On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip

BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a
legitimate case for contesting the election.

This is all you have to write. If there is sufficient evidence of
fraud then there should be changes made ana new election conducted,
with stricter oversight to prevent the same thing from happening
again.



Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But
it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession'
speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see
the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get
another chance at a job he doesn't even want.

Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand
recount she stated publically that she would accept the result
regardless of the victor.

OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself
just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a
mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then
came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single
complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by
a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for
demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get
legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be
decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now
and for the very same reason.

So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully
support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite
governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to
preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just
being a crybaby a-la Gore.

It sounds like you are letting your personal feeling WRT Rossi cloud
your objective conclusion that the vote was tainted. It is irrelevant
how any one candidate behaved. What is relevant is that there is a
good chance that the person who "won" the election, may not have been
the people's true choice. We won't know that unless those
discrepancies are resolved.

Dave
"Sandbagger"