1. There is no genuine desire to reform. They assume that the citizenry are so ignorant and ill informed that we will buy into this. It would almost be better for us to have a benevolent dictator than this silly "representative" democrazy. Of course, I jest.

In the parlance of the democrats:
Let the Proletariat rise and over throw the Bourgeois!

Wait... I am one of the Bourgeois! Something is wrong here.

Posted by: chopstix on March 4, 2005 11:14 AM

2. Some have suggested that all signatures on absentee ballots should be notarized in order to be counted, since they must present ID to the notary. This would help verify that the absentees were truly cast by the voter in question. Obviously, this would be a burdent and probably cut down on voter turnout.

Are you in favor of this reform?

Posted by: chew2 on March 4, 2005 11:16 AM

3. They really don't care. Does the Senate think we wont remember or care during the next election? I have never had this much interest in the political scene before this past election. I can imagine there are many more out there like myself paying more attention to the shenanigans and light weight measures taking place in Olympia.

Radio stations KVI and KTTH have continued to report on the continuing saga of the past election and its aftermath. If the interest wasn't there, there would be a change in the formats. Hopefully, the Dems are shooting themselves in the feet.

Posted by: marge on March 4, 2005 11:20 AM

4. ..."A dopey idea that will only make illegal voting easier..."

With fake governors and outta-control legislatures, why mess with success? This is the winning formula for the Looney-Left to hold this state hostage for years!

Posted by: flexnfx on March 4, 2005 11:23 AM

5. Anyone know where we can get a bunch of signature machines real cheap ... just program the signature as you fill out the absentee form, and then let the machine sign the ballots ... and hey, since no-one ever has to actually meet the voter, and the voter never has to prove who they are ...

NEWS BULLETIN
Dateline Nov 4, 2005

ROSSI Wins Gov Mansion in Revote ..

245,524,345 absentee votes for Dino Rossi vs 1,450,234 for Christine Gregoire in a revote using purely absentee ballots. Democrats in legislature suspect that there may be some fraud in that there were more ballots cast than residents in the state.

Posted by: DangYankee on March 4, 2005 11:26 AM

6. "ROSSI Wins Gov Mansion in Revote .."

DangYankee: How about this?

Rossi (wins) 3 elections to Gregoire (kinda wins) 1

Posted by: flexnfx on March 4, 2005 11:32 AM

7. My point is ... they are making it easier rather than harder to cheat if they go to all absentee.

Personally, I think that if you want to vote absentee, you should have to go to the county clerks office, show ID, and get your ballot handed to you - unless you are out of the country on military duty, in which case the ballots should be given to the military for all presonnel listed as serving overseas at least 2 mo before the election, and then the military should distribute, and collect them, en masse.

Posted by: DangYankee on March 4, 2005 11:40 AM

8. This should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who has lived in the Puget Sound Region for any length of time. The government of this state has been a ‘poster child’ for ‘machine politics’ at it’s worst and it long since past that point of being a disgrace. The Democrat Parties of Seattle/Tacoma have pretty well had their way in selecting who sits in the Governor’s mansion however this last gubernatorial election has them spooked. For a Republican of the Dino Rossi type to even make a respectable showing would have been unheard of even a few years ago. For him to actually win the election, which it is obvious that he did, represents a major change in the electorate. I am pretty positive that the Republican position will eventually prevail however even if she occupies the governor’s Mansion for four years she will still leave with a cloud over her head. (As an aside the National Republican Campaign Committee called the other day seeking a donation. I told them to call back in a year or so, it will take me at least that long to cool down after hearing that George Bush referred to the pretender as ‘Governor Gregoire of the State of Washington.) Between this fiasco and the CAO I see a serious threat to Democrat Party dominance in this State.

Posted by: JDH on March 4, 2005 11:42 AM

9. This should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who has lived in the Puget Sound Region for any length of time. The government of this state has been a ‘poster child’ for ‘machine politics’ at it’s worst and it long since past that point of being a disgrace. The Democrat Parties of Seattle/Tacoma have pretty well had their way in selecting who sits in the Governor’s mansion however this last gubernatorial election has them spooked. For a Republican of the Dino Rossi type to even make a respectable showing would have been unheard of even a few years ago. For him to actually win the election, which it is obvious that he did, represents a major change in the electorate. I am pretty positive that the Republican position will eventually prevail however even if she occupies the governor’s Mansion for four years she will still leave with a cloud over her head. (As an aside the National Republican Campaign Committee called the other day seeking a donation. I told them to call back in a year or so, it will take me at least that long to cool down after hearing that George Bush referred to the pretender as ‘Governor Gregoire of the State of Washington.) Between this fiasco and the CAO I see a serious threat to Democrat Party dominance in this State.

Posted by: JDH on March 4, 2005 11:42 AM

10. I guess I missed something.

Where in the bill was the provision for handwriting experts to be in charge of signature validations?

Was there also a section on routine, id validated, signature records updates to allow for aging or other conditions that change a voters signature over time?

Do mail in ballots have to be mailed out by the counties, or can you go get one to mail in later?

Would picking up a ballot require id?

Could I register my residence at all 39 county elections offices and vote 39 times?

I think I need some food, getting a little light headed.

Posted by: Jack on March 4, 2005 11:43 AM

11. OH SO predictable from these people!

Posted by: Michele on March 4, 2005 11:58 AM

12. I don't see how SB 5744 would make things worse.

It simply allows counties to change to voting by mail rather than both by mail and at polling places.

If anything, it might remove one of the problems we now have -- if we can get the counties to credit voters with having participated at the point when the first ballot purportedly cast by a particular voter is received. If the counties will obey RCW 29A.60.180 and credit voters with voting as part of the canvassing process -- before certifying their election returns -- then we shouldn't have unexplained discrepancies between the number of voters and number of ballots.

