1. I live in Snohomish County. I vote by mail. I checked, my vote was received and counted. Unless and until someone can PROVE that there has been WHOLESALE voter fraud, I am going to support mail in balloting. I am not going to accept the word of Sharkansky or anyone else, again, unless and until I see proof that is upheld by a court.

All this rabble-rousing and carrying on about a very small percentage of voter addresses is just more negative politics, made necessary when certain Republicans released the reins of power in order to reach for the brass ring of greed and personal enrichment....And in doing so forgetting, or more likely, ignoring the oath they swore to uphold the law and Constitution. Distraction is not going to make the very real problen that Republicans have with integrity, their total lack of it namely, go way.

In the amusement park of politics, it is apparent that the GOP is about to be thrown from the merry-go-round.

Happy landings!!!!!!!!

Posted by: My Left Foot on January 5, 2006 02:38 AM

2. Re: My Left Foot

You say you live in Snohomish County, but I am curious. On what planet do you dwell?

Posted by: maggie on January 5, 2006 06:32 AM

3. Left appendage...

Now how do you REALLY know if your vote was counted. You didn't get to watch your ballot go through a machine did you?

When you Checked, did you speak with a Person? Did that person COUNT your ballot? Did your ballot tally represent your voter choices? Are you SURE?

Wholesale Voter Fraud? When one vote is lost/misrepresented/illegal, that is one too many. I value my right to vote.

My county went to all mail voting two years ago. I miss going to the polls, and we had the old "hanging chad" voting method.

When a county the size of KC has the problems it had/has, those problems resinate and affect my vote here in Lewis County.

Posted by: Chris on January 5, 2006 07:23 AM

4. I think that worse than the potential opportunity for voter fraud is the complete loss of controls on privacy. Before when I stepped into the voting booth, I could cast my vote in complete secrecy. I could tell my family, my friends, everyone I know that I was voting one way and then vote differently no questions asked. Now if I want to vote differently I have to hide my ballot and maintain secrecy.

It makes me wonder if it would be illegal to even buy votes anymore. What if I put up an advertisement that said I would give anyone $5 if they would show me that on their ballot they voted for a particular candidate or cause and then mail it in my presence?

It makes me wonder if the leader of a religious sect (or private organization) could tell all the members that they had to give over their ballots to be filled out by the church (or organization)? History I'm sure has many lessons in this regard. It is often believed that the right of suffrage was granted to women in the state of Utah because it would increase the Mormon vote.

Posted by: TG on January 5, 2006 07:46 AM

5. Left;
KC showed that they can corrupt the election system. And why do most of the issues that showed up with election process seemed to center on Mail in Ballots.
With the latest information that votes were counted for people verified as not being registered voters. You see the mantra of letting every vote count happened in KC. It did not matter if it was a legal or illegal vote. If they had the ballot they wanted it counted. Finding rejected voter envelops means that you can make a close election go the way they want it to go.
Lets take a look at a possibility. Next November we may be voting for a Mass transit package between 25 and 40 Billion Dollars with about 20 Billion Dollars going to Mass Transit projects. Thats is a lot of money. THe projects may or may not improve traffic.
KC wants it to pass so when the mail in ballots come in. Those areas that have a high Democratic population you do very little to verify SIgnatures. Where by you take the Republican areas and have the toughest verification signature requirements. And you delay in requesting signature verification request which your county has to get peoples votes to count to not be sent in time to get those votes to count.
The signature verification can cause corruption of the systems as long as it is run by one Party. The real key is to look at a precinct by precinct mail in acceptance vs rejection rate. If you see even a small difference in rejection rates it should be looked into.
It has been reported to the Secretary of State that people were handing out absentee ballots and envelops via a brief case to people in West Seattle in the 2000 election. So how do you know that a number of ballots have not been filled out by one person and they having access to names that have not voted in the past 2 years will vote for them. Just like the dead that had their votes counted in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. That part of the database has been somewhat cleaned up but what if you clean up the database. Removing voters then you have a failure of the database and you restore by human error the corrupted database just before the election. They restored the backup. How do you know then you have hundreds of names you can cast ballots for that you know will not vote and you can stuff the ballot.
Mail in Ballots can be corrupted. Take a look at the delays in getting the ballots to the Military. WA was way behind getting them into the mail on time. Even a week delay in sending them out can prevent military personnel that only get mail once or twice a month(US Submarine Force) from voting. I can say for a fact that any member of a boomer crew that is out for 90 to 120 days over election day will not be voting. Because the odds are they will not get any mail while they are out to sea. That is expected. But look at let every vote count but when it comes to military vote I wonder why KC drags its feet.
And to make one more point I was talking with a manager in my area that does mail in ballots and he never got his ballot but both he and his wife voted. How did that happen?
Mail in ballots you now have to trust the election process (Which it has failed to restore so far)and the US Post Office to deliver it to you on time and deliver it to the Elections Office on time. Human trust right now when you talk about nearly a million ballots in KC get mailed. You call the elections office to get a ballot you have not recieved in the mail. You get it and mail it in. THen you discover that there are two ballots where recieved. How do you know your ballot was actually counted.
One last point You want to use mail in ballots because then you do not need to see an ID that has the name of the voter on it. You have to depend on a signature that changes over time to be accepted. When I vote in person I see my vote getting into the box. I know they have my ballot and no one can change it unless very obvious fraud takes place. It is much harder to vote multiple times. Because I show my ID and vote. An extra check to ensure the correct person votes and no one votes for other people. Ie. we had at least one dead person vote in person during the 2004 election.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on January 5, 2006 07:50 AM

6. Well, I've been looking for evidence that Snohomish County is going to improve its defective absentee ballot-counting system, but I haven't found it.

We have identified 14 attack points in absentee balloting systems before the ballots are ever even scanned into the machines and added up by the tabulator. Not all of those apply to Snohomish County, but not all of them have been addressed, either.

The Sequoia Optech machines used to scan absentee ballots in Snohomish County are particularly ill-suited to absentee voting. In the Nov. 2002 election, they missed a huge number of votes altogether, because they DIDN'T READ VARIOUS KINDS OF INK CONSISTENTLY. I attended the meeting where the Sequoia rep tried to explain this. She admitted that it was a known issue.

Well, guess what? It's worse than that. Even BLACK INK will sometimes not be read by Snohomish County's absentee machines, or will be read inconsistently. Red ink? Forget it. Blue ink? Maybe. Organic ink will produce errors. Do you really want to study your ink pen with a chemistry set and a spectral analysis tool before you vote?

Didn't think so.

Who in their right mind will select a voting machine for absentee use, where people pick up whatever writing implement is handy, if the mechanism of the machine if finicky about what ink it reads?

