I'm off to attend the King County Council 1:30 meeting to speak against Deanron's proposal to force everybody to vote by mail (which would flush elections accuracy and integrity down the toilet).
I hope to see some of you there. (details for attending here). If you can't make it in person, be sure to call and/or e-mail your Councilmember to express opposition to forced mail voting. (contact info here).
You may also watch the proceedings on KCTV
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 05, 2006 12:11 PM | Email ThisYou're right. People want to vote from their Living Room because it's convenient. But don't you think they'd oppose efforts to reduce absentee voting if they knew that their Living Room ballot was being cancelled out by an illegal vote being counted by Ron Sims and Dean Logan?
Close elections should still go to the actual winners, and not who the local government was able to put over the top by allowing and counting illegal and invalid ballots made easier through all-mail voting.
Posted by: MJC on June 5, 2006 01:04 PMIf our measuring stick was based on a majority already doing something, then I guess ST would be dead, since the mass transit option of the majority is the single occupancy vehicle.
We would have a border fence since the majority think it is a good idea for border control.
We would have spending limits in Olympia since the majority actually voted for it - oops. When the PI cheered the overthrow of I-601 last year, part of their reasoning was that we had a representative form of government and that we (the PEOPLE) elect people to represent us and I-601 (an initiative of the PEOPLE) was an unfair restriction on those representatives. Representatives of the PEOPLE feel they are unfairly restricted by an initiative that provides more direction from the PEOPLE they are supposed to represent?
My point is, politicians of all stripes (but especially dems) have forever told us that even though we are a democracy, the majority doesn't always rule - there are "other considerations", and "Constitutional issues" that need to be considered.
When politicians don't like the majority vote, they tend (lately) to go to the courts to have the will of the majority overturned.
Have an open discussion of all mail voting. Investigate all the possible methods to scam the system. Plug all the gaps. Once it has been made as bullet-proof as possible, explain it to the people and then put it to a vote of the people. Don't cram it down their throats.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 5, 2006 01:18 PMWhere is Larry Phillips? What is more important than public testimony on a change to the way our elected representatives are elected? He was in the courthouse this morning? He was there for the honorary at the beginning of this meeting?
And you gotta love Julia Patterson's attempt to take offence to Stefan's comments about Democrat motives. There is no one in this county that doesn't understand that Democrats are pushing this to gain advantage. If she's not a partisan Democrat conspirator in this change, let's see Julia vote with the other 4 Republicans to "invite" Stefan to testify? That is something Democrats have desperately avoided from the start.
Julia, if you're reading this, put up or shut up? If you're not one of the Democrats pushing all-mail voting for partisan political gain, then vote with the Republicans to invite Stefan to present a real comprehensive report on what he uncovered doing the only thorough investigation of our elections process.
I fully expect that you will not!
Posted by: MJC on June 5, 2006 02:38 PMThis is one of those time.
KC Elections: Vote Early and Often!
Posted by: Jack Burton on June 5, 2006 02:54 PMIn fact, if we had state-wide all-mail voting, it would be to the Republican advantage.
Why? Many rural dwellers don't vote because the polls are very, very far away. If they were required to vote absentee, then they would be more likely to vote. Compared to the urban or sub-urban dwellers who live close enough to the polls that there is really no excuse not to vote.
Since the rural voters are predominately Republican, the Republicans stand to gain much more from this than the Democrats.
As far as fraud goes, let the Democrats keep trying to cover it up. It isn't working. Every voter in this state knows that KC stinks, and they know who is to blame. The more Deanron talks, the more stinky they smell. It doesn't help the KC runs the Democrat machine in this state. I think it will help more R's win, particularly outside of KC.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 5, 2006 03:09 PMAnswer: "Because Dean Logan is still employed"
Julia Patterson then took off after this site on the subject of "divisiveness". What a laugh. She must not read Goldy.
Actually, I think some of the far left in the state actually agree with Stefan.
However, with the trend going as it is, it seems like most everyone is going to opt out of poll voting anyway in the next few elections so its looking like a moot point.
I wonder what percent of SP readers still go to the polls?
Posted by: Erik on June 5, 2006 04:03 PMhttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=434-250-120
This happens all the time with absentee ballots, and the supposed "X" mark is never questioned, so long as two apparent signatures are also contained. Stefan even showed one person who was apparently voted under two registrations in his own name -- once with his own apparent signature, and again with an "X" with two illegible witness signatures. This may have been one of Christine Gregoire's 119 vote "victory" margin.
It would be much easier to do with initiatives and referenda. To do this with an absentee ballot, you have to physically get hold of (perhaps steal) someone else's ballot. To do this at the polls, someone has to appear in person and impersonate another. But to do this on a petition, you simple need to take their name and address from the Secretary of State database.
