Mac from the "Pull on Superman's Cape" blog has a pictorial tour of the King County Voter's Pamphlet.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 10, 2005 08:14 AM | Email ThisUnder liberal Democrat control - our state and county elections have become a sick and perverse joke!
Posted by: Deborah on September 10, 2005 12:37 PMOh! but that will disenfranchise the:
Illiterate (what did they do with their free K-12 education, if they did go to school and can't read fire every teacher they ever had).
The immigrant for whom english is a second language (never mind english proficiency is a requirement for citizenship).
The poor (they don't have a "education" culture, whatever the f*** that means).
They we can save some taxpayers money and fire the counties excuse for a cartoonist and save me some of my money.
ARGGGH!!!!!
Posted by: JCM on September 10, 2005 12:56 PMIn doing my "due diligence" regarding the candidates, I learned from http://seattleweekly.com/features/0204/newshowland.shtml that one of the candidates for Port of Seattle Commissioner - Position 3 was a convicted felon. When the "Seattle Weekly" article was written back in 2002, it noted that it was questionable whether candidate Christopher Cain was allowed to vote, never mind run for office. As Mr. Cain noted in the article, he could do both as long as no one was paying attention.
Does anyone know if he has had his voting rights restored and/or if his candidacy in the current election is legal? Thanks.
Posted by: raven on September 10, 2005 06:40 PMIn doing my "due diligence" regarding the candidates, I learned from http://seattleweekly.com/features/0204/newshowland.shtml that one of the candidates for Port of Seattle Commissioner - Position 3 was a convicted felon. When the "Seattle Weekly" article was written back in 2002, it noted that it was questionable whether candidate Christopher Cain was allowed to vote, never mind run for office. As Mr. Cain noted in the article, he could do both as long as no one was paying attention.
Does anyone know if he has had his voting rights restored and/or if his candidacy in the current election is legal? Thanks.
Posted by: raven on September 10, 2005 06:41 PMNote that Pinocchio, in the Disney film, was in danger of turning into a donkey.
"Penny" chooses Party 1 on the voter's pamphlet.
Too many coincidences...
(Okay, let's all have a little fun here.)
Posted by: Tim B. on September 10, 2005 07:02 PMOh and you guys would be shocked at the price that it cost to develop Penny!
Posted by: Joe on September 10, 2005 07:37 PMYou know, the same one who was all too willing to fill in an undetermined number of ballots based on "voter intent".
It made no difference if you didn't vote for anybody for governor. If you voted for Kerry and/or Murray, Sharpie knew that you clearly intended to vote for Fraudoire too.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on September 10, 2005 10:44 PMAs a progressive Democrat who reads this blog for Stefan's comprehensive election investigations, I just want to interject here and tell you that your behavior trolling here embarrasses me, and embarrasses progressive ideals.
Not to mention that if you are blogging on some days from a Seattle Public Schools IP address, one would hope that you would at least make the effort to use correct grammar, punctuation, and syntax. Your posts are enough to make any English instructor blanche, and are a wholesale embarrassment to the Seattle Public School system.
"I'm much to clever for that to be successful."
Really, "to" clever? Evidently you are not clever enough to ascertain that the word you were searching for is the homonym cousin of "to", that is, the word "too".
If your statement trumpeting your cleverness was accurate, which you yourself offer evidence again and again, through your limited grasp of written north american English, that it isn't, you would have a basic understanding of the meaning of a commonly used two letter word, and another three letter word, and you would not confuse them so frequently.
Back to the embarrassment portion of my posting.
When subjects other than election fraud are discussed on this blog, I generally don't agree with the other denizens of this site. I'm not a Republican, and I support gay marriage, abortion rights, and reasonable environmental controls. I hate Wal-Mart and happily pay taxes when the money is used wisely by government officals with integrity. (And no, I don't include Ron Sims or Dean Logan in that description.)
However, the Democratic Party that I remember was also for clean, open, and honest elections, and the fact that our current party leadership was more interested in winning at all costs, rather than acknowledging that the election was horribly flawed and agreeing to re-run the contest is a source of great pain to me.
