1/12/2005
 
Color Me ORANGE (and just a tad bit RED)
In a post on January 2, here I argued AGAINST a revote in Washington State because I felt that it may have later, un-intended consequences. I generally accept that some voting fraud will occur no matter how many safeguards you put in place.

I also was under the impression (since then corrected~changed by events)that there were only a few votes separating the two contestants and that calling for a re-vote based on minor miscounts could have devastating effects on the body politic. Again, events have changed that attitude. I now add my voice (such as it is and being a Texan not a Washingtonian) to the call for our own ORANGE REVOLUTION.

I want to especially note the efforts of Stefan Sharkansky who, in his blog Sound Politics for has essentially rallied the populace to taking an honest look at fundamentally dishonest course of events. Sharkansky has gone after the bad guys with a vengeance and has almost single handedly brought things to a point where the courts are now taking (hopefully an honest) look at the election. Even the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a columnist making the claim that a re-vote will be substantially because of the efforts of Sharkansky.

I understand that Washington State allows for a re-vote mandated by the courts when there is evidence of fraud. Well, let's take a look at the possibility of fraud.

1. There were some 1800 (ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED) more votes than registered in the Democratic Bastion of King County.
2. There were some 348 (estimated) provisional ballots "accidentally" counted and there is no way to cull those votes out of the counted totals.
3. More than 8 dead people voted (I thought dead people only voted in Chicago?)
4. The Democrat "victor" won by only 129 votes.

I'm convinced of fraud that is so obvious it stinks. This is not like Gore's loss in 2000 or even Nixon's loss in '60. This stinks folks. As the Orange Revolution Proponents say in Washington State: "LET FREEDOM RING."




Powered by Blogger