Unbelievable, WA is now the first dictatorship in the US

Here (apparently) the Courts refused to get involved, claiming it's the Peoples' fault for not electing better legislators.
Click to expand...
Not quite Rich.

The liberal extremist Washington State Supreme Court was happy to get involved. When they were asked to allow the Democrats to count "found" anonymous ballots that were "found" in Democrat controlled counties after it was found that Rossi had won - despite tens of thousands of registered (to vote) illegal aliens, several dead people who voted several months after they were buried (and several months before their absentee ballots were mailed to them), and at least a couple thousand felons voting - the W.S.S.C. was delighted to ensure that the anonymous voters who cast the "found" ballots would not be disenfranchised.

Judge Bridges pretty clearly outlined why existing state statutes and case law do not allow for the election to be overturned without clear and compelling evidence that the fraudulent votes would have changed the outcome. Unless someone came forward to explain from whence the "ballots of mystery" came, then there is no way to know who cast them, for whom they were cast, etc... well, unless we do the math of course, and note that until the "ballots of mystery" were counted, Rossi had won twice. But of course in a Democrat state the best 1 out of 3 wins. There's that math thing again...

It was the Washington State Supreme Court that allowed the "ballots of mystery" to be counted. If they are going to aid and abet the Democrat county's election officials, and they are his bosses, there is nothing he can do about it. In all fairness I think he made a fair attempt in his preamble to say quite plainly that the people have elected the folks responsible for this football bat type fiasco. If said people don't "get it"... (sigh) Well, what can I say?
 
By giving official sanction to outright fraud the trial court dealt a major blow to demcracy. Let's hope the appellate court can clean this up. No one should be able to prevail with unclean hands.

Best wishes to our friends in WA. Time for electoral reform, in spades.
 
no doubt the election reform that is being demanded here today will involve rfid, biometrics, central databases, and our new 'national id' cards.

problem - reaction - solution

Rich,
when the dems win, the gop cries foul, and vice-versa. what gives? while everyone is so busy blaming all of societies ills on the dems or repubs, both dems and repubs are dismantling our consitutional freedoms piecemeal, not to even be noticed until they are entirely gone.

we have created a two headed monster, while the heads 'fight' and draw our attention, the body tramples all underfoot.
 
Lets hope for the citizens of Washington to get some election reform going. Or a recall. Or something to show their displeasure.
 
There's not going to be an appeal, thank goodness.

The judge was closer to right than anyone else who has said a word.

There was no evidence of fraud, on the part of any election official.

There were fradualent votes, but there was no fraud on the part of the officials.

I am SO glad this is over...
 
It's just as "right" as any other election.

It's the best we have. You can't count the results of ANY election more than once, and come up with the same number.

The people doing the counting didn't commit fraud.

That's as good as it gets.

The only difference here was that it was very close.

Her term will end, just like President Bush's term will end.

It's time to move on. We have a Governor, have had, ever since January.
 
So then, if these electric voting companies built in a function that gave a certain canidate a vote when another canidate was voted for, since no officals were involved, you would consider that a valid election? I am failing to follow your logic on how you could consider a vote legitiment if there were admitted illegal votes cast.

And how could discovering boxes of ballots after two counts not involve officals?
 
Rossi WON the machine counts.

He lost the HAND count.

Perhaps if you read the stories on the election, the trial and the decision, you would have more information.

Then you could theorize about where the black helicopters actually were, rather than where you assumed they'd be.

You'd still be restricted to what the media knows, but that's more than you have now.

Ayez un beau jour.
 
Hand counts have always been inaccurate.. Jammer, your sounding more like a ranter than anyone who's actually given it some thought.
 
So, if they felt it was appropriate to recount a machine count, and then recount that recount, why not recount the third count, after the winner changed.

When you are doing something like this, you don't do it until you get the results you want. You do it until you get the results to stay the same for a few times.

Also, humans are much more prone to errors than machines.
 
Now we're going in circles.

If the machines say Governor Gregoire won, it's because the machines were programmed fraudulently, and if the hand-count says she won, it's because hand-counts aren't accurate.

So the only way it's okay is if Rossi won.

You guys are worse than the Democrats.

At least they were able to demonstrate their case in court.

There is no way to EVER count any election twice, and come up with the same number, by machine or by hand.

When you understand why, I'll be here.
 
