899 illegitimate ballots cast at polling places in King County
While it's not yet clear what the canvassing crew was doing in their effort to reconcile the ballot counts last November, my first attempt to count the number of illegitimate ballots reflected in the reconciliation summary shows:
- 303 of the 348 provisional ballots which were unlawfully inserted into the ballot boxes via the AccuVote machines are included in the 660 "adjustments" shown on the reconciliation summary;
- 27 of the 348 are not included in the adjustments;
- 353 of the 660 "adjustments" are provisional ballots that were unlawfully inserted into the ballot boxes, but which were not included in the 348 such ballots initially reported by King County in early January; and
- 216 ballots which are shown in the reconciliation summary as excess ballots in the "Plus/Minus" column have no known legitimate source.
That's a total of 899 ballots which were inserted into the ballot boxes unlawfully in King County during the last general election.
Another 18 are yet to be accounted for, since this first time through the summary only caught 330 of the initially reported 348. Perhaps I overlooked the other 18, or maybe they were omitted from the reconciliation summary along with the 8 precincts that used the Saint Benedict Parish Center as their polling place.
Update March 19, 10:55 AM: It appears that 12 of the 18 that ought to be in the PBAV column simply aren't there. That column seems to total only 336, not 348. I suppose I'll need to take the time to put the numbers into an Excel worksheet so I can total the categories and also more easily double-check that I haven't omitted some.
posted by Micajah | 11:58 PM
2 Comments:
Micajah,
You may have "proved" me wrong. I claimed the "vast majority" of the 348 were included in the 660. While, I didn't specify how great "vast majority" was, I was thinking at least 90%.
Based on your estimate, some 303 out of the 348 or 87% were included. Which is more like a "very large" majority. LOL!!
However, your estimate is much closer to my claim than Sharkansky's claim which implied that nearly all of the 348 were not included in the 660.
Yeah, it surprised me to find so much of an apparent overlap between the 660 and the 348. I expected less, since the first few pages indicated so -- and Dean Logan only said there was "some overlap" in answer to Dunn's questions when he appeared at the King County Council.
All I did was use my 8th grade "modern math" (from more years ago than I'm willing to admit without coercion). I think that's the first time I ever had any use for "set theory."
I looked to see which of the 348 accounted for the "adjusted #" figures that represented the 660, and how many of the 348 weren't represented in that column -- and then how many of the 660 weren't paired up with a corresponding 348 ballot in the "adjusted #" column. That gave me two sets with an overlapping section (Isn't it called a Vann diagram, or something, when they are represented by circles?), and I could count the totals in the overlapping section and in the part of each set which wasn't within that overlap.
Since the 348 column didn't actually add up to 348, there are apparently more than the number I came up with, but I don't know whether they belong in the overlap or not. It may be that the omission of the St. Benedict polling place would explain the rest. (I haven't added up the 660 column to see if it really adds up to 660 yet. I'm putting it into my own Excel worksheet, so I can more easily proofread it and let the computer do the adding for me.)
I wonder what explanation Logan and his people will offer at trial (if asked) for their apparent failure to acknowledge to anyone (including the canvassing board) prior to the canvassing board's certifying of the returns that there were so many illegitimate ballots in the boxes.
I also wonder why they appear to have made no effort at all to remove and reject those illegitimate ballots. If the 216 includes absentees that were unlawfully inserted into the box via the AccuVote machines, they could be readily spotted and removed. For the precinct workers who followed instructions and tri-folded the provisional ballots before handing them to the voters, their ballots could be spotted by the distinguishing creases from that folding. But no one seems to have looked to see whether the number of creased ballots in the ballot boxes corresponded with the "no label" provisional ballots which weren't returned in the signed, labeled envelopes.
I'm thinking they could have remedied much of the problem before certification, but they seem to have only tried to figure out where the ballots in the boxes came from -- then "adjusted" their numbers in a way that made it appear that very few illegitimate ballots made it into the ballot boxes.
Post a Comment
<< Home