Here's The Economist, on Washington State's election mess.
In one way, Washington state was merely unlucky. Its problems—inconsistent voting procedures, antiquated voting equipment, sloppy vote-counting—could have happened in any state, argues Paul Gronke, an elections expert in Portland, Oregon.....The current embarrassment will spark some form of clean-up in Washington state; there is also talk of change in California, Virginia and Ohio. But in America even national elections remain local affairs, with polling places and procedures determined by individual counties. Imposing rules of any sort is unpopular with county auditors, polling officers and the other people who rule the roost in the current system.
Quite true, and that must change. Whether WA state reforms go beyond the safe, and cosmetic, to serious measures such as voter photo ID and proof of citizenship will be a real test of leadership for our new governor (whoever that turns out to be) and the state legislature.
Hat tip: Oregon reader of Sound Politics, Douglas McKinnis.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 14, 2005 12:50 PM | Email Thisthis part is most upseting:
"Democrats want the case thrown out because they believe the state Constitution grants the Legislature (which is now controlled by Democrats), not the courts, the power to invalidate a gubernatorial election. They will argue that the court lacks the proper jurisdiction to rule on the matter"
what the heck??? How many of you have kept all of the email responses from all of those democrats???
It invites fraud on a national scale and runs against the grain of local control in our REPUBLIC.
The one standard I would like to see, and have severe criminal punishment attached to it - both for voters and for election "officials" - is that every vote must have a registered voter and every registered voters must be a citizen. And, further, no election can be certified until this is shown to be 100% true for that election.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 14, 2005 12:18 PMI think a starting point would be to require citizenship to vote. It is absurd to have it be illegal to even ASK about citizenship (outside of the little box on the votor-registration form. A ballot initiative anyone?
from seattle times online today:
"I find it beyond offensive that exercising your right to vote would trigger any kind of criminal-background check," Durkan said. "If the state did this it'd be a huge violation of civil rights."
is she an attorney or a james carvelle spin machine??
They seem to think it's reasonable to expect poll workers to recognize multiple kinds of photo IDs well enough to prevent fraud.
I have no problem with the basic photo IDs: passport, driver's license, or a substitute state-issued photo ID (for those who don't drive for whatever reason). That minimizes the potential for someone to fake an obscure ID and makes life easier for the election workers.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 12:44 PMAnother very scary turn. There is a bill in Olympia trying to change our Constitution to remove our initiative and referendum rights. They are working on this right now in order, I'm sure, to push it through while the dems are in total control. Dori Monson is currently talking with Rep. Jacobson who is sponsoring this. More emails to our reps folks.
Posted by: CP on January 14, 2005 12:56 PMIf the “reform” idea is to enable same-day registration or other measures for greater voter turnout, the Democrats support that.
If the idea is to require photo ID at the polls, the Democrats find some reason it’s wrong.
There’s a tradeoff between protecting the voting right of each voter (which adds a hurdle to new voters) and getting more people to vote (which opens loopholes for unscrupulous people).
Democrats want more voters, not more safeguards. You can see this clearly if you do a google search for "election reform."
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 01:01 PMlook, we have big issues to address in our state right now. before the third recount all i heard from the republicans was that a drawn out struggle would do the state incredible harm. now that very strong argument has gone by the wayside to a bunch of pitiful, and quite frankly inane rhetoric and sophmoric jokes. if you all really care about the state, devote your considerable time and energies to addressing the state's transportation problems, our education problems, and to making our voting system better than it is today.
now i know you will all say that the answer to the above problems is a revote for mr. rossi. unfortunately, we will then lose a critical legislative session--a session that our state cannot blow. is a lost year of legislation worthwhile? not according to sound politics' november arguments for continuity in state government. maybe that's changed, huh?
Posted by: steve on January 14, 2005 01:02 PMhttp://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ih.htm#anchor_1973gg
Posted by: Gil on January 14, 2005 01:10 PM"Election officials in King County, which contains Democratic-leaning Seattle, have admitted to a wide range of errors: counting 348 “provisional” ballots before they could be verified as coming from registered voters; counting hundreds more ballots than the number of voters listed as having cast them; dead people voting with the help of next-of-kin who filled in and signed mail-in ballots. Other counties had similar problems, and some members of the armed forces claim they received their ballots too late to use them."
They do not mention felons, double voters, or other things, but those remain to be proved in a court of law.
***
Steve, you forget this: on paper, the WA voting system isn't bad. It lacked COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.
Do stand Idly by when someone kicks you between legs once, and wait for them to do it again since they got away with it the first time? Or do you fight back and let them know that they can't bully you and others like you? I'm young but I know human nature says that if you aren't stopped when you do something wrong, then you'll go further and further until you are forced to stop. That time is now!
Posted by: Adriel on January 14, 2005 01:16 PMThere’s a tradeoff between protecting the voting right of each voter (which adds a hurdle to new voters) and getting more people to vote (which opens loopholes for unscrupulous people).
Democrats want more voters, not more safeguards. You can see this clearly if you do a google search for "election reform."
Hmmm. You seem to have a pretty good handle on the conflict.
