I am Sam. Sam I am.
That Sam I am, that Sam I am....
Secretary of State Sam Reed shovels a load of happy talk on the op-ed page of this morning's Seattle Times:
Solid procedures are in place to handle the recount and its contested ballots fairly and accurately.He concludes:...
Each contested ballot must be judged on its own merits so that every voter is given full consideration in the democratic process.
What are the standards?
In a recount, your ballot is held to the same standards used in the original count.
Your ballot counts if:
• You are a registered voter of the state of Washington;
• Your signature matches the signature on your voter registration card;
• Your ballot arrived on time;
• And you clearly voted for one candidate in the governor's race.
If it's unclear these standards have been met, the ballots are sent to an independent county canvassing board. Canvassing boards are made up of the county's chief election official, the prosecuting attorney and a member of the county legislative body. Canvassing boards have a long history in Washington of rising above partisan politics.
Public trust and confidence in our democracy is as important as the outcome of this race.Yes, but how many of us (outside of Precinct 1823) have more trust and confidence in our elections system today than we did seven weeks ago? Happy talk from our state's top elections official won't fix that. A candid acknowledgement that serious flaws in the process have created an unprecedented crisis would have more credibilty. He could start by calling for an investigation whether every "registered voter of the state of Washington" is a legitimately registered voter.
Reed does acknowledge that improvement is needed:
Washington's voting process is not perfect. It demands constant improvement. In January, I will announce a series of election reforms resulting from lessons learned in the 2004 governor's raceWoop de do. We've been there before. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 23, 2004 11:17 AM | Email This
Could it just be that they are correct and the "Ukrainian" conspiracy theorists are wrong?
Posted by: Erik on December 23, 2004 11:40 AMCedar County!
Freedom County!
We reduced the size of the King County Council, now lets reduce the size of King County altogether with two new County's.
That would reduce the load on the Ukraine County Election Department.
Also no results until all results are final! (realizing of course that no results are final until the Democrats find enough buried votes steal the election)
Posted by: Greg on December 23, 2004 11:52 AMOh and for the record, I voted for Gregoire, but have felt consistently since it became clear that this election was a statistical tie that a re-vote is the right answer. Now with my candidate in the lead, I still do.
Posted by: john on December 23, 2004 01:01 PMYour scurrilous attack doesn't address the issue I raised, which was in response to Jim's tongue in cheek suggestion. Unfortunately, your orthodox liberal mindset doesn't allow for such things as humor.
So let me respond: first off, I do not live nor have I ever lived in Washington, so I didn't vote for either candidate. Second, as a committed Republican I would have voted for Rossi had I been a resident. Third, I DO object to the "top two" rule, no matter who might benefit from it. I think it has been a disaster for Louisiana, and in some respects is worse than the Washington "blanket" primary it replaces. I think all parties ought to be able to run candidates in general elections, and that the choice of those candidates should be made in closed primaries by members of those parties whose affiliations are publicly stated in voter registration records.
And I do agree with you that another election might be in order. There is precedent for that: in New Hampshire in 1974 the US Senate didn't accept the razor-thin results of the contest between Dem John Durkin and GOP Louis Wyman. A second election was held which Durkin won handily. I'd take that risk of getting CG if the outcome were decisively decided.
Posted by: Howard Hirsch on December 23, 2004 01:28 PMGet your knickers out of thier twist.
There was nothing scurrilous about my post, nor was it an attack, but I know how you knee-jerk Republicans like to use those two words, so I don't take offense.
As for humor, I have a great sense of humor, I just don't see it in YOUR original post. Jim's post yes, but not yours. Perhaps you could point it out.
As for my point about the lack of conern amoung Republicans for the rights of voters in democratic leaning areas, it stands, and you have made to effort to refute it.
Now, on to your point about closed primaries. I was actually a fan of the blasnket primary. My feeling is if primaries are going to be closed private affiars for political parties and thier members, then the parties themselves should damn well pay for them, without any taxpayer assistance. As a member of neither political party, I see no reason my tax dollars should go to support an election I would be excluded from voting in.
Posted by: john on December 23, 2004 03:21 PMI am a lifelong Democrat who has voted Democrat all my life. The only Republican I've ever voted for is Norm Maleng.
I'm in my early 40's now and have enough perpective to understand that a job should go to the best person regardless of party.
I've been impressed with Sam Reed and will take a close look at him for any other office he might pursue. I regret voting for his opponent.
He knows this dismal excuse for an election has made a lot of people angry and caused them to feel disillusioned with the process.
He doesn't want to be a casualty in case there is a backlash, and the happy talk gives the illusion of leadership. He is after all, just another politician.
Posted by: Jerry on December 23, 2004 05:43 PMI guess you need some coaching regarding your brain deficit of understanding about primaries and my position, especially in response to Jim's comments.
I can't "refute" your point about the "lack of concern" Republicans have for voters in Democratic areas because 1) I have no idea what you mean by that, and 2) you have no evidence of it other than your "feelings" which, in the Washington state feminocracy, are far superior to objective evidence. So therefore, you can't prove it either. It's just a difference of opinion, the difference being that I'm right and you're wrong. Period. OK, now let's move on.
As for the blanket primary, it was adopted in California and overturned by the US Supreme Court when BOTH Republican AND Democratic parties asked that this be done in order to protect the integrity of their nominating process. BOTH parties in Washington followed suit, hence the adoption of the open primary.
Your point about who bears the cost of conducting primaries makes sense, and I can't say I disagree with you on that, but I will inform you (since you probably don't know this), that there are a variety of primary election processes in effect in other states. Most northeastern and western states (New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Nevada, etc.) hold closed primaries at public expense. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as the OPPORTUNITY to participate is held equally and ballot access is fairly easy (see Richard Winger's ballot access website for further info). Many midwestern states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan) hold open primaries at public expense. And your preference is used in most southern states (Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama) which hold open primaries where the parties are responsible for all expenses, securing polling places and workers, etc.
Now once and for all: I can't speak for Washington Republicans since I have never lived there. All I can say is that my own opinion is that I don't like either the blanket or top two primary arrangements. I feel as strongly as you do that each party should be able to field a candidate for every position in every district, no matter how dominated by one or the other party. Is that clear enough for you?