Officials are saying no positive evidence of fraud has been discovered in our recent gubernatorial election, yet they do allude to many mistakes. One wonders how to define the counting of a ballot with no arrows filled in, just a handwritten notation saying “Christine Rossi,” as a vote for Christine Gregoire. This event was documented on a local radio talk show and validated by an election official who called in (she referred to it as ballot No. 82). It’s doubtful such conduct would pass a Jimmy Carter smell test.
How many more votes were interpreted by a single county’s canvassing board? I also find it interesting how King County waited until last, after all other counties had certified their results, to come up with an outcome largely based upon previously missing ballots. Yes, they had more to count, but they also had more manpower.
As to missing ballots, how is this possible? Any moderately competent and honest administrator would have a process whereby they could quantify a fixed number of inputs documented by precinct register and dated postmarks. That number should balance against an equal number of outputs (counted votes). Any discrepancy should turn up immediately, not weeks after the fact.
These questions and others would certainly support the moderate expense of a new election to clear the air. Preferably one without any interpretive voting by canvassing boards.
Jim Hughes
Mukilteo
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.