Lots of good Letters to the Editor in today's Seattle Times. Richard McFarland of Seattle writes:
I find Stefan Sharkansky's focus and frequent use of the word, "revolution" disturbing ("A citizens' revolution for clean elections, new media," Times guest commentary, Jan. 19).Richard McFarland apparently didn't. He also expresses his feeling that finding thousands more "votes" than voters is good enough for government work:He states his idea of revolution is not on the scale of 1776 or the unfolding story in the Ukraine. Yet, how many people will stop to consider that?
The recent vote had nothing to do with fraud on the part of the voting system (auditors, county employees, etc.). They did the best with what they had to work with.Thanks for your letter, Richard. It made my day!
Bob Polwarth of Des Moines also has kind words for people like me:
The wailing of people like Stefan Sharkansky continues to rain down like the lamentations of Job. More importantly, this behavior reveals a profound underlying distrust for the democratic process itself.That's all good and fine. But what exactly does he mean by people like Sharkansky? Jews? Republicans? Bearded people? People who refuse to downplay the crimes of Saddam Hussein?
Blithe assertions by Sharkansky and others like him, that they alone are privy to the true "will of the people" while casting doubt on the legitimacy of a close, hard-fought election, betrays a partisanship that is well-nigh demonic. Lenin himself would be proud of this kind of rhetoric.
And be sure to read today's letters from Craig Keller and Phil Caldwell.
UPDATE: The original version of this entry linked to the website of the wrong Richard McFarland. My apologies.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 21, 2005 10:17 AM | Email ThisThat's all good and fine. But what exactly does he mean by people like Sharkansky? Jews? Republicans? Bearded people? People who refuse to downplay the crimes of Saddam Hussein?People who disagree with him.
Besides, I'm sure his union sent him a form letter asking him to write. They definitely don't want a revote.
Posted by: Boonie on January 21, 2005 10:33 AMThe letters you are receiving are so typical of how the Left deals with debate, controversy, and/or the facts. If they can't hold up their end of the argument,or present data to support it, they simply resort to attacking the opponent personally. One sees it on the cable talk shows, hears it continuely on talk radio, and reads it in the print MSM. There is no convincing these people of anything...If the courts rule against them and order a revote, their answer will be that Rossi people are just sore loosers and it's just like Florida. Logical, eh?
Don
Posted by: Don C. on January 21, 2005 10:35 AMHe's missing the point entirely if he thinks anyone claims to know the answer here.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 21, 2005 10:37 AMWhere did you say anything about having determined the true will of the people? Or was that people like you? I don't know. Maybe I started reading this blog later.
Or perhaps, the writer didn't bother to read it at all.
Hmmm...
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 21, 2005 10:38 AMBy the way, when did Lenin start caring about the will of the people?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 21, 2005 10:45 AMI don't think anyone on the sane Left truly downplays Saddam's crimes. Can we expect to invade North Korea this year?And we distinguish the sane left from the, uh, rest of the left how? Posted by: Boonie on January 21, 2005 10:46 AM
Michael Moore seemed to think SH's Iraq was a happy fun place, and he sat prominently next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC. He was openly embraced by Democratic party leadership when his movie opened. What am I to make of that?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 21, 2005 10:48 AMCan we expect you to study up and learn a little about the dynamics of the sitution there?
N. Korea is NOT like Iraq. Why? Two words: South Korea.
This excuse is never accepted when a corporation does something wrong or stupid.
Why should we accept it when election officials are responsible, indirectly, for people's VOTES getting stolen?
Why should I extend more benefit of the doubt to unionized government officials with virtually untouchable jobs than I should to employees who have to prove themselves continually in a changing job market?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 21, 2005 11:02 AMPersonally, I am tired of hearing the Democratic Party talking point repeated again and again that there was no fraud.
WELL I THINK THERE WAS FRAUD!
Fraud is a legal term.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing.cfm/Term/50857DE1-DE31-401F-A1E549CF6F035785/alpha/F
"Intentionally deceiving another person and causing her to suffer a loss. Fraud includes lies and half-truths, such as selling a lemon and claiming "she runs like a dream.""