Note that ES&S and Sequoia Eagle Optech scanners are identical, both were originally produced by a company called BRC. Check out this memo, which pertains to the voting machine model used in Snohomish County, and ask if this machine has any business counting absentee ballots (this is a memo from a technician):

"I [sic] not quite sure why we have a red pen since we can expect it to be invisible to an infrared and visible red read head. I tested the black. As far as the black inks spectral response to 680nm (red), it is very easily detected. No traces of red dye in this ink. But this ink is nearly invisible to infrared light."

A more technical discussion on the problems with different inks on these machines can be found here:

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/15687.html

Posted by: BevHarris on January 5, 2006 08:00 AM

7. So, Bev, since the black ink leaked through my card, is it a good likelihood that my vote didn't count, whereas, that error could have been caught at the polling booth?

How can I easily check to see if my vote was cast the last election?

Posted by: swatter on January 5, 2006 08:50 AM

8. If I were a Republican with a 'dog in the hunt', I would be foolish not to go into nursing homes and senior centers and hold seminars on 'how to vote'. I would ask the residents to bring their ballots with them as we 'go over' and 'discuss' the pros and cons of each candidate.

Posted by: swatter on January 5, 2006 08:52 AM

9. The flaw in the mail-in voting system (and in most others) is that it assumes people counting the votes only want to count the votes. As we saw in 2004, that is definitely not the case. The voting process has become politicized because the people who count the votes have a stake in the outcome, and their motivation will be to advance their interests, not to verify the validity of and accurately tabulate votes.

There is a huge conflict-of-interest in putting in charge of voting systems and vote counting, people who are part of the government, and therefore part of the political process. That, as I see it, is the problem. And fraud-resistant technology is only part of the solution.

Posted by: V the K on January 5, 2006 09:06 AM

10. I think all we really need is about $500 worth of purple ink. We could learn a lot from the way the Iraqi elections have been conducted. They are far more secure. Elections should not be about convenience first, and security second.

I'd be happy to get my finger stained purple if it helped prevent a few moonbats from voting twice.

That's the trouble with mail voting. Moonbats would simply dip the fingers of the dementia riddled patients in to the puple ink, and then take their ballots and vote straight ticket Democrat.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 5, 2006 09:18 AM

11. The only electoral problems we have in this state is with obstructionaist, disenfranchising Republicans and their rigged touch-screen voting machines. You guys are in for a big fall locally, statewide and nationally. How can you even think that another "contract with America" would be a good electoral ploy. In case you haven't thought of it yet: "Throwing out the Rascals" is not a good strategy when YOU'RE the rascals!

Posted by: Winston Smith on January 5, 2006 09:26 AM

12. My Left Foot:
I have 14 words for you: Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Jay Inslee, Adam Smith, Peter Defazio, Norm Dicks, Ron Wyden. Brass ring grabbers, all.

Posted by: katomar on January 5, 2006 09:31 AM

13. Will be interesting when the losing candidate for County Executive is arresting the audior for cheating. At least someone will be enfrocing the laws.

(December 21, 2008 Herald Page 1 -Snohomish County Sherriff and Executive Candidate Rick Bart today arrested Auditor Bob Terwilliger for violatling several RCW's in the recent completed general election. Reelected Executive Aaronn Readon went to federal court to have Bob freed saying he could not belive the outrage. He was elected by 205 vote margin after the third recount reveresed Bart's previous leads of 1,251 and 136 votes. Bart shot back saying to Readon outside the federal court in downtown Seattle that he should watch the video from the seceretly placed cameras Bart had installed after the 2006 fiasco involving several issues around the then new all mail balloting system before he pursues this case. Bart also pointed out the seceret counter and marker system he had installed on the print on demand machine showed Sideshow printed 1,456 ballots after the election and the special marker dye that was read by the machines on the first recount showed 1,115 went through on the machine recount. Bart's deputies have served a search warrant looking for the remining 341 ballots in the 3rd recount done by hand. Bart also demanded that Readon not be allowed to take office as it clearly will be shown fraud was perpetrated and the video will shown Aaron in on it. Aronn shot back that he was entitled to the postion by birthright!)

And no Bob do not attend the Dean Logan hotel ballroom seminar on how to generate Mail Ballot audit reports.

Bob we know you and Seivers and Sommers are doing this to cheat because we have seen the cheating by dems. Look over your shoulders and feel the sweat on your brow when you are remarking ballots, tossing signatures, tweaking that mail ballot report, heading to the ballot machine and think purple finger and all the blood laid down so you can cheat the system. It is our country not yours. Either we all are going to accept the results or fire the cheaters but you are not getting away with it. We learned with King County and we are coming to "audit" you.

Posted by: Col. Hogan on January 5, 2006 09:46 AM

14. >since the black ink leaked through my card, is it a good likelihood that my vote didn't count, whereas, that error could have been caught at the polling booth?

Depends. If the ink leaked through your card and into one of the areas that indicates a vote for a ballot question on the back side of the card, chances are it will be an overvote and your vote won't count.

If the ink leaked onto an unused section of the ballot, probably no damage.

If the ink leaked onto the side of the ballot, it could screw up then entire count, including other ballots, because the absentee scanners used in Snohomish County have executable commands in the form of black dash-marks on the side of the ballots. According to reports I've heard from scientists who have looked into this, these marks can tell the scanner to stop, start over, switch precincts, etc. -- affecting the whole batch.

>How can I easily check to see if my vote was cast the last election?

You can't, in Snohomish County, regardless of whether you vote absentee or at the precinct. They used unauditable touch-screens at the precinct and there is no easy way to check your absentee vote.

Cheers,

Bev Harris
Founder
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Posted by: Bev Harris on January 5, 2006 10:28 AM

15. Why not, here in the great gulag of Western Washington, just go ahead and disenfranchise all of us instead of just creepin around the edge of the circle? Geeeeeezus . . .

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 5, 2006 10:35 AM

16. Oh, but lefty/winston/headlice have all shown the way. Their INTENTIONS are what counts. They're at least doing something in SnoCo and KC. That's all that's really required...dontcha think?

Posted by: Danny on January 5, 2006 10:41 AM

17. the reason the Dems in Snoco want all-mail voting is because Dino Rossi came just way too close to getting the governorship for their comfort, and they need additional ways to keep that from happening again. (if you know what I mean)

Posted by: Misty on January 5, 2006 10:53 AM

18. Of all the wonderful things we have in America the ONLY one that is SACRED for everyone is their right to vote and have their vote count! In spite of what others have said, and no matter what systems are put into place, mail in voting has the potential for fraud. It is easily manipulated (as we have seen).Read John Fund's book "Stealing Elections". Sharkansky is right. Now the only way to reverse this unctuous policy is to vote out those that passed. Unfortunately, that will be even more difficult because now the Dems have to means to control the ballot box. It will take a margin of victory that can't be contested. IF IT'S NOT CLOSE, THEY CAN'T CHEAT! (See Hugh Hewitt).

Posted by: Silkworm on January 5, 2006 12:02 PM

19. Lefty - You do not feel that other people have the right to vote at polls? Whether or not you like mail-in voting why should people not be able to go to the polls?

