On today's Seattle Times op-ed page, the government's outsourced superlawyer Hugh Spitzer has a fabulously idiotic proposal for reforming the state's election system: "Remove partisan stain from state elections"
In light of Washington's recent election imbroglio, this would be a perfect time for the Legislature to overhaul our election system and establish a mechanism which, if successful, might be copied throughout the United States.First of all, it's never been seriously suggested that the election meltdown was caused by the fact that our state's chief election officer, Sam Reed, was too loyal to his own Republican Party. So this looks like a way to divert attention from the actual problems to some non-existent ones. But more fundamentally, this proposal would only serve to institutionalize a permanent "elections community" that is accountable to nobody and insulated from having to answer to the voters.Here's a proposal: Washington's state and local elections would be governed by a seven-member commission appointed to seven-year terms by the governor and confirmed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. Terms would be overlapping, assuring stability and continuity. Supermajority confirmation would ensure that the appointees are acceptable to both parties.
The commission would draft rules governing elections, oversee the voting process and decide disputed elections. The commission would appoint a statewide chief elections officer. At the local level, nonpartisan elected or appointed county auditors could continue to manage elections under the commission's supervision. County auditors and all other full-time election employees would be forbidden to belong to a political party.
I'll keep my election officials elected and accountable to the public, thank you. I also prefer the "rules governing elections" to be created like other laws -- through an elected legislature and through ballot initiatives. Yes, exposing government to politics can cause problems. But as Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time". That principle applies to all functions of government, including elections.
One gets the sense that Spitzer's proposal was generated as a job protection scheme for the various incompetent election officials who were responsible for the recent debacle and who are at risk of being swept out by a wave of popular disgust.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 29, 2005 11:21 AM | Email ThisReally DUMB idea.
Posted by: OroDave on June 29, 2005 11:49 AMYeah, accountablility my a**.
Posted by: JCM on June 29, 2005 11:53 AMToo bad Seattle wasn't able to score the statue of Saddem from Baghdad -- they coulda put it up at westlake mall and McDimwit and Osama mama Murray coulda officiated at the dedication
Posted by: Bill on June 29, 2005 11:58 AMLook, if Ron Sims and the rest of King County's directors, supervisors, and grunts aren't held accountable for the stuff they do every day to help special interests and push agendas, then is it really fair to hold the Elections bunch accountable?
I'm still holding out for the RICO investigation of the entire King County "special interest" machine.
Posted by: Mike on June 29, 2005 12:04 PMI think I wouldn't get much grief here on point #1, but many here may argue with point #2. Therefore, it probably needs a little further clarification.
First off, most (elected) auditors and the Secretary of State have traditionally attempted to operate in non-partisan fashion. There alliegence has been (and should be) first and foremost to the voters, not to a particular political party. Ralph Munro operated for years in this manner and was elected overwhelmingly by the voters for acting in such a manner. Many (elected) county auditors also operate in this fashion. So point #2 would not change the historical position of the office.
With the change in the primary and the parties wanting to take the decision making out of the population's hands, it is my fear that the county auditor positions and SOS position will need to become more partisan in nature. Otherwise, the incumbants or those who run for these offices will not get their respective party's nomination. Irrespective of whether we have a closed primary or top-two, the political parties have made it clear that they want to choose their representative and not have the people choose who should represent them. Therefore, in order for the elections official to retain its historical neutrality, the only real option is to make it non-partisan. This doesn't mean that whoever is running doesn't have political leanings (like judges), it just means that the election process can be decided by the voters instead of some back-room dealings and shenanigans by the political parties.
If I had my choice, the political parties could just go away. Neither does a decent job representing the general population, which the overwhelming majority doesn't belong to either party (and doesn't want to--they value their independence).
I would love someone to explain to me why the political parties should be the one who decide our election officials. You are saying that the KC Democrats choice (who most likely would remain Logan) would be better than the population independently choosing the best choice?
Posted by: tc on June 29, 2005 12:16 PMCreating additional layers of insulation for KCE's partisan shenanigans is an effort to ensure the status quo.
Posted by: scott158 on June 29, 2005 12:17 PMAnd then as a constitutional lawyer he says his commission members would be prohibited from being a D or R. What about that right of free association. Or has he been educated beyond his intelligence.?
Posted by: bwanafriend on June 29, 2005 12:21 PMWell...hmmm...amend that to include either utter apathy or some sort of philosopher king, ala Plato.
How would that look on your resume???
Posted by: scott158 on June 29, 2005 12:33 PMNEXT!!!!
Posted by: Michele on June 29, 2005 12:40 PMI propose we start an organization called the National Association of Nihilists Knowlegeable in Election Reform (WANKER). WANKERS UNITE!
Posted by: Palouse on June 29, 2005 12:42 PM
Stefan is right. Let the sane among the voting populace determine who should be in charge, and vote them in or out, depending on how good a job they do.
Posted by: Michele on June 29, 2005 01:26 PMNo more freaking 'commissions.' No more studies. No more crap-ola. Elected officials. Hold public employees to their self-constructed "mission statements" just like private industry. Protect the honest public employee whistle-blowers.
Malfeasance and incompetence are the same on either side of the 'public' or 'private' line. Hold people responsible. Firings. Discipline. Loss of pensions. Stop playing games and be the 'electoral parents' we should be. When are we going to accept responsibility for our government? Cut the excuses. Demand change or fritter your life away.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 29, 2005 02:03 PM
My work PC blocks it, but my home machine (w/no good IT support) allows the applet to redirect.
Posted by: Andy on June 29, 2005 02:06 PMLiberal solution to any problem = create panels, boards and commissions.
And if you believe our 'bi-partisan' redistricting commission which meets every 10 years is somehow apolitical (which it's not. brass knuckle politics), just imagine when actual election decisions are put in front of a so-called neutral panel.
This idea won't solve a damn thing.
Posted by: jimg on June 29, 2005 02:13 PM
I'll be off-topic as well, for a moment.
I don't seem to be getting redirected. However, I'm using Mozilla-Firefox, and filtering ads out through an ad-blocking proxy server (Squid+AdZap) on my firewall machine. Have you run Spybot S&D or AdAware on your system lately? Or did you find the trouble on a page other than the index?
The IT protected machine status bar says (loading java applet and eventually says applet advnewsticker)...but never loads it- which leads me to believe they've been hijacked on that applet.
lastly it's probably the site was put together on a shoestring- so it's probable that it is vulnerable to attack.
Posted by: Andy on June 29, 2005 02:49 PMBack to topic:
Now that the dems have gotten what they wanted, they can "afford" to offer up a goofy non-solution like this, and if we object, we look to be a monkey-wrench in the works.
Just as a novelty, how about we:
1. Fire incompetants
2. Obey the law (Man! how much of this would have been avoided if they had just followed the rules!)
3. Institute common-sense reform (like purging the voter rolls!)
Nah! That would be too easy!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 29, 2005 03:26 PM