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f079.htm
"The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. [Fraud may also include an omission or intentional failure to state material facts, knowledge of which would be necessary to make other statements not misleading.]"
http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-f.aspx
"Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability."
So was there fraud? Yes!
Did King County prior to the election have known problems identified in the past with its voting system and procedures? Yes,
Did King County officials say that the problems identified in the past (slow mailing out of absentee ballots, problems with provisional ballots, problems with obscuring voter marks during “interpreting voter intent”) had been fixed? Yes, they did!
Did the officials (who had a fiduciary responsibility to the voters and political parties) know or should have known that the statements they made about having fixed past problems were not completely true (half-truth, political spin, knowledge of false statement)? I feel that the answer to this is also true, unless they King County officials are completely incompetent and clueless. So, yes.
Should voters and political parties been able to rely upon the statements King County officials that they had fixed their problems with the operation of election? Yes.
Were voters and/or political parties damaged or loose a right by what King County did or did not do in its management of the elections? Yes.
Therefore, there was fraud! Now do I think that Ron Simms called up Dan Logan and said I want you to stuff ballot boxes to give Chris G. a 139 vote statewide lead? Nope, but I do feel that King County and its officials were guilty of fraud. They knew they had elections problems and have been planning to clean things up since the 1990’s and have not done it yet and I have no faith that they ever will until found in contempt of a judge and fined or threatened with imprisonment by a judge.
P.S. I think that is exactly what the judge in Chelan may end up doing unless King County in particular and other counties take real steps to comply with state election laws. It is a shame that it will take a judge to do this as opposed to the Secretary of State’s office.
Nay, anyone who thinks that that such an angry mob is representative of those who support a revote in WA has been watching too much CNN and reading too much of the Seattle Times, but wait....
What Richard McFarland really finds disturbing is that everyday citizens like Stefan would postpone their businesses and lives to spend time and money spreading truth about the obvious flaws in our election system that are a threat to our democracy. He's further disturbed that instead of the angry mobs he is use to like the one that descended on Seattle yesterday for the ant-inaugural protest, there are decent, well dressed and well behaved protestors amassing in Olympia to question what to Mr. McFarland has always been unquestionable, the Democrat status quo.
Regardless, the fact that we've gained enough momentum to disturb Mr. McFarland is heartening.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 21, 2005 11:42 AMMalfeasance: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official.
Negligence: failure to exercise the care that a prudent person usually exercises.
...is the term that comes to mind after reading Bob Polwarth's letter to the Editor.
Here is an individual, apparently well-educated (judging by the use of the various classical allusions), who completely misses the point, despite the copious evidence offered.
The old saying is appropos: "There is none so blind as he who will not see".
Posted by: ewaggin on January 21, 2005 12:24 PMI agree with Boonie. Either the "dim" party or the unions (or even members of those organizations) are encouraging people to write to try to discredit or at least soften the blow of our claims in the eyes of the people who don't follow this issue very closely and are uninformed enough to have their opinions swayed.
Fight On, Folks, and God Bless!
...I gotta start proofreading my posts closer.
cb
I'm wondering whether you include Baghdad Jim in that group...can leftys win elections, even in Seattle, limiting themselves to the "sane Left?"
Posted by: South County on January 21, 2005 01:01 PMThereby illustrating SC's Third Law...if you don't talk and vote RAT, they will insult you.
Posted by: South County on January 21, 2005 01:04 PMOhio's Sec of St Kenneth Blackwell, awesome republican and great american, mentioned to a TV reporter last night that he's running for OH governor for '06 and that he's the frontrunner of the 3 Rs running for it. He says his likely Democrat opponent will be Jerry Springer!
Posted by: Michele S on January 21, 2005 02:06 PMThey have not printed one of the three pro-revote letters I've sent them. In view of how eloquently crafted my letters always are, it is obvious evidence of a bias on their part! ;)
If McFarland had his way, we would still be paying homage to the Queen of England. Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, 20 years of incompetent Democratic governors in Washington State is enough! The revolution is at hand.
Posted by: LoneWolf on January 21, 2005 03:52 PMSo! Can we all agree here - from the content of his letter,.....Richard McFarland is a disturbed man?