And as far as "...reach for the brass ring of greed and personal enrichment". So what do you do all day? My guess is you go to some work to get income for "personal enrichemnt". Am I mistaken there? Or is this the socialist bit that 'all personal enrichment is equal, though some personal enrichment is more equal than others'?

Posted by: fred on January 5, 2006 12:32 PM

20. Winston Smith - Two words: Patricia Levesque...

Posted by: ewaggin on January 5, 2006 12:33 PM

21. I must have done the tag for the link wrong...

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005250.html

Posted by: ewaggin on January 5, 2006 12:35 PM

22. WHOLESALE vote fraud?? Sounds like Lefty has accepted that there has been fraud-by-mail. Now he has seemed to try to establish a certain undefined level that must exist. Left, what is your definition of WHOLESALE?? We know there's dead people voting (is that wholesale?), we know that people are voting illegally because of PO box registration, we know that people have voted twice repeatedly (see Patricia Levesque as mentioned by ewaggin above, for but one example). You're in denial, my friend.

Posted by: Misty on January 5, 2006 01:08 PM

23. Lefty - You do not feel that other people have the right to vote at polls? Whether or not you like mail-in voting why should people not be able to go to the polls?

And as far as "...reach for the brass ring of greed and personal enrichment". So what do you do all day? My guess is you go to some work to get income for "personal enrichemnt". Am I mistaken there? Or is this the socialist bit that 'all personal enrichment is equal, though some personal enrichment is more equal than others'?

Posted by: fred on January 5, 2006 01:09 PM

24. OOps - sorry about the double post... :(

Posted by: fred on January 5, 2006 01:11 PM

25. Winston: "The only electoral problems we have in this state is with obstructionaist, disenfranchising Republicans and their rigged touch-screen voting machines."

Actual examples, please, of:

1. Obstruction (which, BTW, doesn't include simply asking that election laws be followed);
2. A real, live disenfranchised - but legitimate - voter;
3. Objective evidence of a rigged touch-screen voting machine.

Course, the problem is that there aren't any such examples - just rhetoric. Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it so....

Posted by: Patrick on January 5, 2006 02:19 PM

26. Dems, chew on this:

(1) FACT: The majority of Washingtonians do not believe that Gregoire was elected governor. Hence, they believe foul play was in effect.

(2) FACT: Judge Bridges said that despite the appearance of foul play, there was nothing his court could do according to the law. He said that ultimately it is the people's responsibility to clean up the mess.

(3) FACT: Stefan Sharkansky has SINGLE-HANDEDLY exposed fraud on the part of voters and on the part of our officials. This is INDISPUTABLE evidence.

(4) FACT: Dems have consistantly favored less secure methods and have refused to put in the proper controls to ensure election results are accurate.

Initiative 695 didn't pass in a day. It took a few tries for Eyman to get it right. But when he did, all of a sudden, there was a titanic shift in the way cars are licensed in this state.

Election reform isn't going to happen overnight, and it isn't going to come from Olympia. Some bright group of citizens will put forward the right initiative that will reform the way elections are handled to restore trust in the system.

The sun is setting on the Dems, not the Republicans. The Republicans are on the people's side of this issue, and not amount of whining is going to change that.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 5, 2006 02:32 PM

27. Fred,

The personal enrichment I was alluding to is the taking of bribes, of funneling money for personal use in a manner contrary to the law. Shady financial dealings ala Frist, Delay, Cunningham, et al.

Posted by: My Left Foot on January 5, 2006 02:46 PM

28. MLF - You forgot Clinton in your list of un-proven shady deals - though her group got fined, which is more than has happened to Delay. Speaking of Delay how about the shady indictment against him by the dem prosecuter? (Ooops that law wasn't in effect for indictment #1, throw it out. Couldn't get a weekend grand jury to indict - there goes #2, rammed through in one day to get an indictment in the last minute)

And for some reason Abramoff is missing from the normal list - is that because too many dems are involved. Other than vague accusations and talking points, are there any facts to support these, and if so which R came to the defense or even stayed neutral?

Posted by: fred on January 5, 2006 03:21 PM

29. My Left Foot:
Are you ignoring the names I provided? Five Democrats in Washington State and two in Oregon who took Abramhoff money. And Patty Murray is far and above at the head of the pack in dollars received (I think a little over $500,000) because of her influence on the Senate Appropriations committee dealing with Native American issues. She took more than all the other Washington legislators or senators combined. So PULEASE, save the Big, Bad Republican nonsense. It's a bipartisan issue, and should be cleaned up completely, preferrably by limiting lobbyist access to politicians and outlowing their campaign contributions. As far as that goes, I would be more than willing to have my taxes used for campaign funds given by the government to each and every candidate, in equal amount, to support their campaigns, and then making any other contributions or the use of their own money, or money funnelled to them by their national party illegal. I think that might level the playing field just a little. It might even make people pay attention to their agenda and platform instead of letting the TV do their deciding for them.

Posted by: katomar on January 5, 2006 04:33 PM

30. One key principle of the secret ballot is that there is no way for anyone other than a voter to know for certain how he voted (except in cases where the vote was for an essentially-unanimous victor), even if the voter is willing to have such information known. Even if someone bribes or coerces someone to vote a certain way, that person would have no way of knowing if the person actually voted as instructed.

There is no way whatsoever to add such protection to mail-in ballots. And that is a big problem.

IMHO, the vast majority of ballots in an election should be ordinary polling-place ones. The military can and should provide procedures by which soldiers can vote absentee and have the confidentiality of their vote assured, but the wide-open "fill it out anywhere" approach needs to be abolished.

Posted by: supercat on January 5, 2006 04:44 PM

31. The problem is not mail in ballots, the problem is very simply any unusual or spoiled mail in ballots.

At a polling place a machine handles deciding if a ballot is filled out correctly - If it gets kicked back the VOTER gets to correct it, or gets a new ballot, then reinsert it. Until it goes through and is counted. No King County worker gets to make th voter's decision for them.

In mail in scenerio, if the ballot is rejected, the it is remarked by King County, not by the voter. When the Canvassing board has two democrats and one republican, there is no way this produces the outcome the voter correcting their own ballot would produce.

Posted by: GS on January 5, 2006 05:02 PM

32. You righties have so many lies and distortions in your responses to our Progressive challenges to your BS about elections that it would take a 10,000 word essay to refute each and every one of them. Suffice it to say that Republican crooks like Abramoff donate in lesser amounts to unsuspecting Democrats so that when they are caught ( the Republican crooks ) they can point to the Democrats and say: "Look, they took our money, too."

Additionally, Murray got $40,000 from Abramoff-- not $500,000-- as Katomar incorrectly states. This last incorrect statement is indicative of the way Republicans lie. The lie is in the distortion of the facts. But it is nonetheless a lie.

Posted by: Winston Smith on January 5, 2006 06:16 PM

33. Winnie,

If a 10,000 word essay is necessary, get busy!

