business then they have to provide me with a smoke-free environment.)

they need to start actually picking specific gov't services to cut, instead of just bellyaching about generalities.

I'm all over user fees. Want to drive on a new road then pay a toll. What sold me on the $30 tabs was that much of my car tab money was being diverted to other purposes, like public transportation and police/fire services. If you want the stuff then pay for it directly. I'd gladly pay $5/trip to get into and out of Seattle if I didn't have to sit in rush hour traffic.

Just borrow the money and let your grandkids pay! BushCo has shown us the way.

I totally agree. Being a conservative, I just don't understand this whole deficit spending logic of the current administration. But I hope you'll agree with me that the same holds true for the Social Security Trust Fund. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750443)

If it's filled with assholes like you, it can drop off into the fucking ocean for all I care. And I hope you get the government you deserve.

Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12758227)

Wow, lots of firetossing here. I'll just reply to the first of many.

Dude, it was a joke.

Election errors and trusting the system (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747848)

In sports, each coach has his own system. Sometimes they're really well crafted, honed over years of experience, and work really well. Sometimes they're stupid. However, even a crappy system can result in victory if the players all play within it.

A business works the same way, usually. A crappy boss can ruin efficiency, but a boss in business is really one of the players. Adherence to the system is the surest path to success, since only by adhering to it can you tell if it's working.

And so it is with democratic republics. The election may have various kinds of errors, but generally half the errors will be for each candidate. For that matter, the voters can be "wrong", but since it's an election the voters are not wrong, by definition.

Ask for a recount, accept the results and go back to chasing ambulances.

why not vote like we do in Canada (1)

linuxbert (78156) | more than 9 years ago | (#12747918)

we have a small paper card, the candidates name is listed, with a circle next to it. (the name and circle are plane paper and surounded by black ink. each option is divided by a white line)
you vote by writeing a large x in the circle of the candidate you choose and place it in the ballet box. a ballet with any other marks on it except an x (yes it has to be an X)is considered spoiled. it is idiot proof to vote, and intenions are very clear.

btw, municipal elections had electronic voteing. the balet worked the same way, but was fed through a reader, face down, and into the ballet box. paper trail, and instant count.

Re:why not vote like we do in Canada (1)

sprzepiora (160561) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748106)

This was not the case in this election. It was the simple fact that ~1300 votes were illegal in one way or another. This is a fact found by the judge. The problem is you do not know in which column those votes went.

Re:why not vote like we do in Canada (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750180)

I'm going to post now to head off the "OMG the USA has eleventy billion people" trolls.

I had the pleasure of being a volunteer for the recount in Ohio this past presidental election. A hand recount of 3% of the vote in each county was done. It was slow, boring, and incredibly accurate. If you live in an urban area, have 20 or 30 bi-partisan (preferably non-partisan, but that is a different discussion) teams doing recounts. It scales quite well.

It will probably take a few days to get exact results. Exit polls will serve as a check as well as an early indicator of which races you may want to watch (CNN didn't have to wait for any results to call Indiana or Kentucky for Bush).

Re:why not vote like we do in Canada (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 9 years ago | (#12756252)

a ballet with any other marks on it except an x (yes it has to be an X)is considered spoiled. it is idiot proof to vote, and intenions are very clear.

Yah, and in Florida in 2000, the punchcard ballots they used were idiot-proof and very clear (punch the chad out completely, punch only one). Yet, we had people complaining, and insisting that partially punched chads should count, and that cards with two chads should be counted (as long as one was for Gore, of course).

Make something idiot-proof, and the Universe will compensate with a better grade of idiot.

Shoddy Vote Counting (2, Interesting)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 9 years ago | (#12748542)

I am shocked that the results of an election can change so much between recounts. Here we are in the information/computer age, and a swing of several hundred among 2.9 million in a simple count is unacceptable. Where else is that sort of margin of error acceptable?

Why can't we develop a more accurate system for counting votes? With our current resources, the court contest in Washington should have been a moot point: we should have known the exact vote totals without room for doubt.

Re:Shoddy Vote Counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12749048)

Where else is that sort of margin of error acceptable?

The main stream media:
Which relied on exit polling data to predict a landslide Kerry victory early on.

With glee mind you

Margin of Error (1)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12749656)

Computer age or not, you're dealing with human processes, which can never be absolutely perfect. Even if the vote was 99.9% accurate, that still leaves 2,900 votes that may be wrongly counted.

Usually, this is no big deal since most of the time elections involve a blowout that does not end so close. This only became a problem because we're in that 0.1% margin of error.

Re:Shoddy Vote Counting (1)

Bubster (890247) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750778)

Why did the results change so much between recounts? Lots of hanky-panky. Votes were "found" in unlocked rooms, tucked into cabinets that housed the vote machines, etc...

The problems with the count were:

1) people expected a deterministic outcome.
2) the rules weren't unambiguious.
3) the rules weren't followed.

While my guy (Rossi) didn't win, I don't blame the judge and I really don't blame the winner (Gregoire). I blame the voting officials statewide.

I think that the goodwill that Rossi generated (and among the general polity it is good will) is going to be boosted by the fact that he is not pushing this to the WA Supreme court. I can only hope that he channels that good will into a groundswell of change in the Washington voting plrocess.

How to prevent this in the future (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751965)

It will take several things:

Valid voter verification:
Voter registration will have to have some kind of at-the-poll-verifiable biometric data. For example, to get a voter registration card, you will have to present either a picture ID, a fingerprint, or something else that you can bring with you to the polls. When you vote, your photo-id or fingerprint or whatever will be matched up to your voter-registration records, if they don't match, you get to vote provisionally. Anyone registering late or on election day will vote provisionally. If they could possibly swing the outcome of any race, provisional ballots will be verified at the least possible inconvenience to the voter, but in some cases, visiting the voter will be necessary. If all elections are certain before provisional ballots are cast, or the election is decided during such counting, the remaining ballots would remain uncounted but recorded as part of the voter turnout. Yup, your vote might not count.*

Valid Vote Verification
Electronic ballots must, of course, provide a human-readable printout that the voter can inspect. Paper ballots must be scanned at the time of voting and unreadable ballots rejected so the voter can redo the ballot. Valid ballots should also generate a human-readable printout the voter can inspect, in case of errors with the vote-counting machine.

*In states where the actual number or percentage of voters voting for losing candidates actually matters, all votes must be counted. For example, if a state says your Presidential Candidate must get 4% of the vote to get automatic ballot access, then all provisional ballots in that state must be counted until it is certain he does or does not have 4%.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?