The latest from Bob Williams at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation:
On Sunday, February 13, the results of the Iraqi election were announced to the world. The Iraqi people, in large numbers and at great personal risk, demonstrated their commitment to democracy by voting for a 275-member Transitional National Assembly from among a broad selection of over 74 individual parties, nine coalitions and numerous individual candidates. The Unified Shiite list, backed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Muhammad Al-Sistani, won approximately 47 percent of the vote.
Despite threats from the terrorists, years of brutal war and no history of conducting free and fair elections, a provisional government only seven months old conducted an orderly election. With the aid of U.S. troops, the turnout was higher than expected, as was the level of transparency and legitimacy.
The Iraqi Election Information Network (EIN), the umbrella non-governmental organization overseeing the election, issued a statement praising the Iraqi people. EIN concluded that, “despite problems, which can only be considered modest under the circumstances, the election appears to have been conducted without systematic flaws and in accordance with basic international standards.”
If only the same could be said of Washington state.
On Sunday, the people of Iraq not only gave the world a lesson in the power of liberty, but also gave an important lesson on how to conduct an election.
Lessons Washington state can learn:
- Iraq registered all the voters in a war-torn area in 45 days! In order for Washington to begin addressing its systematically flawed election system, it must begin by re-registering all voters.
- In order to be a registered voter in Iraq, one had to be a citizen or be entitled to reclaim Iraqi citizenship; be 18 years old and registered to vote. This mirrors the rules found in our state constitution and laws. The only difference is, in Iraq, the laws were enforced. Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, arguably the most powerful man in Iraq, could not vote because he is Iranian and not an eligible Iraqi citizen. But illegal aliens in Washington state voted.
- Iraqi voters had to prove their identity by showing photo identification, proof of citizenship and a birth certificate. Washington state constitution requires the voter to be a citizen, but no birth certificate or proof of citizenship is required.
In order to vote on January 30, Iraqi voters had to show their voter registration card and a photo identification. Their fingers were marked with purple ink to prevent re-voting. In Washington state, no identification was required at the polls, and several examples of multiple voting have already been well documented.
- The recounting of 300 ballots, announced on February 9, was conducting in an orderly and timely manner and according to the laws and rules established prior to the election.
- Washington state officials can learn important lessons from Iraq about how to register a lawful electorate, run an orderly election according the rule of law and protect the integrity of the ballot.
If Iraqi elections aren’t enough of an example for us in Washington state, there’s always the Ukraine.
Bob Williams is a senior elections analyst for the Voter Integrity Project, a program of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation dedicated to restoring free and fair elections in accordance with the state and federal law.
Posted by Marsha Richards at February 14, 2005 03:30 PM | Email ThisWhile Evergreen receives a modest amount of foundation support from within the state – the conservative M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust appearing to be its largest Washington state foundation contributor – the list of out-of-state contributors to EFF reads like a “who’s who” in the national voucher and anti-labor movements. Foundation contributors include:
The Walton Family Foundation, run by heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune. The foundation, which takes many of its giving cues from national voucher advocate and “paycheck protection” contributor John Walton, gave Evergreen $300,000 from 1998 through 2000. Walton has been a generous supporter of voucher and tuition tax credit legislative, advocacy and political efforts: he gave more than $2 million alone to the failed 2000 Michigan voucher initiative.5
Also:
The Roe Foundation, founded by the late Thomas Roe, a prominent Heritage Foundation supporter and co-founder of the State Policy Network. The Roe Foundation, which has directed millions to state-based think tanks aligned with the State Policy Network, gave Evergreen $85,000 from 1998 through 2000.9 Former SPN President Byron Lamm is on the Roe board, along with Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner.
Maybe. But not from the Animal Liberation Front to my knowledge.
Posted by: Erik on February 14, 2005 04:25 PMBob ignores the main post by attacking the organization's contributors. Ad hominum - poisoning the well.
Erik's post is a very obvious red herring. The author isn't writing about the Iraq War, she's comparing *elections*.
Posted by: Skeet on February 14, 2005 04:26 PMBob-- glad to see someone's lowering the level of discussion around here. Are you aware that Sistani considers the Iranian mullahs to be, essentially, apostates for believing that they can create a perfect kingdom on earth? Like Christians & Jews, true Shias don't believe that man can perfect himself until a messiah figure comes/returns--in their case, the 12th Imam. Iranians, like communists, leftists and other statists, believe perfection can be enforced. They have more in common with MoveOn.org than they do with the slate just elected in Iraq.
But don't go letting those messy facts confuse you. Just continue with your non sequiters.