BTW, who'll count the words - KC election workers? Will you trust the tally?

"...crooks like Abramoff donate in lesser amounts to unsuspecting Democrats...

Unsuspecting Democrats - you mean there's another kind?

Posted by: rickyragg on January 5, 2006 06:30 PM

34. Winston--

First of all, it's not a case of "lesser amounts" going to the Dems: Byron Dorgan received $95k and Harry Reid got himself more than $66k, both of which are more than some of the highlighted GOP folks like Eric Cantor. It's more a matter of expedience. Abrahamoff clearly gave more to the GOP because the GOP has the majority in both houses. However, 40 of 45 Democratic Senators received at least some money from Abrahamoff, which goes to show how widespread an issue it is rather than a partisan issue. It's a partisan issue like the House Bank scandal a decade ago was partisan.

As for Murray, I believe your number is slightly low but close enough for good. She definitely did not get half a mil.

Posted by: Marc on January 5, 2006 06:53 PM

35. Fred,

Please, you are focused on five names. Where is the list of all the names? The problem you have is that REPUBLICANS took money DIRECTLY from Abramoff. The names you listed took money without ever knowing that it was connected in any way to Abramoff. You have REPUBLICAN legislators who are going to be indicted (on has already admitted this) for selling their votes in Congress. This is directly related to Abramoff and his Indian gambling lobbying money. (This site is so uptight that the filter kicked back the word c a s i n o)

You Wingnuts will never admit, even when faced with absolute proof, that your party leaders and elected officials ever do anything wrong. It always the Democrats, trying to subvert your party, trying to regain power, trying to smear your side.

The truth is, we don't have to do anything you manage to do it better than we could ever hope.

Posted by: My Left Foot on January 5, 2006 07:00 PM

36. Here's the list.

It includes some unsuspecting Democrats.

* Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
* Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250

Posted by: rickyragg on January 5, 2006 07:08 PM

37. On the John Carlson show today, in response to other media figures challenging him to speak on the Abramhoff scandal, he apparently researched the WHOLE Time Patty Murray was on the Senate Appropriations committee in charge of Native American issues. He stated today that, contrary to recent reports, the total Murray received from Abramhoff clients is $500,000 plus.

Posted by: katomar on January 5, 2006 07:59 PM

38. And another thing, Winston and pals, you seem to have selective cognitive abilities. The posters on this site have stated over and over again their abhorrance and disgust at both Republicans and Democrats taking money from Abramhoff clients, and I have stated my distaste for lobbyist access to any legislator or senator. You, on the other hand, seem to read only portions of the posts that suit your hysterical need to attack conservatives.

Posted by: katomar on January 5, 2006 08:09 PM

39. katomar--
Do you realize that if you stand close enough to Winston (aka Headlice Lucy) that you can hear the ocean??? Pretty hard to believe that the squiggler that created Winston actually beat out 1,000,000 sperm in the race to Winny's mommy's egg!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 5, 2006 08:27 PM

40. TO LEFT FOOT:
You mentioned "taking of bribes"--Were you referring to the situation Stefan brought to light that happened just before the recent election where Sims' 'people' informed a building permit seeker that the way would be 'made clear' for their difficult-to-obtain permit if they would hold a big fundraiser for Sims???? Talk about bribes.....

Posted by: I know what you mean on January 5, 2006 08:45 PM

41. To GS ---

You said something about correcting ballots at the polling place with the help of election workers.

You have got to be kidding, either you have never voted or not understood secret ballots.

NO person other tha the voter ever sees the ballot. NOT ever, in no form, at the voting place. Later, in that mass of papers called all ballots, OK, no personal ID to any voter.

Called the secret ballot.

If a voter has truly spoiled a ballot totally, there can be a new ballot, but no based on a workers view of the old ballot.

ALSO, since 61 per cent of the folks in Sno
Co already use mail in ballots, isn't that a so called super majority in favor of the issue....

These fine folks decided this issue long before the formal decision to switch. DEMOCRACY in action, seems to me.

Posted by: Mike McNamara on January 5, 2006 09:43 PM

42. "Outlawed"?

Oh, please.

Posted by: Daniel K on January 5, 2006 09:43 PM

43. Waai till they all squeal --- white collar criminals can't stand the thread of hard time. they will all rat on each other. many secrets yet to be told.

Very big fracas, will be front p[age for months, many damaged careers. Amricans are very law abiding and don't like proof of corruption.

Posted by: Mike McNamara on January 5, 2006 09:50 PM

44. My Left Foot,

You can't but if you do find out what the hell happened to my other two ballots and let me know if it was "MY VOTE THAT COUNTED!" I live in corruped King County!

Here is a link to help you locat information!

Posted by: dcat on January 5, 2006 10:29 PM

45. Mike Mc Namara.

Sir you have NO idea what you are talking about.
You may wish to read more on how they can change the way you voted.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 5, 2006 10:31 PM

46. When they figure the cost of voting by mail are they taking into account the postage? With the system where you can request a mail in ballot the voter picks up the tab. Once they go to all mail in ballots the county must pick up the postage. Otherwise what they have created is an illegal Pole Tax.

Another thing to consider is how much more it will cost when voters like me mail the ballot return receipt requested. It will be the only way to be sure you ballot was received prior to Election Day. We should get a few hundred thousand voters to do that in protest and we will see how much money they are saving.

Posted by: JayDub on January 5, 2006 10:31 PM

47. By the way, who is going to pay for the stamps?

We know the homeless can't. So then their vote doesn't count.
Come on LIB's you goofed again.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 5, 2006 10:34 PM

48. My Left foot,
Sorry here is the real link!

Posted by: dcat on January 5, 2006 10:34 PM

49. Internet go to your tax paying library but hey it looks like you do have a computer LOL!

Posted by: dcat on January 5, 2006 10:36 PM

50. I am a republican fool! Only a liberal would say something about affording stamps.

If you can't afford stamps you sure aren't going to worry about voting. That would be the last thing on my plate if I had nothing!

Posted by: dcat on January 5, 2006 10:40 PM

51. dcat.

I wasn't asking you. It's a question to the LIB's out there who want everything to be free and paid for by you and me. "ok"

Thanks for your kind words?

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 5, 2006 10:43 PM

52. Oh and BTW MY VOTE PROBABLY DIDN'T COUNT!!!

DID YOU BOTHER READING MY BLOG AND WHAT HAPPEND TO ME IN OCTOBER!

Is this the lame report?!

I'm Saying the internet is the way to go on voting!!!

Posted by: dcat on January 5, 2006 10:46 PM

53. Mike McNamara,

You are totally misquoting what I said! I said specifically:

At a polling place a machine handles deciding if a ballot is filled out correctly - If it gets kicked back the VOTER gets to correct it, or gets a new ballot, then reinsert it. Until it goes through and is counted. No King County worker gets to make the voter's decision for them.

Never does a King County worker touch or remark a ballot in a polling place... Period!