Republicans want to make sure every voter is a person legally entitled to vote. This may result in some legal voters being disenfranchised, but that is not the intent.
Democrats want to make sure every person legally entitled to vote gets to do so. This may result in some people voting that should not, but this is also not the intent.
Seems like when it's written that way, we should be able to find some workable compromises.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 14, 2005 01:17 PMBoloney. The dear legislators can legislate all they want to, first under our temporary governor, then under whoever becomes governor after the legal challenge. If Gregoire's running scared, expect the first wave of legislation to contain all the extreme lefty goodies that a sensible governor would veto.
My august Senator Ken Jacobsen is a worse threat yet. His arrogant proposal to curtail our Initiative and Referendum rights is based on his certainty that the electorate that returns him and Jim McDermott perpetually to their gummint seats will remain unchanged forever. That same certainty maintains the anti-democratic Growth Management Act in place.
Perhaps this botched election by the Democratic ferment of King County, topped by Jacobsen's anti-Initiative power grab, will wake up and change that electorate. With a little help from Sound Politics.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 14, 2005 01:17 PMWilling the means is willing the ends.
Posted by: Bob on January 14, 2005 01:20 PMYou can use the same paperwork you need to get a driver's license in order to register to vote; BY LAW, NOTHING ADDITIONAL IS NEEDED. (See sec. 5.)
Golly, foreign nationals can get a driver's license, can't they?
As for citizenship, you just have to make a statement that you are indeed a citizen. Presto, you're registered to vote.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 01:24 PMRepublicans blocked the amendment Friday, arguing that they are more than willing to provide access to the polls to new voters as long as they are legitimate. But they point to examples of rampant fraud, particularly through mail-in registration.
Among those cases is that of Mabel Mackall Briscoe, 82, who signed up her three-year-old Jack Russell Terrier Holly through a mail-in "motor voter" registration.
"Both Mabel and her dog have been voting quite some time," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "There are countless examples of dead people, dogs voting, and people voting multiple times."
"Nearly all these instances of voter fraud have one thing in common," added McConnell. "They were perpetrated by lax mail-in registration requirements."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46841,00.html
The dems like it the way it is, but it's gone on long enough.
Posted by: Julie on January 14, 2005 01:28 PM"if you all really care about the state, devote your considerable time and energies to addressing the state's transportation problems, our education problems, and to making our voting system better than it is today."
--Steve
Spin Spin Spin... What a broad and unfair generalization! Sounds like you were "healed" by the Gregoire tour!
A group of us have been working for the last 2 weeks to put together election reform recommendations for legislators to review. It includes closing loop holes and openings for what democrates like to call "human error" that I observed while working for elections department, the better suggestions from contributors on this site, and ideas from former and current leaders of Washington State.
Now if you would get to work on the transportation problem we will be all set! I suggest you start by looking at a little program called Sound Transit.
Goodluck!
On the right side of the aisle, some strict states-rights folks would resist any sort of national database of voters, but it will have to happen someday.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 01:31 PMThat is an adobe file. It is the initiative that passed in AZ in Nov...making it illegal to allow a non-citizen to register to vote. (requiring proof of citizenship !!!) :0
Posted by: Julie on January 14, 2005 01:37 PMi agree with Bostonian- Its all about compliance within the counties!!!
Posted by: darcy on January 14, 2005 01:39 PMI don't think they asked for that in 2000, though.
***
Now somewhere I heard that for some state's absentee ballots, the voter had to fill out two identical ballots in the same way. The election judge would compare them and toss 'em both out if they were not filled out the same (or otherwise count ONE). Is there any reason at all to make voters jump through that hoop?
But hey, when you consider the Motor Voter act, it's hard not to come to such conclusions--esp. when you consider it in light of the general belief that Democrats have, that increased turnout favors their chances in an election.
I should, however, be more neutral in my language.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 01:47 PMSteve was correct in pointing out the hypocrisy between the earlier GOP claims that litigation and lengthy proceedings would be "a drawn out struggle" that "would do the state incredible harm" and the current moves to create as much trouble for our state as possible until the election's losaers get their way. The massive dicsovery requests and the expense and time of the GOP lawsuit is intended only to give your side more propaganda play, not to win the case, which requires proof of wrongdoing that does not exist. Still, your right to litigate is inviolate (until the GOP takes it away), so have at it and good luck, though you'll need more than that.
Do you REALLY think that if you just say "fraud" enough times that it will magically become true? OR that such behavior is that of a responsible citizen?
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 01:48 PMIf you have such godlike powers, can you recommend a good lottery number for next week(MA lottery, natch)?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 01:52 PM--Curtis D Love
That is highly flawed logic. To suggest that ballots that were illegally cast didn't help Gregoire? That doesn't even make sense. They are unverified, and untracable. We will never know how they favored either candidate. Yes they were in on the first few counts but they shouldn't have been in any count. The point is that they are ILLEGAL.
