Today on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial page, Thomas Shapley has one of the best columns I've read anywhere about our vote counting mess. Seriously. "Voting a right, so do it right"
Voting is a right. But it comes with the responsibility to do it right. That includes keeping your voter registration up to date, whether your signature has changed or you've moved. If you've moved, it's up to you to figure out what precinct you're in and where your polling place is, even if you vote absentee.He concludes:It's an embarrassment to hear all the flag waving and speechifying before the election about the sacred responsibility to vote, the obligation to be informed on the issues and the candidates and that every vote counts, only to have it all dissolve into wailing, gnashing of teeth and pleading that we find a way to count even the votes of those who've proved irresponsible and uninformed by failing to vote correctly.
It's certainly easier than reading a Metro bus schedule.
Punch the hole all the way through. Draw a single line. Fill in the circle completely. Vote for only one candidate. Sign and date the outside of the envelope. Place stamp here. Must be postmarked by midnight Election Day.
These are not difficult procedures for people who presume to govern themselves.
The first responsibility for assuring that a vote is counted lies with the voter, not elections officials and not political parties. If you make a mistake at the polls -- punch or mark the wrong spot -- tell an elections worker. If you mess up your absentee ballot or aren't sure there's time to get it mailed or -- as yours truly did once -- seal it all up in the wrong envelope, take it to your local polling place.Bravo.The process is easy enough, the requirements minimal. Ballots that are late, incorrectly marked or not decipherable should be rejected -- period. Are those who can't or don't bother to figure it out really qualified to vote?
If we voters knew that elections officials would be unequivocally strict, the responsible among us would be extra careful to safeguard our own precious right by getting it right.
The P-I should always make this much sense. And so should our election procedures.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 01, 2004 08:30 AM | Email ThisBut this isn't about that. It's about getting our guy elected -- whatever it takes.
The Ds are doing exactly what the Rs would do if the situation was reversed (Rossi basically said this in the paper yesterday). And the Rs are doing exactly what the Ds would do if the situation was reveresed.
The real problem is that any statistician will tell you that with our process, there is no way with certainty to tell who won (regardless of type of count on election day, during a recount, etc). The process needs changing to a top-two runoff if the election is within "recount" range.
The recount itself (hand, machine, anyway) isn't statiscially reliable (nor is the original count).
In the current case, each party is doing exactly what the other party would do if the shoe was on the other foot.
Politicians (and surrogates) who claim otherwise (including calling for concession or claiming it's about counting all votes) are simply putting the ends before the means. Sad. But that's the way it's been.
So..no more name calling please.
Posted by: ray on December 1, 2004 09:04 AMYou keep claiming that, but have you yet provided any historical examples to back up that assertion?
Posted by: Skor Grimm on December 1, 2004 09:09 AMYou could review the Ashcroft/Carnahan race in Missouri in 2000. Or the Gorton/Cantwell race in 2002 to get an idea of how some Republicans handle close races.
Show me a D doing the same.
Posted by: jimg on December 1, 2004 09:57 AMThe WA voters were very clear in their overwhelming support for Kerry and Murray, but in the Gubernatorial race, many Democrats split ticket to vote Rossi. It's a close race, but Rossi won. And introducing a less than accurate recount process, or whining sactimoniously about "counting every vote" is just sore losing, plain and simple.
I posted comments twice last week that are very similar to the arguments that Shapley made in the P-I. Maybe he is reading SoundPolitics? At least it's good to see some intelligent commentary from the P-I.
http://www.usefulwork.com/blog/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3124
http://www.usefulwork.com/blog/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3121