After this week's confessions of fraudulent mail ballot accounting, you'd have to be a complete fool to write a letter to an editor suggesting that voting entirely by mail is a tremendous idea
It is a tremendous step forward for the state of Washington. It promotes an informed electorate by allowing people to spread their ballots out across the kitchen table and really study the issues as they vote. Voting by mail is secure because signatures on every ballot are checked.Unfortunately, the complete fool who wrote this letter happens to be our state's chief election officer, Secretary of State Sam Reed.
There have been so many other problems identified with absentee ballots: ballots lost in the mail, double voting, non-citizen voting, deceased person voting, etc, that mail balloting is an invitation to even more bungled elections and outright fraud. The suggestion that filling out the ballot at your kitchen table makes you a more informed voter than if you vote at the polls is as ridiculous as it is patronizing. The state and/or counties send out a voter's pamphlet before every election. I always read my voter's pamphlet well before the election, mark my choices and then bring it with me to the polling place as a reference when I cast my ballot. Does Sam Reed seriously think that voters are too dim to figure out how to do this?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 22, 2005 12:17 PM | Email ThisReed is not loyal, and he is not there when his party needs him.
I use to really like Sam. He has lost all my respect.
Posted by: Cliff on May 22, 2005 01:00 PM
"Wishing does not make it so." -- Unknown
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on May 22, 2005 01:13 PMSam Reed should resign or be recalled. The man is too stupid to be Dog Catcher, you have to at least fool a dog to do that job.
Posted by: JCM on May 22, 2005 01:15 PMIt isn't moronic to be duped by someone. Foolish maybe, naive more likely, but not moronic. Reed is an accomodationist and a tired old man.
He shows neither the spark nor the spunk to be an effective SOS, much less an effective Republican SOS.
So I'll cut my losses, and invoke the "Shame on you" rule (You know, the one that starts "Fool me once...".
For what it's worth, I'm sticking to my oft-stated saw that says, "I'd sooner vote for the worst Republican before I'd touch the "best" democrat ;'}
Rhetorical question, there. The point is that those in power believe the electorate to be morons...hence, the constant insulting of the populace's intelligence.
Posted by: Danny on May 22, 2005 01:50 PMSam Reed will never be serious about election reform.
Posted by: ScottM on May 22, 2005 02:16 PMAnd if Mr. Reed thinks there's no chance for mail-in ballots to be counterfeited, or collected and marked by other than their registered voters, he's too naive for public office - or else he's intentionally creating conditions for fraudulent voting by any activist who simply must win.
That's why I suggested a couple of alternate terms (duped, etc). I can't honestly say that SR misrepresented himself - I just think that, based on his performance and on his rhetoric, he isn't any good at this job. If he would just realize that fact, and work (or better yet, not work!) to "tread water" until the next SOS election, we'd all be better off ("sometimes it is better to do nothing well than to do anything poorly").
Danny - I have spoken to the likes of Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Wells, and CG, and I would agree that those individuals believe you and I to be insignificant pawns, "morons" if you will. Is this what you are referring to with regards to SR?
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 22, 2005 02:42 PMWell duh, why don't they just have fewer polling places? Up here in Sammamish, there are at least three within a mile of my house. It wouldn't kill us to have just two. Or one. Then they could still save money. But they shouldn't pretend this isn't an option.
Posted by: Michele on May 22, 2005 02:44 PMI do like researching all the offices and issues but the voters pamphlet is not detailed in regards to local issues.
I'd really like to see an online sample ballot available for my precinct that I could review prior to voting. Just type in my address and zip to see my ballot. Then I could do my research beforehand and vote at the my polling place.
I think cost is the driving factor behind going all absentee. If there's no requirement to ID at the polls or to accurately track ballots, then going to a single method may be best. Absentee would be one process to monitor for "mistakes" or abuse instead of many sites and partisian workers.
I'm not saying I support all absentee, but I think many absentee voters are spoiled and won't give it up. Many jaded voters just won't make the effort. Why should they? Until there is a rock solid process to ensure one vote per eligible voter, I can't see how the public will trust the elections.
Posted by: Mike J on May 22, 2005 04:22 PMI am a card-carrying conservative. I was NOT remotely calling anyone a moron. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to paint the picture that the elected officials view the populace as morons. They obviously behave as if those that elect them are morons.
cc...I've been called much worse than a democrat, though not much worse. ;) Hell, I enjoy both of your posts too much to be anything else.
Posted by: Danny on May 22, 2005 05:12 PMNo polling places, no provisional ballots, no messing with identification....it just seems a lot more efficient to me. And if you look at all the problem ballots that Stefan has identified from this past election, aren't the vast amjority from polling places? Example: unverified provisionals being put in the machine, polling places with more ballots that voters, etc. I mean, you can't really duplicate large-scale fraud on an all-mail election, can you? For instance, I send in my ballot, it then gets counted. If twenty other ballots arrive at the auditor's office with my name on them, alarms go off because it says I have already voted.
Sure, there's the possibility that someone else might get your mail and vote your ballot, but that's already possible now with absentee ballots. By just taking the step of eliminating the polling places, it seems that we're going a long way towards closing one of the biggest vulnerabilities in the system.
Plus, it is more convenient which means more people will vote. More people voting means more moderate candidates in office, and less hardcore party hacks.
RM
I beg to differ. If every Joe Blow from the streets or MoveOn.org can successfully register to vote, using fake addresses (King County doesn't check) and easily obtainable fake IDs (consult yr friendly Al Quaeda suicide pilot, several of which were registered voters in the US), an even bigger and less checkable vulnerability will be created.