Posted by: Joe on January 14, 2005 01:55 PMNow as you quickly dismiss education as an issue that our state would deal with, I would like to know what you propose for our state transportation problem? More roads? Can't do that because recent initiatives have axed the state transportation budget. Kill Sound Transit? And then what? A lot of Sound Transit's budget is through federal funding. It often has bipartisan support, and even though it's a favorite pariah of Republicans, we have to find some way to get people moving. I'm not saying Sound Transit is the only way, I'm just interested in hearing your way.
Posted by: steve on January 14, 2005 01:56 PMHow bout we trim the waste at DSHS that just failed their state audit? (Details at www.effwa.org) For starters they paid $22 million to people using invalid SSN's or no SSN's.
Read the details of the audit at effwa.org. DSHS personnel repeatedly blocked the audits efforts and hid information.
This is all just in their Medicaid payments. Let's look at the rest of their process. Don't tell us this is the only place in the organization that there's complete ineptness and waste.
SafeRB
Posted by: SafeRB on January 14, 2005 01:57 PMNice email address by the way !
Have you ever seen the waste that our goverment does with what they are already taking from us ?
Have you ever seen a Navigator with State plates and wondered just what the hell they need that for ?
It's certainly not for the gas mileage :)
How many people like King Sims should we be providing a car and driver for ?
How much more marble do I need to help pay for in new Government offices or remodeled old ones ?
They take plenty of OUR money already !
They just need to learn about operating within a budget like the rest of us.
Remember this though.
Anytime you want to voluntarily pay a little extra on your taxes and help our Government out you are certainly free to do so.
Personally, I think that:
1) The state has larger problems to which we could attend without incurring the expense and intrusiveness of citizenship tests at polling places in the absence of any evidence of a problem along that line (sounds like the nativist crowd's panties are in the same old perpetual knot). Why don't we solve the problems we know we have instead of making up problems that fit our preferred solutions?
2) Typically, our elections are not anywhere near this close, such as in the crushing losses by the previous two GOP gubernatorial candidates. Let's put our greatest resources toward problems that affect us 80% of the time and perhaps lsightly less toward ones that affect us 2% of the time.
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 02:00 PMThe spin comes from where you suggest that we have resorted to sophmoric jokes and inane rhetoric instead of doing anything with our time to fix problems in this state! For the most part I think everyone here takes all the issues very seriously.
Posted by: Joe on January 14, 2005 02:04 PMYou say:
"To suggest that ballots that were illegally cast didn't help Gregoire? That doesn't even make sense. They are unverified, and untracable. We will never know how they favored either candidate...The point is that they are ILLEGAL."
Ah, but Joe, state law requires that you show by a preponderance of evidence that there were SPECIFIC illegal votes that gave one candidate an edge that turned the election. If it's true (and it is) that they are "..unverified, and untracable" and that "we will never know how they favored either candidate,: then I guess you're shit out of luck in court.
Posted by Joe
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 02:05 PMIncidently, one of the counterarguments to the WI photo ID requirement was that election fraud supposedly is not a real issue.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 02:05 PMYeah, what's fraud if it only happens 2% of the time?
Posted by: Greg on January 14, 2005 02:05 PMSilly to argue it here, even though you're wrong. We'll let the lawyers argue it.
~ SafeRB
Posted by: SafeRB on January 14, 2005 02:08 PMYou say: "Curtis, how do you know wrongdoing does not exist? If you have such godlike powers, can you recommend a good lottery number for next week (MA lottery, natch)?"
I said that the EVIDENCE of such wrongdoing does not exist. Also, it is YOUR side that must produce evidence of your claim. Good luck. All I see and hear is a lot of hand-waving and "maybe there's somethign wrong with this because the numbers don't add up." Questions raised? Certainly. But questions are not answers, and I don't think you have the answers. Just as hope is not a plan, bluster is not a case.
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 02:09 PM--Curtis D Love
More flawed logic! Elections don't affect us 2% of the time they affect us 100% of the time! Elections are a critical pillar of democracy and to dismiss it as a small problem is like saying a house's foundation is only 2% of the structure so lets skip it and go right to the framing!
Posted by: Joe on January 14, 2005 02:12 PMBULLSHIT.
There were more votes counted than people registered to vote in some areas - lots more. That is FRAUD, plain and simple.
"a preponderance of evidence that there were SPECIFIC illegal votes that gave one candidate an edge"
So, if you can just slip some ballots in during the original count, since they are untraceable, you have just gotten away with fraud! Nevermind that there were more votes than people, it doesn't matter... And you wonder why people think there's a big problem! Could we possibly lower the bar any farther? I guess we could just cancel the elections and let the election boards DECIDE how everyone in their area voted....
Posted by: Deoxy on January 14, 2005 02:14 PMI agree with you it's really hard to see when your eyes are closed. I don't know what you call it when somebody fills out ballots for dead people, or when people vote more than once, I call it "fraud" and so do most people here. I think the word you were thinking of was conspiracy, that is a word that we aren't using unless the evidence arrises.
Posted by: Adriel on January 14, 2005 02:14 PMGreg -
Fraud? What fraud? Illegal votes cast by well-meaning spouses is not fraud. Disparate ballot reconciliation numbers are not fraud. Election fraud is willful misconduct intended to change the results of an election. Have you evidence of such willful misconduct? I suggest you provide it to the Rossi campaign, because boy are they going to need it.