You could even outsource the forgery work to a foreign country, so the forgers don't have to worry so much about actual prosecution. The workers don't even need to understand English -- they can be trained on what to do in their native language.
YES -- ALL OF THIS IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL.
But we have people advocating that the right to vote is precious, and suspicious ballots or voter registrations under similar bizarre circumstances must be counted, no matter what.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 5, 2006 04:18 PMNot one member of the public spoke out in favor of FORCED MAIL VOTING.
Not one.
Why isn't the media covering this meeting on King 5 all night long?
I think the 80% of the public voting with their feet figure would evaporate overnight if the media publicized the problems everyone objected to, the whole meeting long.
How many people spoke, how many issues raised? And the council that's voting in favor of the measure, all stating that the citizenry supports it, but no citizen there to speak in favor of forced mail-in voting.
And the most appaling thing, is many Democratic Councilmembers all said that everyone was raising "Valid concerns". Well if they are valid? Why are they ignoring the overwhelming testimony about them, and poised to take a straight party-line vote in favor of this action?
Stefan is doing useful work here. Call him all the names in the book. He's exposing information. Something I can't say about the Democrats on the Council.
There were Greens, Republicans, and many Democrats who spoke passionately against this change.
I think that in opposition to one councilmember who called Stefan out, and wishes not to be called out by journalists, this is a coalition of many people, from many parties, all opposing this idea.
Gentry Lange
Everyone that reads Sound Politics, I encourage you to call and email King 5, Kong, Call the talkshows, do whatever you can to spread footage of that meeting around, all over the internet.
That meeting was a powerful coalition of people from a broad spectrum of citizens, and the citizens were pissed.
Posted by: Gentry Lange on June 5, 2006 05:47 PMPatterson is upset because she's often been the target of this blog. Welcome to public life. If she did not want to be scrutinized, she never should have run for office.
Between the media's refusal to participate and the council's preconceived notions, they have a stranglehold on any issue that does not rise to a level where it can no longer be plausibly denied.
Note also that they saved the VBM issue for late in the agenda hoping the could outlast the dissenters.
Logan will keep failing in election after election because nothing has fundamentally changed at KCREALS. When Logan fails again, there will be a much larger groundswell.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 5, 2006 06:12 PMOh my god.
I can't read who is testifying right now on my computer screen. What the heck does that testimony mean.
Posted by: Gentry Lange on June 5, 2006 06:25 PMNow, apparently, a KC councilperson denigrates SP for it's undue influence in muddying the election system waters.....
Those guys should doublecheck their scripts.
Since poll voters are in the minority, shouldn't their wishes count for more than an evil majority?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 5, 2006 07:12 PMStefan spoke first and Gossett shut him down when his 3 minutes was up. Gossett looked uncomfortable doing it, but he likely had his orders from Larry Phillips (who disappeared just before the public testimony and returned afterwards without explanation). After the next speaker, I believe it was Reagan Dunn who inquired of Gossett about hearing out Stefan or whether others could give Stefan their time. Gossett said that in the past, if others had signed up to give their time to one speaker, it would be allowed. But he wasn't going to allow others to give up their time to Stefan, or anyone else, once the testimony had started.
It was convenient that he set the rules after Stefan had testified, as at least one other person there tried to give Stefan their time later, and Gossett refused to allow it.
Patterson suggested after the testimony that someone review the video and capture all the issues for follow-up, but of course Stefan and the myriad of issues he could have brought were successfully limited to what Stefan was able to present in 3 minutes.
As far as equal voice in the hearing, all should note that Patterson and Furgeson certainly felt no obligation to limit their comments, as Patterson had plenty of time to slander talk radio and Stefan.
Kudos to Kathy Lambert who took issue with Patterson's "calling out" of a citizen and the chilling effect that would have on future citizens and their willingness to testify before hostile members like Patterson and Furgeson, who both presented themselves as interested only in discrediting the critics of all-mail voting.
Posted by: MJC on June 5, 2006 07:13 PMThe problem with your analysis is that it seems an significant variance in play because those rural dwellers who you say don't vote because the polls are very, very far away, are not getting anything new. Absentee ballots have been available for years.
Nevertheless, if what you say is true . . . great.
YOU MAKE AN INTERESTING POINT
The system is still prone to corruption because it encourages further corruption of the system. I am amused by liberals and liberalism because it is a sick ideology, but if there are enough morons to vote for a modern liberal society . . . so be it. Even in our state with Seattle's degenerates included -- there are not.
I sincerely hope it goes your way for all of our sakes. Even liberals don't deserve the consequence of so-called liberal leadership.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 5, 2006 07:44 PMI'm only surprised that Gossett didn't fall asleep. He very often does.
Well done Stefan.
Thanks.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 5, 2006 11:18 PM