Posted by: Timothy on February 14, 2005 04:29 PMFrom the Decatur Daily News:
Christian Assyrians, 1 million of whom reside in Iraq, claim that Kurdish officials in North Iraq blocked the delivery of ballot boxes from Assyrian-dominated villages, leaving many Assyrians disenfranchised.
www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/ news/050202/christians.shtml
Not to say that what they accomplished was not wonderful, but to disenfranchise up to 1 million people because of their beliefs is not a path that Washington should follow.
There...so much better! Now we can all whistle our way to work tomorrow.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on February 14, 2005 04:54 PMEFF is trying to imply that the elections in Iraq are something we should aspire to. They're great for a country in the condition of Iraq, but they've still got some serious problems, including election officials that deliberately disenfranchise groups that they disagree with.
This is not something we should emulate.
Now, if you want to praise the voters in Iraq, braving bombs and assassins in order to cast the first relatively honest election in the country's history, I'll wave the flag right along with you.
I may not have been (and I am still not) a big fan of the war, but I am immensely grateful that something good is managing to come out of it. Whether that good is worth the price we've paid (and are still paying) is another discussion altogether.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 05:07 PMHe wasn't talking about building a monorail, by the way.
Posted by: Larry on February 14, 2005 05:11 PMActually, I'm shooting at the EFF strawman. There is much to be admired about people willing to go through what they did in order to vote. If only our citizens could be so inspired!
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 05:14 PMPosted by: Chuck Miller on February 14, 2005 05:28 PM
I just wanted to let you all know about an article from KomoTV that contains a partial interview with one of the WA State Supreme Court Justices, Justice Phil Talmadge. He is an acknowledged liberal Democrat (according to the article) and had even challenged Gregoire initially for the Democrat nomination. He concedes that Rossi has a chance of success in the election challenge, but calls the chance "slim". I'm not sure how I feel about one of Supreme Court judges commenting on Rossi's chances when the lower court hasn't even yet heard the evidence or tried the case.
Interestingly, though, is that Justice Talmadge indicates that the standard for proving illegal votes is not as high as the Democrats maintain (proving which ballot was cast for which candidate) but said that another method - such as statistical analysis - might be the most effective and probable method for assigning those illegal votes.
Anyhow, the article is here (by way of KATU's website, a TV news program in Portland):
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=74952
I hope someone over at SP - maybe even Stefan himself - might give it a read and a more thorough analysis than I could do.
Posted by: JRR on February 14, 2005 06:04 PMSkim off the top layer or replies and you receive a pretty good read of the facts.
I thought JB signed off for good? Did he make that farewell shot to Conservatives knowing he'll keep on keeping on? Say it isn't so!
Posted by: MB on February 14, 2005 07:01 PMIt will be fun to rehash Dean's many mindnumbing comments about the Iraq War after he screamed his way out of contention in the Presidential Race. You've got to believe those harsh comments will be replayed over & over again....
Dean the Dream....Republican of the Year!
This time I'm kinda glad they did. Didn't know that the Walton family were big contributors to EFF....makes me want to shop at Wal-mart all the more.
In fact, maybe I'll just head down there right now and buy up some good bargains.
Erik, were you trying to get more approval for EFF? You succeeded.
John,
Allegations are just that...allegations. Your (uncited) post sounds like Jesse Jackson whining in Ohio. With 60% of the population voting in the teeth of terrorist opposition, I'd say that was a tremendous success. And the Iraqis seemed to have done a good job ensuring that only legitimate votes counted. Something that Washington and King county can only aspire to.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 14, 2005 09:49 PMTo suggest as Mr. Williams does that the Washington election was not carried out to international standards does a real disservice not only to our government, but to the people who have put their trust in Mr. Williams and other Republicans. What will those people do when they finally figure out that you are intentionally and cynically deceiving them about this election?
Posted by: docbenton on February 14, 2005 10:44 PMI occasionally take a look at some of the sites you reference (worship?) in an attempt to find substance. It's pretty difficult. There seems to be plenty of underlying hate, greed and craving for political power and little in the way of finding ways to undermine evil, correct problems and mistakes and provide thoughtful leadership for a better tomorrow.
I think the political correctness combined with ambivilance I see in the liberal mindset is not an effective substitute for conseratively moral and ethically tough leadership.
Posted by: Curtis T. Mohr on February 14, 2005 11:05 PMReally ingenious weaving together of current events. Bravo!!! You dug up stuff I never would 've thought of.