Of course, it looks like SafeRB doesn't really believe that fraud is provable.
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 02:15 PMhttp://www.timothygoddard.com/blog/
All you're doing is showing you don't understand the law involved, but have just bought the democratic spin that fraud means what they've told you it means and that it must be proven in the way they've told you.
Posted by: SafeRB on January 14, 2005 02:21 PMI would say that people voting twice would fit that bill...along with felons who know better.
Posted by: Susu on January 14, 2005 02:23 PMDeoxy -
You say "There were more votes counted than people registered to vote in some areas - lots more. That is FRAUD, plain and simple."
No, that's normal in all elections, and for a lot of reasons, including women in protection programs whose addresses, etc. are not public, and the sorts of minor errors that, as I mentioned above, will always occur, but usually don't matter. I would guess without knowing that this was the case in all Rossi counties as well. Likewise the occurrence people registering an address at the county courthouse, as provided in state election law, is not fraud.
Can't you guys do a little basic research?
http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=title&title=29A
The problem is that KC is bragging that they are 99.9% accurate and the difference in this election is .0005% (number derived from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/election2004/governor.asp).
By admitting they are only 99.9% accurate and that's the best they can do, they have admitted they do not know who won the race. They cannot know because they cannot be accurate enough.
SafeRB
Posted by: SafeRB on January 14, 2005 02:43 PMI ran out of time and my post belew up after I wrote for a while. Thanks for the link. Tim Goddard is dead wrong on his site, and although I think he does understand the law, I also think he purposely misstates its import. You shouldn't read blogs to find out what a court ruling means.
And fuck you very much for telling me what I think and why I think it.
For example, Tim sayd that "In the Adams county case, the number of fraudulent ballots found was actually smaller than the margin of victory–but it was impossible to tell how many ballots had been fraudulently altered." Wrong. The court (http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/085wn2d/085wn2d0629.htm) says that "the court found enough ballots had been altered between the time of the original tally and the recount to change the outcome of the election." Tim's lying, and his example does not apply here.
Also, because there WERE specific ballots for the winning party that were shown to be mysteriously altered in enough numbers to turn the election, that totally supports what I was sying. Read it for yourself. Jesus, THINK for youself.
Without the court finding similarly to 1975 that election officials were guilty of "neglect of duty" (ands THOSE GUYS left the keys to the padlock on ballot boxes attached to the locks), this case will no apply. Without "ample opportunity for fraudulent changes to be made," this case will not be a binding precedent. All the court said about whether or not to impose a requirement that the plaintiff provide a "smoking gun" was that the plaintiff could not be "to provide the court with the names of those who cast" the illegal ballots.
I still hold: that if the GOP can't show real counts of "illegal" Gregoire votes in quatity sufficient to tip the balance, with the Democrats attempting at teh same time to find illegla ROSSI votes to go the other way, this case goes nowhere fast.
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 02:54 PMKingCo feels proud they can be accurate to within 1/10 of 1%. The problem is this election is separated by thousandths, not by tenths. Kingco has basically admitted in the press they cannot know who won the election because despite repeated exposure, warnings, etc they have not put into place a system that can be more than 1/10 of 1% accurate.
Kingco had 876452 votes for the three candidates. 1/10 of 1% accuracy means Kingco can only get within 876 votes, PLUS OR MINUS.
They aren't accurate enough for this election. No one can know who won. Too bad the average joe doesn't do the math and realize how ludicrous the 99.9% accuracy statement is.
Posted by: SafeRB on January 14, 2005 02:55 PMBostonian (and others) make some good points about photo ID. Were there no other way to verify identity, they would be very difficult to refute, or even resist.
However, down at my local Best Buy, there's a gadget that reads thumbprints. It's cheap, reliable and more difficult to fool than an election worker with a fake ID.
No ID? Hey, no problem. Sign this form and put your thumb right here. Now, if it turns out you were voting fraudulently, we have all the proof we need to send you off to jail.
I can forsee some problems from both sides about privacy and civil liberties if the state kept an ongoing database of thumbprints for voters (although it wouldn't bother me much, as my fingerprints have been on file with the Navy for many years,) but I think that very few illegal voters would be willing to leave such an obvious trail.
This wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it would cut it down to size, while making sure that every legal voter got the opportunity to vote.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 14, 2005 02:58 PMI'll make sure and quit doing that.
SafeRb
Posted by: SafeRB on January 14, 2005 02:58 PMPeople are just tired of going over and over the same tired Democrat talking points.....
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 14, 2005 03:00 PMgeeze, whats all the hub-bub about this voting stuff? This is easy...where do I go to sign up for the Democratic Party????
But pardon me while I go and read the ACTUAL FILINGS in this case, so I can better address the arguments being made by the plaintiff instead of the GOP talking points in here.
Scott -
My opinions stem from my reading of the applicable law (try it some time - http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm#RCW_by_Title), not from a party paper. I really don't know what the party is doing about this. But it's funny how their point of view gets less press than Chris Vvance's latest venomous spew.
I'm outtie -- back soon.