Jammer, I'd REALLY like you to explain that one. If you can't come up with the same number a couple times (r at least a VERY similar number), then doesn't that suggest that something's rotten in Denmark? Especially when the margin is less than 200 votes, but there are supposedly 1600 fraudulent votes?
 
My logic is, is that if they couldn't trust the machines for two counts, why only do one hand count? Especially considering the fact that the election results changed when going from machine counting to hand counting. I would have said that at least one more hand count was in order, and if she won that, it'd be a bit more legit. Probably not, though, since the hand count involved ballots that wern't counted in the machine count.

Count one, Rossi wins by small margain. Auto recount is triggered.
Count two, Rossi ahead, but by smaller margain. Hand recount is called for.
Box of ballots found, court allows them to be counted.
Count three, Gerogine wins. No recount, end of line, despite the fact that there are ten times the admitted fradulent votes as the winning margain.

Why wasn't there a fourth recount, to verify that she won? Especialy considering that more ballots were added for the hand count, that wern't counted in the machine count.

In anything, you don't just count twice, get the same result, do it once more, get a different result, and stick with that. That is bad.

At very least, one more count should have been taken to ensure that she was the winner. If it were me doing it, I'd have recounted until someone won three times in a row. Just because that is what I do when I am counting something, and the results don't add up all the time.

And I don't care that it was the Democrat that won. It was the fact that both sides are making a mockery out of this. Had their spots been reversed, I'd be saying the same thing. You don't get the same result twice, then another one the third time and go with the third result. The only people that do that are the ones trying to make the third choice win.
 
My logic is, is that if they couldn't trust the machines for two counts, why only do one hand count?
Click to expand...
Because logic has nothing to do with it, at least from the Democrat point of view. Their argument from the beginning was that they couldn't possibly have lost. When the first count margin triggered a recount they became aware that the second machine count was trending toward a second loss. That's when they ran to the WA Supreme Court to say that they had "found" additional ballots. More ballots than there were registered voters who appeared at the polls.

The state Supreme Court said that the Democrats could go forward with counting the "found" ballots, and still the machine recount showed a trend toward a Democrat loss.

Then the Democrats employed the same argument of "under-votes" that the Democrat party invoked in the 2000 Presidential election. They claimed that the impartial machines were unable to - in all fairness - discern what the voter(s) really intended when they filled out their ballots. They argued that the only objective way to count the ballots would be to have elections workers (the same elections workers who spend the rest of the year registering illegal aliens, transients and felons to vote) interpret the wishes of the voter(s) and then enhance new ballots that would replace the old "unreadable" (by machines at least) ballots. And still the Democrats lost.

Fortunately for the Democrats they had forseen the potential for this many years before. As I said earlier, and as the judge noted in his decision, WA law provides for election rules, policies, and procedures that many people would find wanting. The final say in an election in this state is determined by the least accurate method of vote counting possible. Hand counts. The one type of counting most fraught with human error, and most susceptible to fraud.

The similarities between the 2000 Florida fiasco and this fiasco are many. In both cases the Democrats claimed that despite the fact there are clear rules about: who may vote, what they must do in order to vote, how they must complete their ballot, what deadlines the elections workers must meet, etc. ad nauseam ad infinitum... that in essence, the rules do not matter.

And so the Democrats were allowed to "find" extra ballots on over eleven occasions; they were allowed to "enhance" ballots (we don't have dingleberry chads, or knocked-up chads in WA, we have little bubbles that must be filled in with ink), and finally to hand count the ballots until the elections workers finally came up with enough votes to win.

The Florida Democrats wanted to do the same, but SCOTUS got involved (because a Federal election was what was being contested) and told the elections officials in Florida that they must conform to Florida elections statutes rather than simply count however many times necessary to "find" the requisite ballots to win.

The final appellate authority in this case is the Washington State Supreme Court (no federal election is being contested here) the very court that approved the "found" and "enhanced" ballots that were unable to produce the (Democrat) desired result until they were "hand" counted.
It was the fact that both sides are making a mockery out of this.
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to know why you think that. It makes zero sense to me.
 
Eh, those words don't exactly make sense to me either. I can't say what I as thinking when I wrote them. Probably meant more of something like both sides are doing a pretty good job of showing that the system is screwed up. The Dems, in the fact that they can get away with counting illegal votes, and the Reps, in the fact that they are pretty much powerless to do anything.
 
Reason that is, is that everyone is afraid of the big bad DNC, oh no! We might offend someone by standing up for whats right! *gasp*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top