Posted by: GS on January 5, 2006 11:30 PM

54. Well...The Democrats have almost secured All Mail voting for the entire state!
That means there will be virtually NO WAY for anyone in this state to ever have confidence in our elections again.
Why else would the Democrats push this through so rapidly - and without a public vote? Here's a hint....It was approved by the Demcorats in our state legislature - on the heels of the most controversial and fraud-ridden election in our history?
Think about it!

Does anyone with half a brain actually believe that changing the state to All Mail Voting was some sudden brilliant idea that warranted immediate action? In light of so many errors and suspicious activity related to absentee voting...all in the Democrats favor?

Does anyone believe the Dems "economic" reasoning for this change?

I'm telling you...we are bring overrun in this state and only the Federal Government can stop it...Maybe HLS or the NSA...?

Posted by: Deborah on January 6, 2006 12:23 AM

55. ah shut up you dumb goose-stepping ReTHUGliFUKERs

Posted by: Donkey_Courage on January 6, 2006 12:45 AM

56. All mail voting eliminates the two party helpers at each polling place. It assures that only State employees handle all votes.

What a joke!

Posted by: GS on January 6, 2006 12:57 AM

57. Donkey courage, did you think that what you just said here was really impressive?

Posted by: wasn't impressed with the tackiness on January 6, 2006 01:18 AM

58. Actually, Donkey Courage is clever. He beat the tight butted filter here and got the f word past it.

It is never ceases to amaze me. I guess you want RIGHTWINGNUTS want everyone ID chipped, like my dogs, before we can vote. Big Brother has a face and it is the face of RIGHTWINGNUTS.

Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on January 6, 2006 01:34 AM

59. True this: "(4) FACT: Dems have consistantly favored less secure methods and have refused to put in the proper controls to ensure election results are accurate...Election reform isn't going to happen overnight, and it isn't going to come from Olympia."

I spend a lot of time in the field. I see a lot of locations where local officials (and sometimes state officials) favor less secure methods. Whichever party is in power is the one that runs away from oversight and security procedures. The single biggest road block to real improvement in 2005 has been the tendency of the election reform movement to view this as
(a) a presidential politics issue (the worst part is local)
and
(b) a "Bush stole the presidency" issue.

Whether or not Bush stole it, federal election theft cannot be achieved at all without exploiting a patchwork of local networks that have blocked citizen oversight. Kerry's New Hampshire results in the primary look mighty funky too. King County is the laughingstock of the country -- I can go to the most messed-up mob-influenced election cesspools in the country and the big boys wink and say, "if you think we're messed up, what about King County?"

Only the citizens themselves can clean this up. You can't expect people who retain their power on a broken system to fix that system.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Posted by: Bev Harris on January 6, 2006 06:45 AM

60. Your liberal projection is working overtime again dug. Leave it to a mouth-breather to suggest the most extreme sort of measure and then presuppose that it would be his enemies imposing it.

Conservatives and Republicans alike have requested common sense approaches to election reform, with ballot security at the core. Leftists have strutted around and said, "good enough is good enough", with political advantage at the core.

I'm not surprised that you would find donky courage clever....

Posted by: alphabet soup on January 6, 2006 06:50 AM

61. Katomar: I suppose you think the "K Street Project" is a bi-partisan issue? You're such a liar! And you never dealt with the fact that I exposed the lie you told about Murray receiving $500,000 when it was really $40,000. AND the fact that these donations to Democrats are a ruse so that corrupt Republicans can say: "Look, they took our money, Too!"

Tom DeLay was given, by Abramoff, a tour of the whorehouses of Southeast Asia. Which Democrats have been on such trips at Abramoff's expense?

None!

Posted by: Winston Smith on January 6, 2006 08:26 AM

62. winnie,

Spare me your holier than thou.

No one here is saying that republicans are guilt free. Everyone who is guilty should pay.
Why do you have such a problem admitting that?

Democrats aren't human? They never make mistakes?
Maybe they make too many, could be the reason the left is pointing fingers and being so defensive.

Posted by: dan on January 6, 2006 08:38 AM

63. dan - you hit the nail on the head. Dems are human, they make mistakes. Reps are corrupt and do it with full knowledge. It is amusing that the letter behind your name determines the excuse.

Posted by: fred on January 6, 2006 09:03 AM

64. Deborah claims: The Democrats have almost secured All Mail voting for the entire state!

Sorry to trouble you with a fact, but each county gets to choose whether to have all-mail balloting. Aren't about half of them controlled by Republicans?

This doesn't prove whether all-mail voting is a good or bad thing, but it does suggest that it is not driven by partisan concerns. The quotes I have read from county officials suggest that it's mostly a cost/benefit thing: it's not worth the cost to maintain voting places that are used by a steadily shrinking minority. And the impact on fraud opportunities is almost nil once you've already allowed anyone to vote by mail. If you want to eliminate that fraud opportunity -- and I agree there is one -- then you've really got your work cut out for you, since WA citizens have repeatedly shown an overwhelming (and increasing) desire for the right to vote by mail.

Of course, this blog is largely built on the premise that WA voting is a Democratic fraud conspiracy. And I think it's wonderful to have you folks spinning your wheels on this exercise.

Posted by: Bruce on January 6, 2006 09:07 AM

65. Someone reported on another site that Murray did receive close to $500k from Abramoff and groups that he was lobbyist for. True or not, I don't think you can dismiss it.

And the holier than thou discussion we are going through with Rs and Ds is only helping to continue the corruption in DC.

Murray is corrupted and seduced by the big money of the lobbyists. Whether or not the organizations she got the money from went through Abramoff's fingers or not, the specter of corruption is there.

Dashle's old lady is another lobbyist corrupting the system.

And there are hundreds of others. I think time is better spent getting rid of the lobbyist influence than saying R side is worse than the D side or vice versa.

Posted by: swatter on January 6, 2006 09:12 AM

66. The Republican premise on this blog is that if a Democrat won an election then ,automatically, fraud was involved. The only purpose in commenting on this blog is to hold the mirror of Progressive truth up to these Rightist liars so that they have to confront their own dishonesty from time to time, if only on a subliminal level.

Posted by: Winston Smith on January 6, 2006 09:21 AM

67. SWatter: I hear from nimnulls like you that reciving money from corrupt sources means the receiver is corrupt.

Not so!

The corruption is in being able to prove that the money influenced your vote on something. That is where the investigation of Republicans reveals that they are corrupt and the Progressive Democrats are not.

The logic is inescapable to all but the most self-deluded RIGHTIST TOOLS.

Posted by: Winston Smith on January 6, 2006 09:27 AM

68. Winston,

I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the characterization of "...obstructionaist, disenfranchising Republicans and their rigged touch-screen voting machines." If you can't provide any, why should anyone listen to you? Remember, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim...if you can't prove it, don't claim it.