BTW, just to clear up your one quote that actually comes close to someone having said it: a spouse voting for a deceased person is definitely illegal, but definitely not fraud.
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 03:12 PMThat should have been: "Get used to disappointment."
Princess Bride and all that, you know.
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 03:14 PM" think a starting point would be to require citizenship to vote. It is absurd to have it be illegal to even ASK about citizenship (outside of the little box on the votor-registration form. A ballot initiative anyone?
Here's part of the problem. Can you prove you are a US Citizen?
A birth certificate is not sufficient. You may have changed citizenship after you were born, or may have been a dual citizen that chose a different country. Additionally, I would be hard-pressed to get a copy of my birth certificate on short notice. Some US citizens never got birth certificates, although that is rare in modern times.
A drivers license certainly won't do. Legal (and even illegal) aliens get driver's licenses.
A Social Security card won't do. Same rationale as above.
My military ID is not proof of citizenship. Many legal aliens join the military.
The only real proof of citizenship is a passport. I don't have one, as I have never needed one. (US Navy Sailors onboard ships in foriegn ports or under official orders are exempted from passport and visa requirements.)
So, can you prove you are a citizen?
Posted by: John Barelli on January 14, 2005 03:15 PMI positively thrive on this atmosphere. Don't think I'll go away.
Posted by: Curtis D. Love on January 14, 2005 03:15 PMI do not agree...the overwhelming majority of vote fraud is perpetuated by dems, and we've heard and read plenty of statements justifying fraud, also from the left.
If you said that not all dems are crooks, I would agree.
Posted by: South County on January 14, 2005 03:21 PMQuick Definitions for 'fraud'
noun: intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
noun: a person who makes deceitful pretenses
noun: something intended to deceive
I dunno....sounds like it to me.
Republicans want to make sure every voter is a person legally entitled to vote. This may result in some legal voters being disenfranchised, but that is NOT the intent.
Democrats want to make sure every person legally entitled to vote gets to do so. This may result in some people voting that should not, but this is also NOT the intent.
Seems like when it's written that way, we should be able to find some workable compromises.
That sounds reasonable, but it isn't.
First, there is a small probability that some legal voters will be disenfranchised if rules that assure only legal voters can vote are well thought out and fairly implemented. On the other hand, relaxing or circumventing voting rules will result in a high probability that illigitimate votes (or worse) will be cast. Your pretty parallelism contains two ideas that are not actually parallel.
Second, Republicans generally wish to reduce the power of govenment and increase the power of individuals, while Democrats generally want to increase the power of govenment at the expense of individuals. Republicans respect process and individual action, and the natural outcome of events spurred by these forces; Democrats seem to care only that they retain the power to mold the world into their vision of utopia. Therefore, I believe your statement that Republicans do not intend to disenfranchise voters. I do not believe your statement that Democrats do not intend for people to vote who should not (the homeless non-resident, the felon, the corrupt election worker, the double addressee), since they know these people are more willing to "vote" for them. Why? Because the fundamental principle of Socia1ism is that it is OK to steal so long as you do it officially and distribute the loot to people who "need" it. Crooks support crooks.
And also, please provide the specific place in the RCW you keep referencing where it says FRAUD="Intent to deceive"?
And one more, Why is proof of illegal votes and proof of misconduct on the part of elected officials not adequate?
Posted by: saferb on January 14, 2005 03:28 PMFirst, there is a small probability that some legal voters will be disenfranchised if rules that assure only legal voters can vote are well thought out and fairly implemented. On the other hand, relaxing or circumventing voting rules will result in a high probability that illegitimate votes (or worse) will be cast. Your pretty parallelism contains two ideas that are not actually parallel.
Yes, if the rules are well thought out and fairly implemented, we can reduce (to almost none) the number of legal voters that are disenfranchised. Remember, however, that what would not be an obstacle to you (or me, for that matter) might well be an obstacle to a homeless veteran holding a "will work for food" sign. While I realize that you aren't deliberately trying to stop him from voting, the effect might well be the same.
Now, I have heard Republicans claim that we are only interested in that homeless veteran getting to vote because he will likely vote Democrat. Even if that is so, then so what? He's a citizen, and entitled to vote, even if he does vote Democrat.
Second, Republicans generally wish to reduce the power of govenment and increase the power of individuals, while Democrats generally want to increase the power of govenment at the expense of individuals.
I'm willing to debate that, but it really isn't part of this topic. Two words - "Patriot Act." No, we will probably never see eye-to-eye on this, but again, so what? The beauty of having more than one party, with more than one point of view.
As to the rest of your condemnation of Democrats in general, well, many of my Democrat friends think that Republicans are just tools of the wealthy and religious right, willing to do or say anything in order to further their own aims. They're wrong too.
One of my favorite political sayings goes as follows:
Democrats believe that people are good, honest, honorable and need the government to look over every facet of their lives.
Republicans believe that people are crooked, dishonest, evil and will do just fine if we leave them alone.
Neither of the above is, of course, true. But it is the perception of many.
"And one more, Why is proof of illegal votes and proof of misconduct on the part of elected officials not adequate?"
