1. A complete vote by mail election causes a number of things but a more inacurate election result is not one of them. Every ballot has a voters name and signature on it, creating a much better paper trail than traditional elections. Vote by mail increases the cost of running a campaign and increases turnout, it also brings out more moderates on both sides.

Posted by: Roger on July 29, 2005 03:58 AM

2. Hey Roger -- that is just G-D great -- NO MORE of that SECRET ballot nonsence --

Posted by: Bill on July 29, 2005 04:31 AM

3. Roger, IF your premise is true that all-mail would increase moderate turnout, then that's ample reason NOT to do it.

If "moderates" are sufficiently lazy that the only way they'll exercise their constitutional right is by mailing it in, then they stand for nothing and are worth about the same.

Beyond that, your entire post was sophomoric. Have a great day!

Posted by: Danny on July 29, 2005 05:04 AM

4. Oh and don't forget the provision that in a runoff there is only ONE recount... by hand. Guess that is much easier to manipulate the ballots than doing it by machine. :)

Posted by: Sue on July 29, 2005 05:11 AM

5. Just another example of the arrogance of the elite Seattle media. For decades the shrills have counted on their echo chamber to lull the sheep into the slaughter pen. A message to the print media and talking heads: IT WON'T WORK ANYMORE! The only people who watch, read or listen to you now are the "usual suspects"; the idiot, leftist pinheads who have driven Washington State into the ground and made us the laughing stock of the nation. Thanks, Shark, for continuing to expose the lunatic left.

Posted by: Saltherring on July 29, 2005 05:25 AM

6. How can you tell if a poltician or newspaper reporter is lying?

You can tell when they start using excessive adverbs or adjectives to 'dress' up their lies. In this case the use of 'first class' is a dead giveaway. In Al Gore's case, when he was running for President he used the word 'truely'.

Posted by: timman on July 29, 2005 06:24 AM

7. To Roger and those that think like him !!!

Your reasoning also allows all the DEAD people to vote too!!!

Without clean voter rolls, this is all a bunch of BullSheet....

Posted by: Chris on July 29, 2005 06:25 AM

8. I was debating this subject with a liberal I know and was told that voting by mail was the answer to honest elections. When asked how this would work, she said she was not sure but it had to be true because she read it in the PI. Bonehead!!! But unfortunatly another uninformed or stupid voter. She votes for those who she is told to.

Posted by: RussS on July 29, 2005 06:48 AM

9. And what happens when some people receive double ballots? Or if some people don't receive ballots at all? That the first two questions that come to mind are already answered by the last election, I certainly have absolutely no confidence my vote would count. The whole task force thing has been phoney from the start.
This is one question I have for David Irons, would he implement this all mail-in voting?
How would he reform elections?
I think I know the answer from Sims already.

Posted by: cindy on July 29, 2005 07:35 AM

10. Roger,
Here's what the Carter/Ford commission on federal election reform had to say:

"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."

And this from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement:

"The absentee ballot is the "tool of choice" for those who are engaging in election fraud."

"The absentee ballot's very nature makes it the mechanism to use when trying to capitalize on a voter's infirmities or desire to make some quick money. Both federal and Florida law make absentee ballots available to anyone who seeks them, with no requirement of "justification" for not appearing in person at the polls. Given this easy access to absentee ballots, the "tool of choice" will remain popular among those who corrupt the elections process."

This is why another tool of choice, the Seattle Times, is so enthusiastic about absentee voting.

Posted by: BJ Gadfly on July 29, 2005 07:36 AM

11. Roger,
When it comes to elections, cost and convenience do not trump the integrity of the vote.
Jonathan Bechtle of EFF (Evergreen Freedom Foundation) has isolated a number of problems with all-mail voting. Mail ballots provide a greater opportunity for ballot buying, theft in mailboxes, and intimidation of voters.
Regarding the "paper trail" argument: Once the signatures are matched on mail ballot envelopes, the ballots themselves are added into the mix and it becomes impossible to match a particular ballot with the outside envelope. Thus, the paper trail is lost.
The jury is still out on the argument that all mail voting is cheaper. An OSU professor who has thoroughly studied the Oregon model concluded, "we have no evidence [the system] saves money--that largely depends on how costs are defined."
Finally, I would argue that if all-mail voting increases turnout (which is debatable), the winner is more likely to be the candidate with the most money or better looks. If you think about it, voters who do not vote in the hybrid system (what we have now: both polling places and absentee ballots) but who would vote in an all-mail ballot scheme are not as likely to be well-informed on the issues. I would label such voters "ignorant," not "moderate." Thus, such voters would be more likely to vote for candidates on the basis of trivial factors such as physical appearance or slick ad campaigns rather than on substance.