I think perhaps the objections should be directed at the processes of registering to vote and verifying the identities of the people who cast their ballots by mail.

If people can register by mail without ever appearing in person to show who they are (or claim to be), what keeps the dishonest people from registering under more than one name?

If the only proof of identity is a signature on a ballot envelope, what gives us any assurance that the ballots are being cast in a one-person/one-ballot mode? (When the signature on file doesn't match the signature on the envelope, SSB 5499 section 4 would authorize the "voter" to submit a new signature by mail, without ever showing up in person to prove who he claims to be. Now, that's a reason to get worked up about so-called election reform.)

Right now, no proof of identity is required at the polling places, and no practical method of verifying identity is used in absentee ballots. (Asking human beings to compare and verify thousands of signatures on envelopes is asking too much, in my opinion. I don't believe signatures on envelopes provide a practical means of proving identity -- at least, it's not one that gives me any reason to believe that we are functioning on a one-person/one-ballot basis.)

I would like to see proof of identity at both polling places and by absentee voters. For absentee voters, the only practical method I know of is to require that the voters appear before a notary public and prove their identity -- thereby obtaining the notary's signature and seal on the ballot envelope to indicate that proof of identity was given.

Whether voting by mail or at polling places, I'm looking for some reason to believe that people are casting only one ballot per election.

SB 5744 neither reduces the level of assurance nor adds any reason to believe that elections would be decided on a one-person/one-ballot basis.

So, I see no reason to get worked up about SB 5744, but I do see a reason to expect something more as part of election reform.

Some people argue that there is no evidence that failing to require proof of identity causes a problem, but how could anyone know? No one checks to see who you are (or claim to be) when you vote. The idea is to have a system which engenders a feeling of trust in reasonable people, rather than have a system which can be trusted only through blind faith in the goodness of our fellow men.

Posted by: Micajah on March 4, 2005 12:04 PM

13. "I don't see how SB 5744 would make things worse."

Because by expanding the authority (that is, by expanding the use of system rife with fraud) you expand that fraud.

That said:

Clearly, Sam Reed doesn’t quite get it.

A review of Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed’s take on “election reform” tends to show that he’s not listening and that, in many respects, he simply doesn’t get it.

While I agree with many of his proposals, Sam has apparently failed to grasp the most important aspects of election reform. For whatever the reason, he has completely ignored the concerns repeatedly expressed during the “hearings” over illegal voters, cancellation of current voter registrations, re-registration and all new registrations requiring proof of citizenship along with proof of address no matter how the registration is collected… Including motor voter…. (which is not, after all, any kind of sacred cow) and designing a system to insure that felons do not vote without the restoration of their voting rights.

Further, the idea that counties should be able to go to an all-mail vote system WITHOUT proper identification processes concerning citizenship and address is begging for a system of fraud, manipulation and deception.

I simply cannot imagine why he ignored the hundreds of people and letters he’s heard and read that make these demands. His failure to include and advocate for the implementation of these common-sense reforms is unconscionable.

Posted by: Who.... me? on March 4, 2005 12:28 PM

14. Hey, who...me?

Survey says: Reed doesn't care.

Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 4, 2005 12:46 PM

15. Another initiative to be voted on by the people will be needed to strike down this dopey new law, to be combined with real election reform to go along with the cosmetic, superficial reform that will be voted into law - thanks in part to Sam Reed, who has totally caved in to the Dems. He is also bantering the story around that purging all of the voter rolls is illegal by Federal Law, which is false and his misinterpretation of Federal Law is a disservice to the voters of this state.

Posted by: KS on March 4, 2005 01:04 PM

16. This is a blatant attempt by the Democrats to strengthen their hold on power and eliminate a Republican strength, namely getting out the vote.

It used to be that absentee ballots favored Republicans, while Democrat machines were better at getting people to the polls. This reversed over the last few election cycles as Democrats put more emphasis on early voting and the Republicans have developed a truly impressive volunteer-based GOTV program.

I think that the 3 point swings from pre-election polling to actual results are frightening the Democrats. They tried to compete with 527 money and paid GOTV programs, but failed.

Now there strategy is, "If you can't beat 'em, legislate them away."

Posted by: Tony on March 4, 2005 04:28 PM

17. At the end of the report there is a list of people who sent letters to the taskforce SOS, etc. Did you send one? Is your letter listed? Mine are not, nor is the petition with over 200 signatures mentioned.

Posted by: Hanna on March 4, 2005 04:39 PM

18. People are becoming extremely concerned over the bills currently flying through our state legislature - not only with regard to election reform...but also the Democrats attempt to yank the peoples initiative process. To take away the only power we have to stop their machine!

Think about the absurdity of the all Absentee voting measure at this particular time in Washington's election history! Everyone knows the absentee voting process is what allowed the fraud and errors to flourish in the first place! So WHY would the Dems *now* consider the move to turn all counties into absentee voting? AND - If they (the Dems) are successful in denying the people the initiaive process - to reject these illogical measures....we (the people) will be without a vote and without a voice in this state!

This is getting very serious people!

Posted by: Deborah on March 4, 2005 08:07 PM

19. Things that come easy are often not worthwhile. Like lazy "voting by mail." We were in much better shape back in the old days when you had to have a good reason for an absentee ballot. Anybody notice how many Cantwell recorded phone calls went out pre election NOT asking for a vote for Gregoire, but pushing "vote by mail?" And entrusting our ballots to the POST OFFICE - the butt of many jokes for good reason! Even suggesting such a bill means they know we're on them!

Posted by: Connie on March 4, 2005 08:30 PM

20. Time does not heal all wounds....
Time WOUNDS..ALL HEELS...

Posted by: Linda Bina on March 7, 2005 06:04 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?