Very simply, Curtis does not understand the basics here. The courts were designed with the intent that they would be separate from the legislative and executive branches of gov't.
Or maybe I need to begin instructing Curtis with 1 + 1 = 2...or maybe even potty-mouth training...
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 03:54 PMI agree with saferb, you can ignore my last post. I, too am guilty of having a quick send finger...
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 04:06 PMTo get a passport, you need your birth certificate and some other ID. I forget what. I guess the idea is that the paperwork gets looked over a bit more.
***
Curtis, mind your language. This is not the Democratic Underground.
Not to weigh in late on your comment, but I agree with Joe that your comment is all spin, or otherwise suffers from a complete disregard of the facts, my friend. Locke, the self-proclaimed "education governor" (excuse us while he takes another opportunity to pat himself on the back), had 8 years to work on education issues and did absolutely nada. A lot of distinguished citizens in this state volunteered countless hours to participate in Locke's famed 20/20 Commission on education and came up with some very well-thought out proposals to better our education system in Washington State. Can you tell me a single education reform that Locke implemented from the 20/20 Commission Report? Not one. Locke was in love with being in the public spotlight and accomplished little of what he could have accomplished.
Now, we have Locke-lite, who has already shown an inclination to copy Locke's love of establishing commissions. Gregoire: "I know, let's have an commission to study election reform!" Dems: "Great idea! That way we can talk and talk and talk about reform, but actually implement nothing that would hurt our partisan interests, electorate be dammed!"
I will bet anyone a steak dinner at the Met that the date for the primary will remain unchanged after Gregoire's commission has talked it to death and the Democratic state legislature has finished stonewalling on any reform proposals that actually did make it out of such a commission.
Now it's "We have more important things to worry about." and "We need to move on."
There is NOTHING more important that our election system.
In some countries people risk grievious bodily harm and death to either vote or escape tyranny to come the the US were free elections exist.
Posted by: Smoke on January 14, 2005 04:37 PMNow it's "We have more important things to worry about." and "We need to move on."
There is NOTHING more important that our election system.
In some countries people risk grievious bodily harm and death to either vote or escape tyranny to come the the US were free elections exist.
Posted by: Smoke on January 14, 2005 04:37 PMNow it's: "We have more important things to worry about." and "We need to move on."
There is NOTHING more important that our election system.
In some countries people risk grievious bodily harm and death to either vote or escape tyranny to come the the US were free elections exist.
Posted by: Smoke on January 14, 2005 04:37 PMThe issue I tried to address is the illegal manipulation of the vote, and I assume that you and the vast majority of Dems are in complete agreement with me that all practices of that nature should be prohibited and actually stopped. But, for a party already in power that exists to increase and implement that power, there will be a greater motivation to manipulate results or facilitate voting by illigimate voters (not homeless vets) than for a party that wishes to impose less government power. This results in the asymmetry that I think your argument ignores.
Oh, and there is a difference, I think, between the government's exercise of police power (even when it goes too far) and the government's exercise of power to control your economic life or redistibute wealth. The first is a fundamental and necessary function of government with constitutional and legal limits, while the other is a politically motivated imposition with no constitutional basis at all. In fact, the Commerce Clause had to be completely subverted by Roosevelt's packed court before any of his socia1ist programs could be imposed on us. And what limits this power? If the government can (and has) imposed a 70% - 80% marginal tax rate on "the wealthy," we really only retain our property rights so long as the government lets us.
Posted by: srogers on January 14, 2005 04:40 PMSteve -
What is your data source for that statement?
The issue I tried to address is the illegal manipulation of the vote, and I assume that you and the vast majority of Dems are in complete agreement with me that all practices of that nature should be prohibited and actually stopped. But, for a party already in power that exists to increase and implement that power, there will be a greater motivation to manipulate results or facilitate voting by illigimate voters (not homeless vets) than for a party that wishes to impose less government power. This results in the asymmetry that I think your argument ignores.
And in pointing out the symmetry, I was highlighting the different positions each party considers most crucial. We need not agree with each other, as both sides agree that the points brought forward by the other are valid.
In essence, while you may believe that the security issue is most important, and I may believe that the avoidance of obstacles to legitimate votes is most important, we can see each other's points as valid.
When we do so, we can look for ways to solve the problem we see as most pressing, while acknowledging and understanding the other's view.
Example. I want to ensure that only legally registered voters get to vote, and then only once per election. But I am more concerned that every legal voter gets to vote than I am with keeping some immigrant from voting.
Are there some in my party that would like to take advantage of illegal votes? Unfortunately, the answer is almost certainly yes. Just as there are some in your party that are willing to try to block legal voters from exercising their right to vote. (Example - phone calls to poor and minority homes, claiming to be able to "take their vote over the phone" or reminding them to "vote this coming Wednesday.")
The vast majority of Republicans find this type of behavior completely unacceptable. Most Republicans, finding that their Democrat neighbor needed a ride to the poll would happily provide one. The reverse is also true.
On the Democrat side. Would some Democrats deliberately double-register in order to vote twice? I'm sure that a few did. But just as there are only a very few in your party that would deliberately lie or cheat to win, only a very few in my party would do so either.