Richard....it's not too late! You can still attend this:
SAT JAN 22, 9 am to 4:30 pm, at University Temple United Methodist Church, 1415 NE 43rd, Seattle; Politics, Justice, and Psyche :
Struggling to contain personal feelings oscillating from outrage to sorrow? Wondering if and where such feelings ethically belong in your profession? Terrill L. Gibson, Ph.D. will lead exploring both the attitudes and paradigms that stir our creative juices and the ones that block and frustrate us.
Boonie asked:
"And we distinguish the sane left from the, uh, rest of the left how?"
Pretty much the way we on the left distinguish the right's loony fringe from most (but not all) of the posters on this blog.
Is the individual willing to listen to your legitimate concerns, rather than just assume your stated concern is simply a smokesceen for some nefarious purpose? (Mind you, this does not mean that the listener has to agree with you. Just be willing to consider your point.)
If so, then you're talking to a sane person.
Does the person automatically assume that all (fill in blank) party members want to (fill in your favorite way of screwing up elections here)? That person is probably a loony, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince him/her.
When I read a post that says something along the lines of "Democrats like voter fraud" or "Liberals are all communists" I realize that I'm not likely to be able to come to some kind of understanding or common ground with that poster. That person is convinced that I am evil, simply because my political leaning is different from theirs, and nothing I say will change that.
Of course, my side has it's share (at least) of loonies, too. When I hear from a Democrat that "Republicans hate all poor and minority people" or more extreme "Conservatives are all closet facists", I realize that nothing anyone says is going to make any difference in what that person thinks.
In both cases, That person's mind is closed (and probably completely out of business.)
Dave Ross on KIRO was having an interesting argument with just such an individual. Now, Dave is not likely to have a lot of fans on this board, so I'll simply summarize what he was trying to tell this rather vocal Democrat. Republicans are not evil. They are, for the most part, good people trying to do what they think is right.
Earlier in the day, Dori Monson (who probably does have some fans here) was trying to make the same point about Democrats.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 21, 2005 04:58 PMLet me see if I've got this straight... a couple of thousand votes without voters, felons voting, dead people voting, Military ballots being sent out so late that some of our troops didn't even get their ballots until after the election, numbers and dates changing from one release of info to another, all mostly in king county, "magical mystery ballots found in king county NINE different times, with the ultimate result of all of this putting gregoire in the lead... a lead, by the way which is only about half of what she called a "tie" when Rossi was in the lead...
And, in your mind, for us to be suspicious of any further seeming irregularities, red-herrings, fallacies,or other possibly organized acts of distraction or misleading messages on the part of the democrats somehow makes us "loons" that are assuming these acts are a "smokescreen for some nefarious purpose" ?
And on top of all of that, that we should just forget that these "nefarious" acts have occurred, and should be willing to consider arguments that rationalize and protect this behavior... otherwise we're not "sane" ???
Wow! If that's what it takes to be "sane" in your world, I'd rather remain a "loon"!
I do agree with you on one point, however. The extremes at either end, that spout broad generalities about one side or the other are a little (or a lot) "out there."
God Bless!
Let's see.
Ok, let me give it from the other side. Republicans, afraid of losing the election, call poor and minority families, telling them that they are calling from the DNC and can take their votes over the phone. I should believe that you approve. (Seattle, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Miami, etc...)
Republicans, trying to keep minority voters away from the polls, ensure that there are insufficient machines for the number of voters. I should assume that you approve. (Again, Ohio, Florida, etc...)
Republicans, putting in voting machines that have no paper trail, find themselves with over 2000 more votes than registered voters in one district. Again, you approve. (New Mexico, also the only other locations where paperless voting machines "malfunctioned" it seems to help Republicans.)
Republicans, knowing that while most minorities favor Democrats, Hispanics in Florida tend to favor Republicans, put out a list of "felons" that includes hundreds of eligible voters, but somehow fails to exclude thousands of ineligible Hispanic felons. (Florida)
What's that you say? You don't approve? Guess what. I believe you. I even believe that the malfunctions and programming gliches are just that. Wealthier districts get newer technology, and we're finding that the technology has problems. Perhaps a few of them were caused by individuals within your party, but I believe that your party is primarily comprised of honest people of good will.
