Washblog || King County wants to steal the elections.

King County wants to steal the elections.

By Pen
Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:26:09 PM PST
Section: Diary Topic: Election Integrity

There's really no other conclusion to draw from their words and deeds. They WANT to steal the next elections. They've made false claims, which we can prove. They've feigned ignorance, and yes, we can also prove that they are feigning their supposed ignorance. Despite a wall of evidence, they've ignored the advice of the expert that they, themselves, hired.

Therefore, one can only conclude that they INTEND to steal the next election. The evidence to support that conclusion after the fold.

Lies, lies and more lies.

As Zappini has pointed out in his excellent series Reckless Plan, the King County Executive and Election Services (REALS), has made numerous patently false claims:

need new tabulation equipment to handle the anticipated increased number of mail ballots
that our existing tabulation equipment isn't sufficient for the task
we'd need to buy more units of our existing central count tabulators in order to scale up

False. As Zappini shows, we have more than enough tabulators to meet the demand. What's more incriminating than the false statement itself is the attempts by Laird Hall and Bill Huennekins to claim that we only own 40.

That's not the only false claim Zappini exposes.

KCE's most obtuse justification for a complete switchover is a storage limitation in the current system.

False again, as Zappini goes on to show.

And then there's the supposed need for faster election tabulation. ACCURATE election tabulation is MANDATORY, however, and always trumps the need for faster vote counting.

"The council needs to know the facts about election security!"

Bullshit. The council already DOES know all the facts about election security. They'd rather we all buy into the notion that they're just ignorant, that they're just too trusting of the election machines vendors. To give them that benefit of the doubt is not only reckless itself, it's unfounded. Their "trust" of the vendors, their "ignorance" of the facts about electoral security are all feigned and we can prove it.

King County Council hired a computer expert, Eric Lazarus, to review King County's two business plans. Mr. Lazarus also brought in elections officials from other jurisdictions to review and comment upon them.

His findings and recommendations can be found here.

One important conclusion by Eric Lazarus, the expert hired by King County Council to review King County Election's plans for moving to all vote by mail, was that KCE's personnel are not knowledgeable about where the real security risks exist. The expert recommends that KCE should not purchase any new equipment until it undergoes security training. This would enable KCE to better evaluate the equipment and the statements provided by vendors.

From that moment on, KCE could not feign ignorance. If they WERE ignorant, they'd been TOLD SO and told, in no uncertain terms to not purchase any new equipment until they underwent security training.

They CHOSE to ignore that recommendation.

The peer review found the following:

highly critical that KC replace its 10-year old system for ballot counting" and "after some thought it appears that the arguments that suggest that upgrade is essential for 2008 are not persuasive.

From the moment they read that comment, the ONLY reason to charge ahead with the plan HAS to be due to illegitimate motivation. They WANT to steal the elections.

Is it really necessary to purchase new equipment now when there is very little time to implement a new system...?

Only if time is of the essence in pulling a fast one. Let's face it, the longer this drags out, the less likely the chances of STEALING THE NEXT ELECTION.

If the Council's primary goal is election accuracy, then we do not recommend implementing ASV at this time.

Obviously, since they are charging ahead anyways, the councils primary goal CANNOT BE election accuracy. Since there can be no other legitimate goal of an election, it is obvious that their primary goal is illegitimate in nature.

There is no room in our society to give people the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to elections integrity. When said people have bent over backwards to IGNORE the threat to our democracy, when they've lied and when every indication is that they KNOWINGLY are setting upon a course that will destroy our election integrity, then it's time we went to the courts to file a restraining order on King County to prevent the willful theft of our elections by the King County Council.

< Challenge to Chris Vance to support public campaign financing | Sick of Unopposed Candidates? >

King County wants to steal the elections. | 38 comments (38 topical)

joke 'em if you can't * 'em

So....

Last November they ordered me, as a pollsite Inspector, to issue chinese language ballots to people after I'd run out of english ballots.

I hear they're recalling those chinese ballots now to check them for lead and small magnets.

by m3047 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:29:51 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *

interesting considering this story by Pen, 08/27/2007 10:47:55 PM PST (none / 0)

a troll? by N in Seattle, 08/28/2007 09:45:29 AM PST (none / 0)

I'm not there yet

Well I am not prepared to say that KCE wants to steal elections. I can say that they seem to have run out of excuses for not abiding by the Council's security expert's opinion and the citizens desires.