Posted by: Tim B. on July 29, 2005 07:40 AM

12. The majority of people already vote by mail. I don't think there is any way you will get county or state government to reverse this trend and go back to precinct voting only, unless you have some valid reason why you can't make it to the polls.

Has anyone actually researched (Stefan?) how Oregon conducts their all-mail elections? The so-called "task force" claims they did and that's why they came up with the recommendation.

I agree that absentee voting as it currently stands is a bad idea because the system is broken. But I also think that with the proper controls, and the appropriate "good home training" all-mail voting could work (in theory).

Let's face it, all mail voting is going to happen sooner or later, whether anyone here likes it or not. Therefore, the best thing to do is to quit whining about it and try to develop a system that is secure and as free of fraud as possible.

Posted by: Tucker on July 29, 2005 07:48 AM

13. Listening to Kathy Guertson on the radio, she said their goal was to return confidence to the people about the elections. But when asked about purging the rolls and having people re-register she said they weren't interested in that part, just farther "down the line" once all votes had been received. When pressed on illegal voters she said, all felons don't vote stricly republican.

She and that task force don't get it. We don't care who people vote for. What we care about is that only legal residents & legal voters vote in our elections and that all the legal votes are counted. No more, no less.That is the problem. Until the Media and the ruling elite understand this then I will never have confidence in the election.

Posted by: Dengle on July 29, 2005 07:49 AM

14. I think the key words in the editorial, in support of mail-in ballots, was "smoother election". Well, duh! Of course it would be smoother! Lots more difficult to spot vote fraud and error. Very "smooth". No contest, no uproar, KC squeaky clean, and liberals in charge, as always!

Posted by: katomar on July 29, 2005 08:15 AM

15. Once my plan for world domination is complete and I am the master of the universe, here is how we are going to conduct elections;

Voter registration would only occur at a few locations (i.e. Post Office, Co. Auditor's office, City Hall or a Court House) by trained, certified and sworn individuals who sign that they have do so. If you can not make it to one of these locations for 30 minutes once in your lifetime, then obviously democracy isn't that important to you.

When you register, you will show ID to prove you are who you are and that you are eligible to vote in that County.

Area voting location (i.e. one or two per town/city district) will be open from mid-September till election day. At any time in that period you can show up, show ID and vote if you have previously registered. If you can't take 30 minutes once in a three week period, then obviously democracy isn't that important to you.

In the regional voting center, provisional ballots will be issued (in an alternative color)to those we can not find a registration for. To you receive a provision, YOU WILL NOT ENTER THE VOTING AREA. You will go to a different room, where your ID is checked, you vote and then your registration is later verified. PROVISIONAL BALLOTS ARE CONSIDERED INVALID UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.

Absentee ballots will only be issued as a necessity (military, overseas, folks with disabilities, seniors who are not mobile. etc...) Those individuals can apply and if they meet the requirement, they get an absentee ballot. The rest of us can figure out a way to get to the polling place sometime in the 3 weeks.

If for some odd reason, folks can't follow instructions on the ballots, a jury of 12 citizens will be called (not 3 political appointees or elected officials). If a super majority of them can agree on voter intent, then I am willing to bet that is what the voter intended.

Of course, since I will master of the universe, elections really won't matter anyway. I'll just run the whole show and appoint my unqualified cronies to important positions to screw the public.

SERIOUSLY: The problem is, we have designed a system of convenience that uses voter apathy as its baseline. We are so married to the idea that everyone has to vote. The system is designed for those who don't seem to care about voting anyway. The system assist, and even encourages, voters apathy and laziness. (huh, why do they want the citizenry to be apathetic and lazy???). We need to start appreciating that someone choosing not to vote is just as much a right as choosing to vote. Citizens have the right to not be informed. They have the right to not care. They have the right to NOT VOTE. That being said, we should not pervert our entire system because we do not respect those individuals rights to make that choice.