Felons voting? Seems like the only ones we're finding vote Republican. I can't tell about the dead ones. But, oddly enough, the only solutions I see touted here by Republicans would likely be tossed by the courts. Nothing actually gets done, and we can blame Democrats. Do you folks like this chaos?
Military voters? I spent over twenty years active duty Navy. There's a Voting Assistance Officer in every unit, and they have Federal write-in ballots. To my knowledge, none of them were rejected, even for local races. Of course, we could be talking about those mysterious "military" (absentee, and we really don't know where they came from) ballots that show up with no postmark, two weeks after the election. (Any Postal Clerk that failed to postmark a ballot on any of my ships would have been busted for dereliction and sent to Deck department, chipping paint under close supervision.)
I can come up with good reasons to be "suspicious of any further seeming irregularities, red-herrings, fallacies,or other possibly organized acts of distraction or misleading messages" from Republicans.
I choose to believe that the party that represents roughly half of our country is not so corrupt as to deliberately do all those things. If I'm wrong, then our country is in much worse trouble than I could have imagined.
If I choose to believe that Republicans deliberately do the things I described, I cut off dialog that could help to stop those things from happening in the future. As you seem to want to do with Democrats. It's much more fun to blame the "other guy" and much easier to see the speck in his eye than the log in your own.
There are lots of things that we can solve, working together. All of us want honest elections, where every legal voter gets to vote once. There are real differences between our parties, but this isn't one of them.
We can require identification, so long as we don't make it an obstacle to lawful voters. We can have voting machines that produce a paper ballot, verifiable by the voter prior to being recorded, and thereby do away with "enhancements" and "voter intent" nonsense.
But... If it's going to happen, we have to get past this "the other side is evil" routine that the loudest voices in both our parties seem to insist on shouting.
If my party won't take your reasonable expectations into consideration, then any solutions we come up with will not work and will never be enacted. Just as if your party will not take our reasonable expectations into consideration, your solutions will not work either. Then we get to just keep blaming each other.
So, if you'd rather stay convinced that the evil "Demoncraps" (as we have been called on this board) are deliberately trying to "steal" elections from you kindly folk, well, yes, I think you're a looney. Fortunately, most of your party isn't, and hopefully, you aren't either.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 21, 2005 10:25 PMMy apologies for the partisan ranting.
Occasionally the continual assumption that only we Democrats have anything to do with all of the problems we are facing gets annoying.
I also realize that the Republican partisanship here is no more vicious (and often far more polite) than the partisanship shown by some of my fellow Democrats. Yes, I've read "the blog that must not be named." Some of those posts bother me even when I agree with them.
We've got problems that need to be solved. Our parties have real differences, and that's a good thing. Neither of us has an absolute lock on what is best for our country.
The need for honest elections is not one of those differences. How we get to that point is, to some extent, but my hope (and belief) is that we can find methods that solve (or at least substantially reduce) the problems that we all see.
Hey, why do you think I put up with this abuse, anyway?
Posted by: John Barelli on January 21, 2005 10:44 PMWith that said, Republicans are not totally innocent and wouldn't doubt that they impersonate those from the DNC, if they believed they could get away with it. Again, that is human nature.
In general, Republicans are less likely to be activists - as they have a higher employment rate than Democrats who are able to spend more time demonstrating or are employed as lobbyists. Actually, I think there is not as big of a difference between Democrat and Republican demonstrators as the MSM portrays, because the MSM prefers covering primarily liberal demonstrations, unless conservatives make enough noise about their demonstrations to warrant coverage. Case and point - on Jan. 11 - the initial count given by the MSM was 1000 pro-Revote and 500 anti-revote. As it turned out the real numbers were close to 1800 pro-revote and 300 anti-revote. That was an exception - normally liberals outnumber conservative demonstrators at least 3 to 2 - because more liberals live in the urban areas where a majority of the large demonstrations are held. So much for the demographics...
In summation, anyplace that is predominantly controlled by one party is more vulnerable to corruption and yes, election fraud - because the check and balance by the opposing party is not very effective. A good example of this one-party in control phenomenon is King County and more specifically the City of Seattle. In fact, at present there is nothing short of a Democrat monopoly in the State Legislature - so hold on to your wallets, be vigilant and hold the legislators' feet to the fire at every turn, or you'll be sorry !