Quite frankly, I don't think it takes an expert to see that their plan creates a tremendous amount of risk to the 2008 presidential election: 1)major overhaul of how they plan to conduct the election - moving from the hybrid system that Kurt Triplet (Chief of Staff for ROn Sims)admits KCE has become very good at, to a brand new, untested system of all vote by mail; 2) move to an entirely new facility; 3)using brand new,never before been used in a live election Diebold tabulators and scanners; 4)closing 400+ familiar polling locations and opening 17 unfamiliar voting centers; 5)eliminating poll site optical-scan machines and replacing with insecure Diebold DRE touch screen machines; 6)using new envelope tracking equipment and software by two separate companies, one of which was designed for small counties and was designed primarily for ballot tracking with barcodes (VoteHere; and 7)brand new, currently non-existing signature verification software (which surprisingly, Diebold will help Pitney Bowes design - as discovered in an open records request.)

All of these changes constitute major changes to the system. All need to be tested individually and in conjunction with each other in the short run up to the presidential election.

The expert and the citizens say no to this plan. The government, once again, ignores the people and the expert they hired to help them determine the risks.

This is TOO MUCH CHANGE at one time in a presidential year. This plan has the obvious potential for causing havoc in our presidential election. I continue to ask them, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? I have yet to recieve a meaningful response.

by raincity calling on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:46:51 AM PST

* 2 none 0 *

Ron Sims by DWE, 08/26/2007 12:49:05 PM PST (none / 0)

Unfortunately, there'd be no way to know by Pen, 08/26/2007 03:02:38 PM PST (none / 0)

But wait a minute by ivan, 08/26/2007 03:11:33 PM PST (none / 0)

Distinctions by zappini, 08/26/2007 10:36:54 PM PST (none / 0)
What I'm saying is that there'd be no way to by Pen, 08/27/2007 02:16:34 AM PST (none / 0)

Wake up and smell the coffee! by ivan, 08/27/2007 07:08:13 AM PST (none / 0)

Well you obviously NEEDED it by Pen, 08/27/2007 06:16:37 PM PST (none / 0)

Actually, you haven't by ivan, 08/27/2007 08:31:37 PM PST (none / 0)

No offense to Jason and Elizabeth but by Pen, 08/27/2007 10:40:19 PM PST (none / 0)

I hate to break it to you by ivan, 08/27/2007 10:48:44 PM PST (none / 0)

Doh! I knew that lol! by Pen, 08/28/2007 03:58:47 PM PST (none / 0)

Action Plans? by zappini, 08/28/2007 10:04:47 AM PST (none / 0)

This is what I was afraid of. by Pen, 08/28/2007 04:08:24 PM PST (none / 0)

No offense taken by raincity calling, 08/28/2007 01:44:50 PM PST (none / 0)

King County Council voted against the new equip.

The Council voted against purchasing the new equipment. They are the "good guys" in this as far as I can see. Though I don't know if there was a way they could have prohibited the purchase rather than simply recommending against it. Here's Zappini's story:
KC Democrats Embrace Election Integrity.
In Motion 2007-0402 the Council established its "preference to conduct all-mail elections using the current ballot tabulation equipment and software." All the peer and citizen reviews of REALS plan for the new purchase showed that it represented a security risk. The Council's statement on this showed that the members totally "got it" -- they understood where the security risks lay.

It seems highly unlikely to me that there's a plan among members of King County government to steal any election. I think we can't underestimate and magical thinking along the lines that technology has all the answers, pride, and influence from "special friends" (and I don't mean illegal influence -- or even consious influence -- just the normal stuff that happens because electeds rely on networks of connections to get back in office or to get certain other goals accomplished .) I also wonder if there's a power struggle going on between the County Executive and the County Council related to the Council's earlier decision to not fund (approve) Ron Sims' first choice of a new election building.