The Democratic Party I want to be a member of is honest. There was nothing honest about the 2004 Gubernatorial constest, as administered in King County. If we aren't for clean elections first and foremost, then what good is anything else we stand for?
As to your rant about your free speech being abridged, If you have a well-thought-out ON TOPIC counterpoint to an argument being made here, then make it. I have found and seen that, while the conservatives here will disagree with you, if you engage in respectful debate they will return that respect while disagreeing.
Nobody is trying to stifle your free speech, Headless. Keep in mind that this blog is private intellectual property, which we are all invited to participate in, but there is no constitutional right of participation. We are guests in Stefan's cyber-house, and need to behave accordinagly. When you insist upon bursting in on conversations and interjecting nonsensical rants, and OFF TOPIC insults, you are not furthering anyone's cause, certainly not the causes progressives embrace.
You are simply embarrassing yourself, and anyone whose political viewpoint you pretend to align yourself with. I wouldn't blame any blog owner for banning you. Your behavior adds nothing to the debate.
Grow up, Headless Lucy.
Posted by: Observer on September 11, 2005 12:27 PMDitto
Posted by: Mike H on September 11, 2005 10:11 PMMaybe in 2006, we can get Alfred E. Newman on the cover.
Posted by: T.J. on September 11, 2005 10:18 PMI particularly like the bi-lingual splash of Asian characters; excuse me--just where in the he@@ is WA and its counties located anyway? in some colony of Hong Kong or in America? Why do we pander to 28 different languages; save taxpayer printing costs and hassles--assimilate to the culture you CHOSE to come to or don't vote--it's that simple; adopt America's customs FIRST (and keep your own) or stay in the shadows;
no one is asking anyone to abandon their rich cultural heritages, just keep things in English here in America; if you want translations, have your own private cultural or church goups foot the bill; there are over 150 or more countries in the world--where does the bi-lingual thing stop? It won't; soon, we will have on-board translators to tell you what your neighborhood traffic signs say;
silly voting pamphlets like the attached do nothing; lazy people don't read them; illegals don't need them--they have already been coached in their native tongues; intelligent people simply toss or recycle them; what's left? only the bureaucratic creators and outside printers who chalk them up as another "goal acheived" on their annual job reviews;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 11, 2005 10:28 PM
I'm curious as to why this is even neccessary. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you required to know how to read and write English and take an English test in order to become an American citizen?
Posted by: Mike H on September 11, 2005 11:11 PMYes, you are correct. You are required to understand English AND take an english test in order to become a naturalized citizen. Here is a web page link to sample English sentances that applicants might be asked about: http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/natzsamp.htm. HOWEVER, there is NO Federal requirement for knowing english to VOTE. How this makes sense is anyone's guess. Also, there is a federal mandate (The bilingual election requirements of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 USC 1973aa-1a) which requires states to provide voting materials in a language other than English if the number of people who speak that language is more than 5%, or 10,000 (which ever is less.) In Washington state, the Chinese language met that requirement, thus all voting materials MUST include the Chinese language.
Kind of interesting. You MUST understand english to become a naturalized citizen, you MUST be a citizen to vote, yet you do NOT have to understand English to vote...
Thanks!
Greg
maybe we'll switch to all pictures and dumb-down the masses; let's hire that famous sign-language chimpanzee as a consultant to re-design our signs and ballots; and how safe will we feel when one who does not speak English blows through that english traffic sign and t-bone's your family car? (oh yes--and fully insured, right?)
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 12, 2005 09:53 AMThere really shouldn't be a need to require you to understand English to vote, because logic holds that if you are a natural born citizen, you would know English, and if you're an immagrant who's become a citizen, you'ved learned English.
Call me crazy, but by following this line of logic, then wouldn't it hold that if you are voting and don't understand English, chances are you're a person who isn't voting legally?
Posted by: Mike H on September 12, 2005 12:18 PM