Posted by: KS on January 21, 2005 11:02 PMIf you will read my post again, I was writing specifically about WA State and the governor's race.
I'm not sure what going off on a tangent about wrongdoing in other states has to do with that.
I have no doubt that there are Republican-dominated counties and states nationwide that have just as much corruption as there are in Democrat-controlled enclaves like WA.
That doesn't make any of it right, and the issue at hand today, here and now, is whether or not the wrongdoing in king county and others is enough to invalidate gregoire's governorship.
It seems the Democrats here are saying "don't look for the facts or the truth... just take our word for it... gregoire won fair and square. And if you keep pursuing the facts and the truth, you must be some kind of "loon"."
Well Sir, I don't agree with that. She did not win fairly, there have been huge numbers of discrepancies (remember now I'm talking about in THIS state, and this governor's race), and that these have been more than enough to throw the election her way. Definitely enough to cast serious doubt on the validity of her claims to victory.
And by the way, many of the Military write-in ballots were rejected because they only indicated a party-line vote rather than a specific candidate. (because many overseas don't have access to a television to keep up on who's who, etc.)
However, I've got to respect your Military Service and your knowledge of corruption in both parties nationwide. But please, let's stick to the subject at hand here. OUR State. And, your calling of names and such really detracts from your main message (which sometimes has some very good points). No one reacts to being called names well.
Also, no one is a loon or otherwise for raising questions about this race, not letting anyone talk them out of pursuing the truth about this race and for not marching in lockstep with the democratic message.
God Bless!
I never once saw a "Voting Assistance Officer" or was even told that one was available to me.
Those brave men over there are going through hell, and deserve better than to be disenfranchised.
I would think with your Military record that you would be much more outraged with their treatment.
Posted by: Clint on January 22, 2005 06:22 AMI'm not sure what going off on a tangent about wrongdoing in other states has to do with that.
The point was that Republicans have some skeletons in their closet too, and that we need to quit blaming "the other guys" and fix the problems. The focus (from both parties) has been to point at the problems apparently attached to the other party, while proclaiming their own innocence and virtue. We won't get anywhere that way.
In other posts on SoundPolitics, I've pointed out just how embarrassing this mess has been to Democrats. I think Mr. Logan's once promising career in politics has come to a screeching halt. Party leaders do not like to be publicly embarrassed, and also do not like having to defend incompetence. Democrats are convinced that if all the legal votes had been counted the first time, we wouldn't be in this mess. No, it wasn't "close enough for government work."
(In Vietnam) I never once saw a "Voting Assistance Officer" or was even told that one was available to me.
Your experience (along with many others) in Vietnam and elsewhere were what got that program started. It's been going strong for over twenty years. VAOs have access to names of candidates as well. And yes, I still (very much) want to get this program improved.
If you were to argue that the actual absentee ballot is a far better way of voting, I would agree. Just getting it in the mail is a reminder (to people that already have far too much on their minds just staying alive) that they should vote.
So, rather than simply throwing blame around, How about the parties getting together to move up the primary, removing one (excuse/obstacle - take your pick) to getting ballots out in a timely manner? Let's face it. Primaries after the conventions are pretty silly anyway, and military members overseas do not get to participate in caucuses. Heck, people with lives do not get to participate in caucuses.
Did Ms. Gregoire win "fairly?" Republicans have been defining "fairly" as meaning a win that is beyond the margin of error and has no discrepancies that could have tipped the balance. Democrats have been defining "fairly" as meaning a win where there was not deliberate fraud perpetrated by either the candidate or the party. So the answer would be no and yes, depending on your point of view.
I'm pretty happy that the court will make the decision. I expect that the facts, based on evidence and sworn testimony will probably leave enough questions that the court will order a re-vote, not based on "fraud" but just because the margin was so small and there were serious problems. I expect my party to put up a defense of our candidate, but I think most of the tears shed over losing this battle will be for show.
In other forums, I've laid out the advantages of a re-vote for Democrats, and they are many.