You did, however omit mentioning USAF flying Allawi all over Iraq for campaign stops on US taxpayers dime, while most of the remaining candidates weren't announced 'till day before voting. Put his campaign spots on state radio as well, like saturation man!!! Somehow he still lost... guess they didn't use Diebold machines over there.
One thing I'll give you: Iraq did have shorter lines than Ohio. And fact Kurds recieved more consideration than Blacks in Ohio really shows the progress towards a full blown Islamic dethrocracy.
Still all in all, great article. Bravo... you're just the kind'a person they're looking for to fill recent opening in white house press corp. Bravo... Bravo!!!
Posted by: JDM on February 14, 2005 11:29 PM
This is a joke, right?
The Iraqi elections were in accordance with basic international standards?
Please....
They didnt tell the voters for which candidates they are voting.
They kept the location of many polling places secret.
One major population group participated at a rate of approximately 17%.
Nobody could go to a polling place with an assurance of getting away alive.
If these are considered as basic standards in the conservative blogosphere then I am very afraid for America.
Posted by: MarcTGFG on February 15, 2005 07:26 AMPlease keep posting. While I often disagree with you, I heartily enjoy your comments and your continued effort to create substantive posts. You may not always succeed (who does?), but you do make me think & research.
Best
Iconoclast
John,
Allegations are just that...allegations. Your (uncited) post sounds like Jesse Jackson whining in Ohio. With 60% of the population voting in the teeth of terrorist opposition, I'd say that was a tremendous success. And the Iraqis seemed to have done a good job ensuring that only legitimate votes counted. Something that Washington and King county can only aspire to.
Actually, if you'll be so kind as to read the earlier posts in the thread, you'll find the reference to the newspaper story on the Kurdish officials blocking delivery of ballot boxes to the Assyrian Christian areas under their control. If you can't find it, here is the link:
www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050202/christians.shtml
(The system apparently tries to put in a space at the wrap point. I've removed it.)
While some (very few) individual Republicans have apparently emulated that, and perhaps also a very few on these boards would agree that keeping those evil Democrats from voting would be a good thing, I doubt that either you or most of the other posters agree. I've read some of your other posts and, while staunchly partisan (no problem with that) they are routinely in favor of honest elections.
As to the honesty of the counting, well at this same point in our last election, none of the problems had come out. I doubt that the Iraqi elections will end up under this kind of spotlight. While KC's accuracy is totally unacceptable here, for a first try in Iraq it would be pretty good. I'll say it again. What the Iraqis have accomplished is nothing short of amazing.
Essentially, I'm pointing out that the straw man that EFF has put up is absurd. Had all of the problems of our election ended with Mr. Rossi as Governor, EFF would be calling this a "model of efficiency."
It annoys me to hear this kind of idiocy coming from people in my party. Perhaps I shouldn't expect your party to be any better, but you should.
What I really don't understand is why everyone here seems to need to support EFF's rather weak straw man.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 15, 2005 09:20 AMPlease show us where it says "in accordance with basic standards in the conservative blogosphere". Hmmm...I don't think that it does.
It says "in accordance with basic international standards." What does this mean? Looking up 'basic' in the dictionary yields the meaning: "constituting or serving as the basis or starting point." I think that sums it up nicely.
Certainly if Jimmy Carter can go around lending credibility to the election of every two-bit, third-rate tin hat dictator on the planet, then what happened in Iraq was incredible and wonderful. And it was only the starting point.
Posted by: Larry on February 15, 2005 09:25 AM"I thought JB signed off for good? Did he make that farewell shot to Conservatives knowing he'll keep on keeping on? Say it isn't so!"
Was this aimed at me? Being the only person with the initials "JB" that has posted on this thread, it seems to be.
While I've been almost exasperated enough on more than one occasion to just give up and say "this is just a mutual congratulation society that tolerates no dissenting voices, I give up" I haven't quite done it yet. I suppose that I'm just too ornery for that.
There may have been a "JB" on the boards at one time, but it wasn't me. Being willing to stand up for what I believe is important to me, so I've always posted with my full name and correct e-mail link.
I don't know where Ellen Craswell enters into this, who by the way was a sad excuse and a bad joke for a gubenatorial candidate. Her husband ran for US Rep. as a Losertarian candidate in 1998 and helped Rick White lose - we can thank both of them for nothing !
Posted by: KS on February 15, 2005 10:06 AMBoiled down, Gibson felt that the revote and court case was a horrible idea for the Republicans. If Rossi wins, then the precedent will be set for the Democrats to legally challenge virtually every Republican win in the state. And, since Democrats are much better at fighting in the courts (and have better other, less complimentary, skills such as lying), they would require a Republican winner to win by thousands of votes in order to avoid the inevitable litigation.