I'm also far more upset by any corruption in my party than in yours. Sorry, but I'm a bit partisan myself, and I expect my fellow Democrats to behave better than the opposition. (You are welcome to have similar expectations of your own party.)
Unfortunately, it is much easier to see problems in the other party. It's that "speck in your eye vs the log in mine" problem. Still, any defense lawyer for a Democrat that illegally voted in an election would do well to keep me off the jury. I'll be voting for tar and feathering, followed by a long term making small rocks out of big ones.
My point has not been to get you to agree with my priorities. We probably won't agree. My point is that we can work together to find a solution that addresses both. Democrats, contrary to what some folk believe, do not want to have illegal votes counted. We just want to make sure that every legal voter is afforded the maximum opportunity to cast their vote.
And here's the symmatry again. Republicans (I believe) do not want to prevent anyone from casting a legal vote. They just want to prevent cheating and illegal votes.
We can (and do) disagree as to which is more important, but since I believe it is in our power to solve (or at least drastically reduce) both problems, it really doesn't matter which is more important. We can argue the relative importance over a beer after we fix this mess. I'll have a Guiness. (Do Republicans really drink Budweiser? If so, why?)
Posted by: John Barelli on January 14, 2005 06:46 PMI like Sam Adams as opposed to such Old Europe brew, but only because I can't find a decent microbrewery in Texas (my current home away fom home). Guiness would be acceptable, my friend (you paying? Just kidding).
You are correct. We can continue to beat each other up over 'HOW', without truthfully addressing the 'WHY'...Make sense?
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 07:39 PMEvery illegitimate vote which is cast disenfranchises a legitimate voter. So I see little reason to worry more about people who can't vote than those who can do so illegally.
Although it should be possible for every eligible motivated citizen to vote, a reform which eases rules so that fifty minimally-motivated people vote legitimately who otherwise wouldn't, but also allows a hundred illegitimate votes to be cast, is bad.
Unfortunately, very few politicians in power care to do anything about voter fraud, because Democrat voter fraud serves to protect many incumbents of both parties. Actually, left-leaning Republicans probably benefit as much from Democrats' voter fraud as Democrats do, since it allows them to claim that they have to run left to "be electable". If voting were restricted to one ballot per real living law-abiding adult human citizen who actually knew who the candidates were, nobody would bother voting for leftist Republicans. Those who wanted conservative candidates would vote for one, and those who wanted liberal candidates would vote for a Democrat.
Posted by: supercat on January 14, 2005 11:03 PMAlthough it should be possible for every eligible motivated citizen to vote, a reform which eases rules so that fifty minimally-motivated people vote legitimately who otherwise wouldn't, but also allows a hundred illegitimate votes to be cast, is bad.
Here's where the "slippery slope" starts. When we start trying to determine another citizen's motivation, or even level of motivation, we're heading for disenfranchising whole groups.
Don't think this is just Democrats. I've known lots of Republicans (over 20 years active duty, packed together in some rather tight living spaces,) some who were quite vocal about their conservative leaning, who also had not bothered to vote for many years, usually saying "it doesn't make any difference, they will just do whatever they want anyway." In one particular case, I finally convinced him to vote, just to cancel out mine.
Side note for Republicans. If you ever want to really depress one of your party leaders, ask him/her about the voting percentage for military members. These are people that are normally assumed to be conservative, and where politics can literally be life-and-death for them. I don't have recent numbers, but when I was in, the overall percentage that voted was significantly lower that in the general population. It always amazed me. After all, if someone in DC can order me to go get shot at by unfriendly strangers, I wanted to have a say in who that someone was.
As to why there is so much talk, and so little action about reform. Incumbents (of whatever party or political leaning) have little incentive to change the system that got them elected. While not condoning the practices, if illegal votes got an incumbent elected (or even added significantly to the margin,) I would be surprised if that politician thought of illegal voting as a major problem.
By the same token, if long lines at polling stations in poor neighborhoods helped get an incumbent elected, I would be surprised if that politician thought that the lack of voting machines in those areas was a major problem.
Neither of these people would be deliberately trying to cheat.
It is human nature to focus on problems that adversely affect us, and pay less attention to problems that are either neutral or benefical to us. In essence, what hurts me needs to be fixed NOW. What hurts you is a problem that "needs to be addressed."
Posted by: John Barelli on January 15, 2005 09:00 AMAgain, you are correct. The military person is usually part of the conservative side of the spectrum. In actual breakdown, they are similar to the national average, with an edge to the reps, but in numbers not very large...
Posted by: smegma on January 15, 2005 06:36 PMIn the 2000 election, there were reports of homeless people being offered cigarettes in exchange for voting. Beyond the fact that it is illegal to offer a person anything of value in exchange for a vote, I would personally suspect that many of these people wouldn't care the slightest bit whether their vote was counted, provided they got their smokes. I'm not saying they should be forbidden from voting because of that--merely that I don't see how a relaxation of rules that results in fifty of these people and a hundred totally bogus voters voting is a good thing (at minimum, such a rule change would on net disenfranchise 50 people).