1. We almost eliminate the chance of a recall.
2. We get the precedent of a re-vote in questionable elections with narrow margins. (Expect a weak appeal to the US Supreme Court, just to get that precedent.)
3. During this time, we get Ms. Gregoire seated as Governor, acting gubernatorial.
I think the re-vote would be ours to lose. We'd have to screw something up or make a major PR gaff to lose the thing. Of course, as I've said many times, we Democrats have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and from the news out of Olympia, we seem to be working very hard to do so now.
Raising questions doesn't make anyone a loon. Insisting that the "other side" caused all the problems and that only "my side" has all the answers makes one a loon.
Please disregard my last comment. I woke up with a bad head, and got a little upset when I read through previous posts.
I'm sorry for downplaying the role of the Navy in these conflicts. They are also very brave men who often put their lives on the line, and they are Honorable and greatly appreciated.
But I still stand by my statement that the troops currently on the ground have a lot more on their mind in the middle of battle than finding an alternative method of voting when their ballots show up too late for their vote to count.
And John, I still think that considering your service, you of all people should be a lot more outraged, if not disgusted, at the way the Military ballots have been handled... I mean jeez, hundreds were not counted because of at best a "technicality", at worst, because of outright deliberate actions on the part of partisans involved.
I repeat: Our brave fighting men deserve better.
God Bless!
John B. - You appear to suffer some naivete to not believe the Damocrats seldom exhibit of "below the belt" behavior.
No, it just gets annoying listening to the Republican "pot" calling the Democrat "kettle" black. We have (at least) our share of zealots that as individuals feel that "the ends justify the means."
While I think we probably have more of them than you Republicans, the ones you do have are (for the most part) in better positions to cause problems. A bunch of college students can (and may have) done a number of "double votes." Senior corporate executives can put obstacles to voting in the way of large numbers of low-wage workers.
I'm not arguing that either of these is right. I'm not even saying which is worse. It doesn't matter, as they are both wrong and need to be stopped.
Incumbents (both parties) have little incentive to closely investigate the election system. Election reform is always a popular topic for discussion, then always seems to get caught up in committee, or the law is written with some major flaw that gets it tossed by the court. Then either the "other guy" or the court gets blamed, and nothing else happens.
Part of the reason I keep posting here is that I believe that we have an opportunity to actually make some positive changes because of the current mess. Because of the nature of the current mess, I think Republicans have the best chance to push through those changes, even though we Democrats are the majority party in the legislature.
Unfortunately, most of what I see and hear is "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Instead, why aren't we demanding things like:
1. Move up the primary. We speak of disenfranchising the military, yet we pick our candidates in a manner that they cannot participate in, and that causes delays in sending out absentee ballots. (No, I don't think that's the only problem, but it is one of them, and easily solved.)
2. Better voter identification. Yes, I'm talking your language here. (See, I do listen!) The problem is, most of the methods that your side proposes would be obstacles to the poor and homeless. We can solve this in ways that do not require some single mom to have to choose between voting and groceries for her kids.
3. Better voting machines. The proposal I'm most fond of is a touch-screen machine that prints a verifiable paper ballot. The voter checks the ballot before putting it in the reader. No "voter intent," no "enhancements," no "hanging chads." Also no Diebold programmer ensuring that the vote goes the "right" way.
4. Better tracking of ineligible voters. Another Republican favorite, we can do so in ways that ensure that only those people that are ineligible are disenfranchised. It needs to be centralized at the state level, and should eventually be coordinated nation-wide.
Before we can begin to work together to solve these problems, we have to understand that the "other side" is not evil, and is not deliberately dishonest. Yes, both sides "spin" things their own way.
No, I'm not naive enough to believe that Democrats are all virtuous or that we do not have people within our party that are willing to cheat in order to win. Hopefully, you are not naive enough to believe that you don't have the same problem.
I am, however "naive" enough to believe that both parties (even their leadership) are primarily comprised of honest people of good will, and that if we can quit listening to the voices of the zealots (on both sides) we can make some positive changes.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 22, 2005 09:19 AMPosted by CandrewB at January 21, 2005 01:50 PM
Of course, Robertson is a TV evangelist, I think (the fact that I don't know, and I'm a conservative Christian, is as telling as anything.) Jim McDermott is a US House member, routinely re-elected by Saddam Hussein-like margins.