So Gibson's conundrum: either allow Democrats to win because of their encouragement of things like distributed vote fraud or watch Democrats win because they will tend to win in court with liberal judges.
A good problem stated well.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 15, 2005 10:14 AMAs I pointed out earlier, your “straw man” is not EFF’s argument. The basic thrust of EFF’s post is that the election officials in Iraq are apparently more careful with some of their procedures than some Washington State officials are with theirs. Your earlier post missed that point when you observed that many people were kept from voting and, therefore, we should not use the Iraqi election as a model for ours. That’s a straw man argument because nobody is arguing that anybody should be disenfranchised. If “first-timers” can get most of their election ducks in a row, then certainly experienced hands should do just as well or better. That isn’t the case in this situation.
Finally, it exceeds legitimate argument to say, “EFF would be calling this [election] a ‘model of efficiency’” if Rossi had won. You don’t know that. I know I would certainly call for a revote if Mr. Rossi had won because I prefer a democratic republic with which I disagree, to a dictatorship (or fraud) with which I agree.
Skeet
Thank you for reposting the cite. It does make clear that it was not the case that up to 1 million were disenfranchised because of their beliefs. Even by Christian Assyrian estimates, 40-50,000 might have been unable to vote. Whether or not it was because of the security situation as the Kurds claimed, intentional disenfranchisment, or some combination of both is still up for determination.
I do think that Williams statement regarding issues that the Iraqis handle better than WA state is fair and justified. This shouldn't be any surprise--many commentators from both sides have noted that US elections are very sloppy.
Wouldn't you think that showing id to vote and proving citizenship to register a good idea?
Don't you think that the ability of the Iraqis to register the entire country in 45 days during an insurgency reflects poorly on Logans' inability to use readily available databases to validate legitimate voters?
The final crack about the Ukraine is just that--a partisan crack. It is just meant to be hurtful to the opposition and hammer in a viewpoint. Is it exact? No, of course not. But it is an excellent "hook" by which to create a mnemnonic (sp?). But it does not mean that many of the steps taken by the Iraqis for a successful election would well be closely observed by King County (and others).
As for the statement that EFF would not care about the election irregularities if Rossi had won, I completely agree. This business of requiring everyone to be insanely objective altruists has always irritated the hell out of me. An adversarial system always creates better results than some smarmy consensus-based system.
If Rossi had won with these irregularities, it would be my expectation that the Gregioire supporters would pursue them vigorously. Since they are the offended party, who better to pursue it?
The real measure of the people on this board and elsewhere would be their stand once those irregularities were irrefutably demonstrated. I would like to think that I woulld take the position of a revote for Gregoire, but the power of human rationalization is nearly infinite, so I can only hope. But I am certain (or committed to the belief, which is more important really) that I and many others, especially including Stefan, would at least limit my/our vigorous opposition to facts and legitimate interpretation. Again, no smarmy consensus agreement but a hard-nosed "prove it" attitude would prevail on the Repub side were the situation reversed.
whew! what a lot of bytes. Now I will have to lurk for another few weeks to build up enough energy to post again.
Iconoclast
Posted by: iconoclast on February 15, 2005 10:56 AMWouldn't you think that showing id to vote and proving citizenship to register a good idea?
My posts on this topic have been seen by most on this thread and are way too long to repeat. In essence, though, yes, with some reservations.
Don't you think that the ability of the Iraqis to register the entire country in 45 days during an insurgency reflects poorly on Logans' inability to use readily available databases to validate legitimate voters?
No, as we're comparing apples to goldfish when we try to do so. I think that Mr. Logan's inability to use the readily available databases to validate legitimate voters reflects poorly on the efficiency of Mr. Logan's office.
As for the statement that EFF would not care about the election irregularities if Rossi had won, I completely agree. This business of requiring everyone to be insanely objective altruists has always irritated the hell out of me. An adversarial system always creates better results than some smarmy consensus-based system.
I disagree. Looking for consensus allows us to take the legitimate points of both sides into consideration. We can often address the important points from both sides when we do so. To insist on "winning" in an adversarial system is to lose that ability.
I also think that Democrats should be as upset about the problems as Republicans. Many of us are. As to taking a position on a re-vote, again, I have posted in favor of it many times. Not all Democrats agree, but many do. I would hope (and I believe) that most Republicans would be honest enough to do so, should our positions be reversed.
Consensus, including honest debate, is not "smarmy". It's how our laws and systems, starting from the Constitution were written.
I would have sent this off-line, as it's rather off-topic, but your e-mail link doesn't work. You are welcome to answer using mine.