Posted by: Patrick on January 6, 2006 09:41 AM

69. Winston - you state that "The corruption is in being able to prove that the money influenced your vote on something". Where is the proof and conviction of anyone (R or D) including Delay that the money changed a vote? As I doubt you can then why do you assume that all Rs are corrupt and all "Progressive Democrats" are not. Also where do regular Democrats fall into your corruption allegations?

Posted by: fred on January 6, 2006 09:51 AM

70. Excuse my french, but what is a nimnull?

And sorry headless, you can't put me in either the R or D camp on this. All corruption must be eliminated. And all politicians are corrupted after they get in office.

They are good people when they get in but on day two they start their reelection campaign. And where do you suppose they get that money? People like Abramoff and Daschle.

Posted by: swatter on January 6, 2006 09:58 AM

71. Wasn't it Stalin who said something to the effect that it does not matter who casts the votes. What matters is who counts them.

Stalin would be proud of Sims, Logan, et al.

Posted by: Hmmm ... on January 6, 2006 10:13 AM

72. Speaking of polls, lets discuss somethign that this site won't tell you:

Governor Chistine Gregoire (D) has a 55% Job Approval rating among the state's voters. Forty-two percent (42%) disapprove.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/January%202006/Washington%20Senate%20January%202.htm

Posted by: JDB on January 6, 2006 11:29 AM

73. JDB - not to make too fine a point, but it appears this site, through your post - which did not get removed - did tell us...

Posted by: fred on January 6, 2006 11:39 AM

74. jdb -

I imagine they did get a favorable rating for mrs gregoire if they only polled the area between Capitol Hill and the waterfront.

Posted by: dan on January 6, 2006 11:47 AM

75. JDB - I'm surprised that you take exception to this site. I looked at KOMO, KIRO, Seattle Times, PI, News Tribune and I couldn't find this story either. Thanks for helping SP scoop the others.

I'd prefer to see the internals in addition to the numbers, but I am not a subscriber to that site.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 6, 2006 11:49 AM

76. Winston Smith - Nice propaganda tactic you're using...

Rather than stay on-topic (this thread is about problems with mail voting), you throw out some inflammatory comment about an off-topic subject, and thereby hijack the thread.

Is it that you are incapable of staying on topic, or that you just don't want to?

Posted by: ewaggin on January 6, 2006 12:18 PM

77. Winston Smith - Again, two words on mail voting problems: Patricia Levesque.

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005250.html

Are you still going to suggest that there are no problems?

Posted by: ewaggin on January 6, 2006 12:23 PM

78. Patrick: You mean like with your false claims about corruption in KC voting. Like with your lying about that and then crowing that voters are convinced of corruption even when there is none? You slanderous , lying tool. You should be in prison!

Posted by: Winston Smith on January 6, 2006 12:28 PM

79. briefly off-topic

Oh Wiiiinston,

I thought you were busy with that civil war thing and all. Come on and get to it, would ya?

Posted by: 5thColumnCure on January 6, 2006 12:28 PM

80. Do we agree that technology currently exist to count votes accurately? If the answer is yes, then the question becomes one of intent. That is to say the intent of the people counting. The greater the distance between the ballot box and the voter the greater the opportunity to defraud. We have witness this in great detail during the Governor's race. It was my belief that the Democrats has a 10,000 vote head-start in statewide elections. Once again the Governor's race suggest that to be the case. The bogus votes consisted of: Double voting, felons voting, canvassing efforts (marking ballots) and the never mentioned illegal aliens voting, other errors caused by mishandling and the inability to balance counts by comparing votes cast against ballots. One may say that the reconciling is a proof process. That may be true, except the proof process was never actually done. On top of that add the number of votes cast by other unauthorized voters, dead folk and out of stater's.
Judge Bridge basically ruled that King County has a mess; but the law required proof of actual votes. That is to say how did the illegal voter(s) vote and then subtract that vote from the candidates total. This procedure is an impossible standard given the secrecy of the ballot. Now we are moving to all mail voting system. The voter is separated from the counter by the mail box. There is not direct connect. No machine receipt. Not paper trail. In short there is no conclusive means to prove that your vote for Able was actually recorded and counted as a vote for Able and not for Jack. We have no means available to challenge the outcome of any race using the mail-in ballot. All voters, Democrats and Republicans, have been disenfranchised. Our state has crossed the line from freedom to tyranny. One party will survive and that party has shown us over the past two decades the cost of tyranny. It is not cheap. Washington has lost many businesses over the past two decades. Try to buy an Oly beer. Clue, over-regulation closed the plant. And will continue to suffer business loss. Washington State is quickly becoming uncompetitive when compared to other states. And as taxes continue to increase; people will continue to vote with their feet by moving out. Union pressures and increasing regulations will further stifle business. Years ago Boeing set the example by moving to Chicago. Microsoft employs more workers outside the state. Tyranny demands much and contributes little to society. Last one out turn off the lights.

Posted by: snuffy on January 6, 2006 12:52 PM

81. Winston,

I'm very curious. If you've been reading this blog for the past 18 months, as I'm sure you have, what is your explanation for everything that Stefan has uncovered regarding KCE. Let's say 90% of it is hogwash. What do you honestly think of the 10% that could be factual.
Please don't give us the screed of
hypocrites, liars etc. What draws you to this site?

Posted by: dan on January 6, 2006 01:13 PM

82. Snuffy, your post starts out reasonably and then branches into many directions of untruths.

- Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your "belief" that the Democrats get 10,000 illegal votes in the state?

- Neither the law nor Judge Bridge (sic) required "proof" of who an illegal vote was cast for, as you claim. The law merely requires showing who it "appears" the illegal vote was cast for. It is unfortunate that neither the law, Judge Bridges, or common sense tells us what would be sufficient evidence for this. (I think it's standard court practice in the US for the judge to leave it to the parties to decide how to make their cases.) But presumably it's possible. There are certainly things the Republicans could have done, and didn't do.

- Of course WA has lost many businesses during the past 2 decades. If you want to be in an economy that never loses businesses, try communism. But WA's economic growth rate has far exceeded the US average during that period (a quick google got me to http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/htm/fig103.htm, for starters). This is not proof of whether the state's policies are good or bad, but your anecdotal rantings are as relevant as, oh, most anecdotal rantings.

Posted by: Bruce on January 6, 2006 01:21 PM

83. Winston,

Perhaps you are confusing me with another "Patrick"...? I have never claimed there was "corruption in KC voting" - only that the election laws designed to prevent corruption are not being enforced. When the safeguards are not in place, there is no way to *know* whether or not corruption exists. (I don't recall ever "crowing," either...)

This is the basis of my objections to all-mail voting: The registration process is safeguard #1 - you are supposed to be able to prove you are a citizen (i.e., are entitled to vote) in order to register. The polling place is safeguard #2 - you present yourself to the pollworkers (typically neighbors), provide identification, and sign the poll book to attest that you are who you say you are, and that you have voted. The ballot box itself is safeguard #3 - once you have marked the ballot in the privacy of the voting booth, you place the ballot yourself into the ballot box, where it is secured until the votes are counted, and with no identification tracing it back to you.