There is a difference, isn't there?
Posted by: South County on January 22, 2005 09:25 AMWell, I can think of some excuses, but they'd be pretty rare. For example, if the vehicle carrying the ballots from a precinct were hit by a gasoline truck, it might be impossible to come up with a meaningful clean audit for that precinct. Even in such cases, however, it should be possible to come up with an upper bound for the number of errors in a precinct (and by extension, county or state). If a candidate wins by 10,000 votes and all precincts are clean except a 634-vote precinct whose ballots were lost, the candidate should be declared the winner. If the same ballots were lost but the winning margin were only two votes, a revote might be in order.
Posted by: supercat on January 22, 2005 11:43 AMMost or all of these reform measures will likely never get out of committee - because like you said/why should the Demoncats pass anything that would potentially hurt them ? An initiative carefully crafted could bring about these reforms also, but that would take longer to occur and be more of an uphill battle. In addition, State Sen. Ken Jacobsen - D , is trying to move a bill that will stop initiatives altogether (Hopefully this bill would never see the light of day, but I would not trust the current state legislature) and believe that Gregoire - the aristocrat that she is, would go ahead and sign such a piece of legislation.
If Mr. Rossi were to ascend to the Governorship, there would be a better chance of the 4 reforms that you mentioned being passed, and he would have the authority to sign an executive order (I believe- correct me if that is not the case) that would implement these measures or ones similar to ones John B. suggests. Just one more big reason that I want a revote !
Finally, yes, there should probably be more Democrats elected in places like Texas or Utah - where Republicans are the monopoly party for the check and balance of the system to work better there, just as more R's in elected office in this state would increase the integrity of State Government - I know, most readers here would say - duh ! (that's a no-brainer).
Posted by: KS on January 22, 2005 12:05 PMYour suggestions for voting reform are right on the money, and should be implemented nationwide.
To that list, I would add:
1) that exceptions be made for Military voters who are overseas and are subject to the "snafu"s of moving mail in and out of war zones, late mailing of ballots, and that some G.I. mail ends up with no postmark because of irregularities in the way Military mail is procesed. (no stamp and such)
2) that all counties must reconcile the number of votes with the number of voters before certifying their results, and that all counties submit those results on the same date to keep those with incentive to cheat from knowing the exact number of ballots that need to be fabricated, found, mined, or gleaned from various newspapers' obituaries and cemetery headstones.
Otherwise, these are outstanding suggestions. Now if we just had a chance in hell of getting them in place, considering that there would probably be resistance from both sides in the various regions that benefit from the lax election rules.
"that exceptions be made for Military voters who are overseas and are subject to the "snafu"s of moving mail in and out of war zones, late mailing of ballots, and that some G.I. mail ends up with no postmark because of irregularities in the way Military mail is procesed. (no stamp and such)"
This one bugs me a lot. I'm retired Navy, with over 20 years active, and I heard the story about the ship that couldn't manage to postmark mail.
Baloney, and other terms not appropriate for family viewing.
Military Postal Clerks, even in some very difficult places manage to postmark the mail, especially ballots. Every Postal Clerk knows that many states require a postmark for the ballot to be accepted. Even when there is not stamp, ballots must be postmarked to be valid. Any Postal Clerk that failed to do so would be busted for dereliction and sent to Deck department, where some BMSN would supervise him chipping paint.
Remember, Postal Clerks also handle classified material. Again, postmarks, logs and accountability. They take their jobs very seriously, and do not mess up that way. You're much more likely to get unpostmarked mail from your local post office.
Also, without postmarks, there is no way to tell military absentee ballots from any other absentee ballot. This leaves a big security hole in the system.
Stamps on mail from combat zones are not required, but even those ballots get a postmark.
Additionally, I remember when mail from overseas was an "iffy" proposition at best. My wife and I would number the outside of our letters so we would know if one was missing, and so we could read them in order. Two weeks in transit was pretty good time for a letter.