This is all speculation, of course. But this horrible decision invites such speculation because it makes no sense.

by noemie maxwell on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 12:56:03 PM PST

* 4 none 0 *

They're Council, they don't "advise" by Pen, 08/26/2007 03:10:47 PM PST (none / 0)

here's the actual vote I believe by Pen, 08/26/2007 03:18:01 PM PST (none / 0)

Definitions by zappini, 08/26/2007 11:13:18 PM PST (none / 0)

Just for the record by raincity calling, 08/27/2007 03:45:38 PM PST (none / 0)

Like the earlier resolution.... by m3047, 08/28/2007 10:49:51 PM PST (none / 0)

for whom?

Last I looked, the County Executive and the majority of the County Council were Democrats. So who would they be trying to steal the next election for?

Please note that I completely disagree with Sims's viewpoint on this, completely dislike the attempt to make these changes at this (any, really) time, fully support the absolute necessity of voter-verifiable paper ballots.

The screams of "election stealing" don't wash in a Democratic county. Worse, they hurt the cause by inserting flamboyant demagoguery and CT ideology where they aren't needed.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

by N in Seattle on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:31:42 PM PST

* 5 none 0 *

So "Democrats are pure as snow" by Pen, 08/26/2007 03:06:40 PM PST (none / 0)

There's no credible evidence of corruption by noemie maxwell, 08/26/2007 04:45:10 PM PST (none / 0)

People's internal motivations are irrelevant by Pen, 08/26/2007 06:45:31 PM PST (none / 0)

sheesh by N in Seattle, 08/26/2007 07:08:53 PM PST (none / 0)

yup n/t by gibney, 08/26/2007 07:49:58 PM PST (none / 0)
Glad to see that a threat to what by Pen, 08/26/2007 08:58:18 PM PST (none / 0)
Theater by zappini, 08/26/2007 10:26:23 PM PST (none / 0)

If intentions are irrelevant by noemie maxwell, 08/26/2007 09:17:17 PM PST (none / 0)

Let's put it this way by Pen, 08/27/2007 02:13:34 AM PST (none / 0)

Yowza!

That's some barn burner! Good show.

There's not much profit in speculating why who is doing what. That said, your theory is just as plausible as all the other theories voiced about why Sims, Plez, Huennekens, etc, are so gungho for their reckless plan.

Here's a brief run down of all the theories I've heard:

Progressives: Want forced mail voting. Believe it boosts voter turnout. (They are wrong.)

The parties (Democratic and Republican): Want forced mail voting. Enables "ballot chasing", a more sophisticated form of get out the vote.

Sec of State: Want unique barcodes on ballots, automatic signature verification, and more corporate welfare for the vendors VoteHere and Diebold. Mostly just cronyism.

Elections Officials: Mail balloting permits centralized control, which is deemed better. Also makes it easier to hide mistakes.

Bill Huennekens: Infatuated by all things new. Hopelessly optimistic. Hasn't learned the precautionary principle. Probably is also jockeying for a future revolving door promotion with a vendor.

Ron Sims: Loves (to mismanage) big marque projects. Being the largest jurisdiction to adopt forced mail voting will garner some form of prestige. Maybe even get him a cabinet position with next Democratic administration.

Dwight Pelz: Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! (He actually screamed that in front of a bunch of LD chairs.) The decision has been made. The opponents are just a bunch of conspiracy nuts. (Also believes forced mail voting will boost turnout.)

So, there they are. Speculating is great fun.

But it's not very useful. As in not actionable. Even if we could "prove" why the leadership is doing this, would it change how we behave? I don't think so.

The reckless plan is idiotic on its own (lack of) merits, regardless of the motivation.

by zappini on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:55:20 PM PST

* 17 none 0 *

Confluence

Last night at a BBQ, I was asked how such a bad decision was being made. I said the decision was the result of incompetence intersecting greed. Everyone nodded their heads.

Most of my school friends are geeks like me. Major trainwreck projects are the norm in the software industry. It's a marvel to watch.

Alas, I really don't know how to describe the phenomenon.