Let me ask you a question--which do you believe is larger: (1) the number of votes cast by homeless people who do or would vote without offers of cash, cigarettes, or other consideration; (2) the number of fraudulent people cast by people claiming to be homeless or otherwise taking advantage of rules designed to avoid disenfranchising homeless people?
BTW, in some areas, if poll workers aren't absolutely effective at policing things, it's possible for operatives to ensure the homeless people they bus to the polls vote "correctly". The procedure is: (1) At the start of the day, operative gets a ballot and sneaks out with it; the ballot is filled out for the "correct" candidates (either inside or outside). (2) The person who was bussed to the polls is given the ballot and instructed to hide it while they get a new ballot, pretend to vote the new ballot, and deposit the supplied ballot in the ballot box (sneaking out the new ballot). (3) The smuggled-out new ballot is then filled out for the proper candidate and given to the next bussed-in voter.
Using this technique, it's possible to cast seemingly-legitimate ballots in the names of people one buses to the polls and be certain they're cast "correctly".
Posted by: supercat on January 15, 2005 07:24 PMwhich do you believe is larger: (1) the number of votes cast by homeless people who do or would vote without offers of cash, cigarettes, or other consideration; (2) the number of fraudulent people cast by people claiming to be homeless or otherwise taking advantage of rules designed to avoid disenfranchising homeless people?
Next you'll be asking me when I stopped beating my wife.
First, we're going to have to work on your stereotype of homeless people. Only a few of them look like the street bums on "Law and Order." Even those that do will not necessarily "sell" their vote for a cigarette.
Next, I'm in favor of finding ways (and have suggested some here) of preventing fraudulent use of laws designed to protect their votes. Well written laws can do so while not becoming obstacles. I suggested a signed form with a thumbprint for anyone that cannot produce a government issued ID. Make sure that anyone trying to cheat leaves an evidence trail that a cub scout could follow. Then send the turkey to jail for a long time.
But, just so I'm not accused of dodging the question as asked, I think the number of valid votes by homeless people is more than the number of fraudulent votes by people trying to abuse the laws protecting them.
That having been said, I also agree that even one is too many, just as I believe that even one lawful voter disenfranchised is too many. This is why it is so vital that we try to see each other's viewpoint and take it into consideration when writing the laws.
As to your technique for cheating, well, I haven't seen your polling place. It would be very hard to get away with that at mine, and would run a very great risk of detection, and therefore jail time. It would take not just "inattentive" poll workers, but they would have to be active participants in the scam, along with most of the voters using that polling place. One honest person and the jig would be up.
Also, for it to have made a difference even in this election, it would have had to have been done successfully many times, and frankly nobody expected this one to be this close. Way too much risk, with not nearly enough benefit, even assuming someone was willing to try that.
Ok, so when did you stop beating your wife? ;-)
Posted by: John Barelli on January 15, 2005 10:04 PMIf you agree with me on the need to ensure that the rules aren't abused to allow people to vote illegitimately, then we're in fundamental agreement on principles. Where we differ is in some of our quantitative assessments.
If people who claim to be homeless are allowed to register to vote without having to supply any verifiable information, I hardly think it unlikely that crooks would take advantage of this. Perhaps the number of legitimate homeless voters exceeds the number of crooks who would take undue advantage of the situation, but I see no particular reason to believe that to be the case since both numbers are very hard to quantify.
I'm a bit leery of setting up a government database of thumbprints, but having some form of identification would go a long way toward ensuring voter legitimacy. Perhaps someday procedures will evolve in that direction.
Posted by: supercat on January 15, 2005 10:43 PMPerhaps the number of legitimate homeless voters exceeds the number of crooks who would take undue advantage of the situation, but I see no particular reason to believe that to be the case since both numbers are very hard to quantify.
I'm a bit leery of setting up a government database of thumbprints, but having some form of identification would go a long way toward ensuring voter legitimacy. Perhaps someday procedures will evolve in that direction.
Even without such a database, the very fact that to vote (or register) without a photo id required you to give a thumbprint would be a big deterrance. Remember, giving a thumbprint would be just one of the acceptable methods of proving identity. Additional security could be added to the system by performing automatic comparison among all thumbprint voting and/or registrations. Not a bad idea for other forms of ID, too. If duplicates pop up, alarm bells start to ring.
Essentially, someone could (if they were willing to take the risk) have two registrations, one with ID and one with a thumbprint. Even in that situation, the risk of getting caught would be high, and conviction would be an almost foregone conclusion.
Finding large numbers of people willing to take that kind of risk (assuming, for the moment that large numbers of people would be willing to cheat) would be almost impossible. One zealot trying to churn out several hundred votes would find it almost impossible, and would be risking almost certain detection.
This is, in essence, putting a lock on the door. It reduces the temptation and increases the risk of detection. My gut tells me that people trying to cheat the system would choose a less-risky method, such as fake ID, rather than leave such an obvious and almost irrefutable evidence trail.
The only voting methods I've seen that are completely fraud-proof are those where only one person gets to vote. Whatever our disagreements, we certainly agree that we don't want to go there.