No more. My last deployment (1998 - and I'm told it's gotten even faster.) was aboard a ship with no helo, often steaming independently. Mail home averaged less than five days, and never took longer than ten. A bag of unpostmarked ballots showing up two weeks after the election? If it happend, a lot of heads need to roll.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 22, 2005 04:28 PMI apologize again for my post. It was a stupid comment that I made without thinking, and while still only half awake with a bad head, when something in a prior comment struck me wrong. Granted, that does not excuse my stupidity. Please forgive me.
Everyone made extreme sacrifices over there, and I'm sorry for dishonoring anyone.
God Bless!
I'm sorry, I have been busy taking care of other matters.
You have held up well. I love your 4 points. More to the point, you continue to make a case for us having a beer together (could you handle drinking one with a self-avowed micro-organism?)...
I have some doubt that we agree on issues like property rights, abortion, gun control, and others, but this one issue demands serious consideration, and beer (Guiness, right?) is the one way serious consideration must be considered... :-)
And Clint, please, that is rather unbecoming, isn't it? We post, and face the consequences. I only make one apology, unless I really mucked it up...
Posted by: smegma on January 22, 2005 06:39 PMAlthough I appreciate the advice, I really did "muck" that one up. Badly. I made a dumb comment, at a weak moment, about fellow veterans who have been through hellfire and brimstone for their country. Many who sacrificed FAR more than I did, and they didn't deserve my disrespecting them.
Have you ever said something that, right after you said it, you wish you could take it back?
Right after I hit the "POST" button, I realized how wrong it was to have made the comment, and would have given my eyeteeth for an "UNPOST" button.
Yesterday was my birthday, and I guess I over-imbibed a bit and woke up with a really bad head. I got on the computer and as usual checked the latest here on Sound Politics first thing off. I wasn't thinking straight, and reacted completely from emotion and ego about a post that was contrary to what I had posted.
So it may be unbecoming, as you say, but I feel I can't apologize enough to the veterans that I was so inconsiderate of and dishonored.
I wouldn't do that for just anyone, but the brave men (and women) who have given so much deserve it.
God Bless!
Posted by: Clint on January 22, 2005 08:45 PM
My own apology is in order. Shame, shame. One or more 'Hail, Mary (s)' and several 'Acts of Contrition' later...
Do not lament over this. I get it wrong as much as King County gets the vote count right... :-)
Posted by: smegma on January 22, 2005 09:14 PMLOL! That's good!
Hey, I appreciate the response... and jeez, you coudn't possibly "get it wrong as much as King County gets the vote count right" ! That takes a concerted effort!
God Bless you and your loved-ones! Take care!
Have a good night, and don't let the demons get you down...we have enough to worry about!
Posted by: smegma on January 22, 2005 09:39 PMOk, before we go overboard with the mia culpas (and considering that the thread is slowing anyway) - a bit on communications, in this case between different services:
One reason the Services have trouble operating jointly is that they don't speak the same language.
For example, if you told Navy personnel to "secure a building," they would turn off the lights and lock the doors.
Army personnel would occupy the building so no one could enter.
Marines would assault the building, capture it, and defend it with suppressive fire and close combat.
The Air Force, on the other hand, would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy.
Hey, guys. We have all both poked fun at the other services, and have occasionally stuck our feet firmly in our mouths. Don't sweat the small stuff. If you put on any of the uniforms and risked having unfriendly strangers try to poke holes in you, you can be forgiven for the occasional faux pau.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 22, 2005 09:41 PMCheers!
Posted by: smegma on January 22, 2005 09:52 PMThank you both, Sirs!
I was feeling really bad about that foot-in-mouth thing, and it's nice to have you guys lighten it up for me.
John, when you talk about how efficient today's Military is, I'm astounded. I had no idea. In my day, it was a serious clusterf*ck.
To give you an example, when I came back from overseas, I did three years stateside. One of my posts was Ft. Ben Harrison, Indiana with the 36th Engineers (I was a combat engineer)
One day we were assigned to go and demolish a building on post (an old warehouse)... well, to make a long story short, our Captain had read the post map wrong, and we demolished the building right next to it by mistake. Oops!
Anyway, thanks again guys, and may God Bless you and your loved-ones real good!
And, by the way---GET OVER IT!!!!!
Posted by: Bob Polwarth on July 7, 2005 06:55 PM