That's why we need photo IDs (like Mexico) and positive identification at the polls, each election.
The following is a long post but worth reading. It's from the final report of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by former presidents Carter and Ford.
"We wish to comment on one final trend to encourage eligible voters to participate. It is a trend that troubles us, however. This is the increasing adoption of procedures that encourage “no excuse” absentee voting, early voting, and voting-by-mail.
Though this trend is justified as promoting voter turnout, the evidence for this effect is thin. Analysts have even noted the possibility that voter turnout in such states may eventually decline, as the civic significance of Election Day loses its meaning.
This trend is adopted in the name of voter turnout, but often seems to be motivated at least as much by considerations of administrative convenience and saving money. More votes by mail mean less need for polling places and poll workers.
The benefits of the new remote and early voting schemes should be weighed against some important costs and dangers:
· Federal law states that presidential elections should be held on the same day throughout the nation. Courts nonetheless have understandably been reluctant to invalidate state laws on this basis. But we believe the statutory plan offers wise guidance.
· Citizens should vote with a common base of information about candidates. If they vote over a period of weeks before Election Day, they vote based on the knowledge available on a scattering of different dates.
· Wherever possible, citizens should vote alone and in secret. The United States adopted the secret ballot a century ago in order to help voters resist pressure to disclose their choices, whether to relatives or to interested “friends.” Permissive early voting threatens the hard won right to a secret ballot.
· The institution of a national Election Day is one of the only remaining occasions in which Americans come together as a nation to perform a collective civic duty. We think rituals and ceremonies do have a part in forming a nation’s traditions and habits. We think this one should not be discarded lightly.
· Growing use of absentee voting has turned this area of voting into the most likely opportunity for election fraud now encountered by law enforcement officials. These cases are especially difficult to prosecute, since the misuse of a voter’s ballot or the pressure on voters occurs away from the polling place or any other outside scrutiny. These opportunities for abuse should be contained, not enlarged.
· Absentee ballots are often counted last. As their numbers rise, timely reporting of election results is more difficult. After Election Day 2000 California alone had more than a million absentee ballots waiting to be tallied over the following weeks.
Significantly inaccurate voter lists invite schemes that use ‘empty’ names on voter lists for ballot box stuffing, ghost voting, or to solicit “repeaters” to use such available names. For generations these practices have been among the oldest and most frequently practiced forms of vote fraud. One of our Commissioners (President Jimmy Carter) has written a book mentioning his encounter with such practices early in his political career. The opportunities to commit such frauds are actually growing because of the trend toward more permissive absentee voting.
The weight of the evidence leans toward a conclusion that early voting and vote-by-mail have slightly increased turnout among committed partisan voters or in low interest local elections. Unrestricted absentee voting probably has not increased turnout at all."
Randy,
You haven't been following Nicole Way's testimony last week have you? She basically stated that there is no way to account for absentee ballots - coming in - going out- rejected- verified.......etc.etc.. And the ballots that were rejected due to non-matching signatures were pretty much just approved by the canvassing board (if they were votes for Gregoire...) And the County will print absentee ballots on demand! Hand them out to just about anyone! You can live in France - as a French Citizen - and request an absentee ballot from King County and they will register you and mail an absentee ballot to you! They will even give you their administration building address to use for your residence!
Think outside of the box! They did!
Posted by: Deborah on May 22, 2005 09:46 PMThat said, going all mail is not a good idea. It takes a completey different set of systems and procedures than what we have now to make this even remotely secure. I think that given the difficulty elections officials in most counties are having doing simple things like counting the total number of ballots issued, and transitioning to new election equipment, etc. it will be a long while before they are ready to handle anything that requires good accounting like an all mail ballot system.
Reed needs to be more vocal than he has been. He tries pretty hard to remain non partisan in his statements, and often that gets him into just as much trouble as if he were partisan. He needs to be very outspoken and very tough about elections policy, because that is his area, and THE place to exert the pressure of his title.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 22, 2005 09:59 PMHere in the real world, though, things seem to work pretty well. I challenge anyone interested to check out some of the outlying "unimportant counties" that do mail-in ONLY ballots.
Let's start with Clallam County, shall we? Lotsa Repubs, lotsa Dems... but I noticed that the results changed very little (I believe it was ONE VOTE) in the count and subsequent recounts.
It's all in the culture, folks. If you WANT it to work, it will. If you want to CHEAT, you will.
I stand at the ready for the flames sure to come my way...
Posted by: Dan on May 22, 2005 10:44 PMIf they took a random sample of returned absentee ballots and audited them, much like the IRS does with income tax returns, they could drive out those that are voting when they shouldn't be, voting twice, or voting for dead people.
The problem is that the state is trying to do both methods. They need to choose just one, and stick to it, optimizing everything around that method.
Well, in King County, they'd probably optimize fraud around the method.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 09:49 AMI think you are being a little too harsh on Mr. Reed. After all, despite his amply and continually demonstrated ineptitude, naivete, arrogance and simple-mindedness, this is a state that holds such as Patty "What, Me Worry" Murray and Baghdad Jim McDermott in such high regard that there appears to be no failure too great and no stupidity too egregious to cause them to lose an election.
As a Californian, I am very grateful to Washington for producing politicians and bureaucrats that, for example, make our brace of maroons, Di Fi and Babs Boxer, look like the second coming of Gladstone and Disraeli. I didn't think it possible, but (WOO HOO) we simply cannot compete with Washington on either a per capita or absolute basis when it comes to producing representatives and appointees who aspire to cluelessness as a means of vastly improving their resumes.
Posted by: Stu on May 23, 2005 01:37 PM