I WOULD RATHER DEAL WITH AN INCONVENIENT DEMOCRACY, THEN THE RESULTS OF NOT HAVING ONE AT ALL.

Posted by: T.J. on July 29, 2005 08:22 AM

16. With all the activist groups out there willing to shuttle voters to the polls there's no need for mail in. Heck, you don't even have to mail them in as groups that read the walking list see you're an absentee voter, why they're so kind they'll pick them up and save you the trouble of going to your mailbox.

Posted by: PC on July 29, 2005 08:32 AM

17. T.J., well said.

No more Lowest Common Denominator mentality. If people are to lazy or don't have the pride to get out and support the democracy by going to the polls to vote (normal exceptions aside, i.e. disabled, non mobile elderly, etc) then screw them.

Strive for excellence, not mediocrity.

Posted by: Dengle on July 29, 2005 08:45 AM

18. I work at the polls and unless there is a purging of the registered voters (real and unreal) there will be no "real" change. I see more room for error with absentee voting. What a mess.

Posted by: Jan on July 29, 2005 09:01 AM

19. How is Joni Balter responsible for reader confidence in your blog being at an all time low?

Posted by: jdb on July 29, 2005 10:13 AM

20. Leave it the Times. No surprise, the editorial staff made a typo - they meant "all-male" voting;-].

Posted by: Indy on July 29, 2005 10:14 AM

21. biteme/jdb, reader confidence in SP is not the issue, moron.

However, we have complete unwavering confidence in your ability to misread, misspeak, and (usually) misspell.

Tell us another one!

Posted by: alphabet soup on July 29, 2005 11:08 AM

22. I completely agree with BJ Gadfly and TJ. I've been bemoaning the trend toward absentee voting for a couple of decades now. We've pretty much given up the security of the polling place. Now we want to give up the last bastion completely? When I first started voting, voters actually went into a booth and closed a curtain behind them before voting.

Posted by: Bruce Welder on July 29, 2005 01:45 PM

23. Here's what the Times REALLY meant: "Giving up a cherished tradition is worth the gain of many more illegal votes in democrat-heavy King County".

Posted by: Michele on July 29, 2005 05:35 PM

24. How is Joni Balter responsible for reader confidence in your blog being at an all time low? -jdb

Joni Balter......"jdb"......Hmmmmmmmm......
Could it be?

Posted by: Ken on July 29, 2005 06:20 PM

25. I was less than impressed with the task forces report but not surprised!

Posted by: Laurie on July 29, 2005 06:52 PM

26. "Traditionalists will scoff but the county cannot continue to produce two separate elections, one at the polls and a vote-by-mail event ..."

I'd like to know exactly WHY the county CANNOT continue to produce two separate elections? This never was an issue before the 2004 election fraud questions......

I think the public deserves to know the origin of this All Mail voting idea in Washington State! Who began the dialogue on it - and what was the true reason?

Too much has been quickly crammed down the throat of the public since last Novembers election - with absolutely no input from the people.

When we see this happening - like with the emergency clauses, the Gas tax increase, the loss of poll-site voting, etc....it's time to force our local lawmakers to go back and show us everything - from the beginning - that they reviewed, studied, discussed, with whom, etc...and how they reached their conclusion - and why they decided not to bring it to a vote of the people. We must make them accountable for everything they are forcing on us!

I want names, dates, contacts, meeting minutes, phone logs, etc..... I want to know who is behind this nonsense and who supported them!

Posted by: Deborah on July 29, 2005 11:06 PM

27. Geez, folks around here get a little edgy if one does not agree with the party line. I've been following this site since last October and agree with 95% of the thoughts expressed. I just do not agree that a complete vote by mail election, if properly conducted is the end of democracy as we know it. The debate about if they are good or bad is worthwile...I've been involved in both, been involved in recounts in both so I thought I had some basis to speak on the subject. Not sure there are many open minds on the subject hanging out at this site.

Posted by: Roger on July 30, 2005 10:08 PM

28. Roger,

There is a difference between "beliefs" and "facts," the former only being useful if based upon the latter. Try it just for fun.
There is also a difference between having an "open mind," and an empty one.
Rejecting an idea because it is a manifestly bad one is a habit of thinking people. If that constitutes a "party line," I'm for it.

Your hyperbole and dissimulation is frivolous.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 1, 2005 12:11 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?