A fair survey is the book Why Smart People Do Stupid Things

So here's my run down:

People naive about technology just don't get that adding computers to the mix nearly always screws things up. It takes about a decade for the wise people to figure that out. Some geeks never figure it out.
Ron Sims, Dwight Pelz, and Christine Gregoire really want forced mail voting. They believe it'll boost turnout, which would favor Democrats. Alas, they're wrong.
Bill Huennekens, the vote by mail project manager, has told them they need to have all new equipment for forced mail voting. This isn't true, but for some reason, the parties that be believe him.

But you're asking yourself "Wait! They've been told this is a trainwreck in the making! How can they not see it?!"

Well, I don't know. But this has been my recurring experience working in the tech industries.

What I've seen time and again is that protagonists believe that they'll be able to overcome any obstacle through force of will.

My neighbor, who does management training type consulting, and I were talking about this. I imagine that politicians are a lot like entrepreneurs: They're successful despite all the criticism. In fact, if they listened to the criticisms, doubts, and skepticism, they wouldn't be in their positions today. After a time, most "successful" people become completely immune to criticism. The naysayers are just a bunch of gnats, to be swatted out of the way.

Knowing this, frustrating as it is to watch people fail, helps me to keep some perspective.

by zappini on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 10:10:16 PM PST

* 18 none 0 *

This is seriously stupid

Check zappini's posts for more plausible explanations.

What makes me absolutely furious is the utter refusal of Sims and the elections department to act like normal business consumers of complex equipment.

Did you know that Diebold openly boasts about its open source software on its website? And that they would never even think of telling their banking customers that Diebold owns their financial data? That's because bank officers wouldn't tolerate this sort of bullshit for two seconds.

Election officials not only tolerate it but line up like sheep to be slaughtered. When will they start to write their own specifications for equipment and demand that vendors meet them, or else?

I don't believe that King County is trying to cheat, any more than the election workers of Cleveland (Democrats, BTW) who were convicted of felonies wanted to cheat in favor of Bush. They violated auditing protocol just because they didn't want to bother to do the extra work. I think the elections people here likewise just want the public out of their faces, prefer a process that is convenient rather than accurate, and to avoid the extra work of correcting mistakes.

As computer security expert David Dill once said, "The election fraud debate frames the problem incorrectly. The question should not be whether there is widespread election fraud. It should be: 'Why should we trust the results of elections?' It's not good enough that election results be accurate. We have to know they are accurate--and we don't. "

by eridani on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:38:02 AM PST

* 24 none 0 *

Who will be the next expert?

In the July 30th motion passed by the Council, the members wisely require that a third party security expert be hired to assist in the testing of any new equipment and software. The problem however is who will they choose next time? Given the reaction by the public to Lazarus' report, I doubt that we (the citizens) will be lucky enough the second time around to have a candid expert who tells it like it is. The reason I say this is because the motion states, "The third party security experts and their scope of work shall be determined by MUTUAL AGREEMENT between the executive and the council..."

Given the requirement of "mutual agreement" for both the SELECTION of the expert and the SCOPE OF WORK, I expect tighter controls to be placed on future experts.

by raincity calling on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:10:07 PM PST

* 26 none 0 *

King County wants to steal the elections. | 38 comments (38 topical)

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

WELCOME AND FAQ

Login


Make a new account
Username:
Password:

HELP

Recommended Diaries

Free Speech for People moves forward in Washington State
At my urging, Senator Jacobsen has introduced a Senate Joint Memorial asking for Congress to submit to the states a Federal
By chadlupkes (1 comment)
State Budget Craters By $2 Billion More. The Good News Is....
... Now Progressives are going to have to stop talking about tax hikes and start talking about the value of government.
By dlaw (22 comments)
Why Aren't We Fighting for a State Income Tax?
I am getting really tired here: I've been asked to sign petitions and send emails by almost any advocacy group that
By ktkeller (25 comments)
We Want to Take You and We Will Nyah Nyah
Last week I'm watching a podcast of Monday's House Local Government and Housing Committee because I'm interested in the Executive Session
By ktkeller (6 comments)
Online Voting Rights for Overseas Military Personal
Having been deployed during an election I have some very passionate views on this issue. I have seen my friends simple
By dorsolplants (20 comments)
A Modest Proposal: How to Cut Education Funding
As cited in a recent Seattle P-I article, Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, chairwoman of the state Senate education committee, warned that budget
By OrneryDemocrat (10 comments)