If the above safeguards are in place (along with the subsequent procedures for securely handling and counting the ballots), election fraud (or "corruption") is difficult, if not impossible. However, when we weaken or eliminate these safeguards in the name of "convenience" we increase the opportunity for mischief, and reduce the electorate's confidence in the process.

It's really not that complicated. Nor is it partisan. (And you don't make your case any stronger by calling people names.)

Oh - and I'm still waiting for your actual examples of obstruction, disenfranchisement and electronic voting machine fraud...or your admission that it was all just words.

Posted by: Patrick on January 6, 2006 01:22 PM

84. Dan writes: I'm very curious. If you've been reading this blog for the past 18 months, as I'm sure you have, what is your explanation for everything that Stefan has uncovered regarding KCE. Let's say 90% of it is hogwash. What do you honestly think of the 10% that could be factual.

I'm not Winston, but in my opinion the problems can be attributed to:
- accidental errors (by voters and KCE)
- incompetence (by voters and KCE)
- public desire for voting to be easy, and the inevitable tradeoffs that result
- desire to look good by hiding problems (by KCE)
- and a small amount of deliberate fraud by individual voters

I would say that close to 100% of what Stefan has reported is factual. My beef is with the conspiracy theories that he has concocted to explain them. It's like the time someone asked Carl Sagan what he thought of UFOs, and he replied, "I believe in UFOs. My problem is with how people identify them."

Posted by: Bruce on January 6, 2006 01:28 PM

85. I meant to add, after my list of explanations above, that these problems are far from unique to King County. No one has provided even anecdotal evidence that King County is worse than average in the US, let alone that it is deliberate.

Posted by: Bruce on January 6, 2006 01:33 PM

86. Please tell me that the trolls like headlice/winston/deeznuts, et al are NOT breeding!

Posted by: Danny on January 6, 2006 01:40 PM

87. Bruce - the trouble is that the powers that be interpret "public desire for voting to be easy" as making it less secure. Given that way back when someone made the bank comparison I will continue with that example.

When people wanted to have easier banking what do you think the response would be if the banks obliged at the expense of accuracy? Do you feel that "Human error", "these are the consequenses of making banking easier" would be acceptable excuses for inaccurate balances?

I, for one, am all for making voting easier. But never ever at the expense of accuracy in all aspects - registration, casting, counting, and tabulating.

The right to vote is far more valuable than an accurate bank statement! Just look at the numbers of how many people died to protect each of them.

Posted by: fred on January 6, 2006 01:44 PM

88. Bruce - who cares if we have the accuracy of the average. I do not want to be average. I do not want voting to show the will of the people to the same accuracy as Cuba, the old Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc. There is no reason we cannot expect excellence in our voting system and process.

Posted by: fred on January 6, 2006 01:48 PM

89. Bruce,
Thank you for the response to my question. Even though I would have preferred Winston's answer.

You state, in an otherwise reasonable response, that Stefan was both factual and a conspiracy theorist in the same sentence. All he is doing is uncovering how it is possible that the facts he discovered could be perpetrated and by whom. Eventually arriving at the fact. Please re-think your line of reasoning.

Posted by: dan on January 6, 2006 01:59 PM

90. A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
~Bill Vaughan

It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting.
~Tom Stoppard, Jumpers

Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. ~George Jean Nathan

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.
~Alexis de Tocqueville

Truth is not determined by majority vote.
~Doug Gwyn

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.
~Winston Churchill

"Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it."
--Thomas Jefferson, March 18, 1793

"It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back." --Thomas Jefferson to Arthur Campbell, 1797

"We are to guard against ourselves; not against ourselves as we are, but as we may be; for who can imagine what we may become under circumstances not now imaginable?"
--Thomas Jefferson to Jedidiah Morse, 1822

"So long as [the principles of our revolution] prevail, we are safe from everything which can assail us from without or within."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Lambert, 1810

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
-- Thomas Paine

...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: JCM on January 6, 2006 02:21 PM

91. How precious! The best Winston can come up with is "liar, liar, pants on fire"....

Posted by: katomar on January 6, 2006 02:28 PM

92. Given the current state of elections departments in the Puget Sound area, in particular KCE:

Can you who support mail voting provide the following assurances:

Regarding the poll books--
That all the registrants are legally registered; i.e. citizens, provide residence or alternative that meets the requirements of the law.
That the registrant are registered once and only once.
That the poll books are maintained in accordance of the law with regards to removing the deceased.
Assure that voters have not moved or registered in any other jurisdiction.

The ballot:
Reconcile before certification, that the number of ballots printed to the number sent out, the number not returned, the number not counted, the number counted, the number spoiled etc. This accounting must have a margin of error less than the margin of victory. In KCE historically this must be an accuracy rate of 99.9964%
Guarantee that the voter of record receives the ballot.
Guarantee that the voter of record votes the ballot.
Guarantee that the voter of record is free from external influences (think nursing homes).
That all voters get ballots in time to vote and return them.
That the election departments handle the ballots on return according to the law.

The count.
That for each office the number of ballots returned and received minus the disqualified ballots is equal to the the total votes cast for each candidate plus the over votes plus the under votes. And that any discrepancy must be accounted for before certification.

The peoples faith in the elected government is dependent upon the faith in one person, one vote, counted accurately and legally.

The problems evident in the last election cycles have not yet been addressed. To suggest going to a mail voting system where the highest levels of accuracy, integrity, accountability and transparency are required is ludicrous. KCE can't tell within the margin of error of '04 election how many ballots were printed, sent, received or tabulated. Compounded the errors in KCE make a true determination of the outcome of a race questionable with a spread of several thousand votes, let alone a spread of less than 500.

The problem is those of you supporting mail balloting won't even acknowledge the problems that exist, let alone the the problems of running a error free mail in vote. Mail voting is possible, even feasible, however the issues listed above must be addressed. Yet the supports of mail voting response is not to address the issues but to attack the motives of those of us raising the issues.

I care for the legitimacy of the vote. If the vote is legitimate the winner is legitimate. The legislation enact by the winners is legitimate. The will of the people is reflected legitimately.

Do not call me a sore loser when the error rate of a single counties election tabulation is greater than the margin of victory.
Do not call me a sore loser with the county responsible delays illegally the release of documents, refuse to account for the error, conducts an "in depth" self exam and proclaims all is well.

Discuss the issues raised.
Show us where the issues, concerns and complaints are in error or wrong, so far I have not seen in a year a single refutation of any of Shark's analysis.
Contribute to an accurate fair election.

Posted by: JCM on January 6, 2006 03:32 PM

93. JCM -

Beautiful and profound words from some great leaders, great minds. All Rs, Ls and especially Ds should read these words and take heed.

King County moving to all mail voting is like a daredevil attempting to jump over 20 cars and failing, then going on to attempt to jump a canyon.

KC all mail voting looks more like the Fonz jumping the shark.

Posted by: Jeffro on January 6, 2006 03:54 PM

94. Fred writes: the trouble is that the powers that be interpret "public desire for voting to be easy" as making it less secure. No, but there is an inevitable tradeoff between allowing voting by mail (the main change people want) and security. Saying you won't accept any compromise in security is silly; there are all sorts of onerous things we could do to provide greater security in voting and many other aspects of life. But you are welcome to dispute whether this tradeoff is worthwhile.

Fred also writes: I do not want voting to show the will of the people to the same accuracy as Cuba, the old Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc. Of course not. I said that no one has shown King County to be worse than the US average. The countries you mention are not part of the US. And of course the goal should be zero errors. But if King County is around average, then there must be another reason why people on this board are apoplectic about it. That couldn't be partisan politics, could it???

JCM wasks for all sorts of assurances about mail voting. Asking for "assurances" and "guarantees" is unreasonable. Even with poll voting, we can't guarantee most of these things. For example, there is no practical way in the US that anyone can "prove" they are a citizen. You can prove you were born here, but how can you prove your citizenship hasn't been taken away? And how can you prove you aren't a convicted felon in any jurisdiction? We need to look at what security is practical and the tradeoffs with other goals.

Posted by: Bruce on January 6, 2006 04:16 PM

95. Do you realize that if you stand close enough to Winston (aka Headlice Lucy) that you can hear the ocean??? Pretty hard to believe that the squiggler that created Winston actually beat out 1,000,000 sperm in the race to Winny's mommy's egg!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 6, 2006 04:37 PM

96. Bruce,

All I am asking for is that a legal voter gets to vote once, and then have that vote counted once accurately.

Simple enough.

It's the logistics that are hard.

You apparently do not care enough about your vote, or anyone else's to even try. We need to look at what security is practical and the tradeoffs with other goals.

The the legitimacy of the vote is foundational to the republic. Would you forfeit the birthright handed to use by the generations who have bleed, died and expended vast amounts of treasure to grant us the franchise in a government of sovereignty of the people, by the people, for the people just because it is hard?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Are we too weak or timid to maintain one person, one vote in accordance with the law? Or do we let the republic slip away because a rigorous accounting of voters and votes is too hard?

Posted by: JCM on January 6, 2006 05:22 PM

97. JCM,

I do not think that Bruce believes in what our republic stands for. It sounds like he believes in a world order, where anyone can be a part and we all should be equal and tolerant of each other. Why should he care if votes aren't counted correctly or even have to put out some effort to have a LEGITIMATE say in how the USA maintains it's place as the beacon of life, liberty and happiness.

Posted by: Dengle on January 6, 2006 05:48 PM

98. Urghhhh...

I hate this whole mail-ballot thing. So incredibly irritating. And it entirely takes away the fun of actually going to the polls!

Posted by: Cydney on January 7, 2006 11:12 PM

99. Not at all surprising.
Bruce says about all mail voting."Asking for "assurances" and "guarantees" is unreasonable."
Anyone that exhibits such amazing moral/ideological tone deafness does not deserve to vote.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 8, 2006 05:06 PM

100. Bruce - funny how you left off the part about accepting that accuracy in your bank handling your money. Can I assume you would NOT accept that accuracy when it comes to your money, but do when it comes to elections? And you call people on this site money grabbing and un-principled!

Posted by: fred on January 9, 2006 08:44 AM

101. The number of people voting in an election is abyssmal. Instead of nearly 100%, we only get 33% in off-presidential years.

The Democrats think that the solution is making it easy to vote and vote again.

The Republicans, well, what do they think the problem is and how to solve the problem?

This antipathy in the election process is horrible. I think it is the unhealthy influence of money and the dilution of the individual's influence as compared to lobbyists.

Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2006 08:59 AM

102. Swatter, I try to be a bit more optimistic. I do not think lobbyists are diluting the influence. If 100% of legal voters voted lobbyist would have a much smaller influence - assuming the lobbyist were doing things that the majority would not want.

It is voter apathy that empowers lobbyists

Posted by: fred on January 9, 2006 10:35 AM

103. Swatter and Fred,

Think about it this way. In the end, this issue will only amount to characterizations in the public eye by the liberals equating corruption with “Republican lobbyists.”

Lobbying is issue advocacy in a free country—nothing more.
I am not excusing fraud, tax evasion or conspiracy to bribe public officials. Please don’t let the current spin re-define our political systems as de facto corruption.

Lobbyists are not corrupt; corrupt lobbyists are corrupt. Lobbyists are nothing more than advocates for people's interests who see to it that our representatives pay attention when these groups of people speak. The only way to eliminate them is to destroy our representative Republic, and that is precisely what liberals are trying to do. Whenever you hear anyone talk about regulation of political interests you will do well to immediately look to the left. You will also find that these liberal interests are never interested in limiting their own special interests or the lobbyists who represent them—IN ANY WAY.

Lobbyists represent what Marx talked about when he referred to “moneyed interests” and yet the largest and most resourceful lobbies are in the left including the NEA, AARP, ACLU, AFL-CIO among many others. They will only disappear if the left is successful in destroying our Representative Republic. So-called moneyed interests are substituted by liberals with bureaucratically entrenched interests and classical corporatism reminiscent of socialism.

Examples where lobbyists are vital to freedom abound. Lobbyists from the NRA along with a huge voting block saved us from the liberal anti-gun machine that is bent on eliminating our second amendment rights under the constitution. They convinced many women that gun control would prevent them from protecting themselves and their homes, and voted against Al Gore. Without these pro second amendment issue advocates, it is very likely that you would not be allowed to enjoy your second amendment rights. Further, many credible political analysts believe that we would have had Al Gore as our president on 911.

Rather than lamenting the immoral activities of those lobbyists who corrupt our political system, we should form our own groups in making our own voices be heard. Why not more vigorously lobby for education reform, resist the stranglehold of teachers unions by promoting vouchers and support for home schooling, stop the national seizure of union dues for democrat campaign funds, or for lowering property taxes, death taxes, and others for senior citizens? Everything is about money, and money in a free economy is still in the hands of the citizens unless the liberals have their way. Advocate for liberty.

The more restrictions that are placed on issue advocacy, the more issue advocacy corruption that will arise. Campaign Finance Reform and controls over the machinery of the political process only further corrupts the process, and Jack Abramoff will be a case in point. If Abramoff was so successful in influencing the Republicans’ agenda, why has the congress continued on such a liberal course? Also, ask yourself why the John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur radio shows were threatened with in-kind contributions for talking politics in public. Does this mean that if I go to Olympia and talk to legislators I have made an in-kind political contribution?

Republicans and Democrats who engage in fraud, tax evasion or conspiracy to bribe public officials should be prosecuted for those crimes; but not for legitimate issue advocacy. The left would love nothing more than to re-define the system in the eyes of the public equating corruption with “Republican lobbyists.”

Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 9, 2006 03:20 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?