November 05, 2007
Blame Bob Ferguson for stable problems with mail voting

A reader posted this comment below:

Once again (4th time in 4 years) King County elections has failed to get me my ballot on time.

Despite being on their list. and sending in an online request, and making on phone call- where I was told "we can't promise you anything" when I stressed that I really wanted to vote this election.

Last year of course I made 2 personal visits to the Election Office in Seattle in September before leaving the State and they still messed up and didn't get me my ballot until 2 days before the election (and only after I made 2 phone calls).

If you have any problems voting, especially voting by mail -- didn't get your ballot, ballot wrongly rejected for "signature mismatch", etc. , the person to blame is Councilman Bob Ferguson. It was his idea to both force everybody to vote by mail and to obstruct I-25 in the interest of "stability".

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 05, 2007 06:09 PM | Email This
Comments
1.
One way to insure fair elections is to make all votes public.

Put a checkbox on the ballot:

_ Make my vote public. Make it available with my name, address and email on a publically available website.

Then you can confirm your vote. And you can confirm other votes and do the math yourself.

The Senate and House members cast their votes in public.

Citizens should as well.

Posted by: John Bailo on November 5, 2007 06:26 PM
2. Sorry John, ballots must be secret and free of coercion. That is why they must be secret and should not be mailed out. Individuals should go to polling places, provide positive identification and/or receive a physical mark to prove they have voted. With all mail in ballots spouses can coerce votes. Ballots can be sold. Only in the privacy of the ballot booth with non-partisan election managers can election integrity be assured.

That is the insidious and corrupt problem with dems wanting all mail voting. Their supporters come from the lower, more poorly educated groups. Those more likely to engage in criminal behavior, and less likely to care about the niceities of one person one vote. The generally more affluent and law abiding republicans are less likely to engage in criminal vote selling or double voting. They have more to lose if they are caught, and are less inclined to engage in that kind of corrupt behavior.

Hairy

Posted by: Hairy Buddah on November 5, 2007 06:41 PM
3. Hairy, if what you say is true - wouldn't it be interesting to look at the historical records of absentee ballot requests?

We would see a higher percentage of requests from precincts that historical vote democrat rather than republican wouldn't we? Seems like an easy thesis to test.

Republicans more law abiding? Hmm, how do you know that?

Posted by: BA on November 5, 2007 07:56 PM
4. I actually had my ballot rejected because of "signature mismatch" for the 3rd straight election. My signature has not changed since I started writing cursive in grammar school. I finally went into one of the county service centers and filled out a new signature card. Here's the kicker: I wasn't asked for ID. I even asked the lady working the desk if she wanted to see it and she said "no need". What the hell is going on in our county?

Posted by: Richard A on November 5, 2007 08:45 PM
5. I am curious why your reader has not received his ballot "on time" 4 out of 4 years. What does he consider "on time"? And in what state or country does he live? And has the elections dept given any explanation? I always receive my ballot in plenty of time, and obviously so do the vast majority of voters, so 0-for-4 sounds like there's more to this story....

Posted by: Bruce on November 5, 2007 10:16 PM
6. Bob Ferguson is right. It is on the interest of stability to reject reforms and move to all mail voting. Stability of entrenched Democrat power.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 5, 2007 10:21 PM
7. Stefan.

My ballot went to a home in Everett where I've never lived. The only reason I know this, the fine people there called me to tell me it was there. I called the election office and they said I had a change of address??? Ahhh no. I have lived the the same house since 1995.

Dummies!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 6, 2007 06:28 AM
8. I have had my ballot rejected for signature miss match the last three elections. Every time I send in the slip with two witnesses and next time around I get a rejection again. To top it off my Wife is still receving 3 ballots she never votes on more than one (she's not dead or democrat) but no matter how many times you tell the morons at the Elections they don't change a thing.

Posted by: G_Lyons on November 6, 2007 07:23 AM
9. I have had my ballot rejected for signature miss match the last three elections. Every time I send in the slip with two witnesses and next time around I get a rejection again. To top it off my Wife is still receving 3 ballots she never votes on more than one (she's not dead or democrat) but no matter how many times you tell the morons at the Elections they don't change a thing.

Posted by: G_Lyons on November 6, 2007 07:24 AM
10. I have had my ballot rejected for signature miss match the last three elections. Every time I send in the slip with two witnesses and next time around I get a rejection again. To top it off my Wife is still receving 3 ballots she never votes on more than one (she's not dead or democrat) but no matter how many times you tell the morons at the Elections they don't change a thing.

Posted by: G_Lyons on November 6, 2007 07:25 AM
11. Wife and I received ballots. We mailed them in on the same day. Last election, mine was received but hers wasn't according to the county records.

This time, I noticed they spelled her name wrong- the t in swatter came out as an l, so I looked her up under swalter and sure enough, the ballot was received. It'll be interesting how many times we have to go through the gyrations to get it fixed.

Her handwriting is worse than a doctors, so no way would the incorrect spelling be caught in a handwriting check.

Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2007 08:32 AM
12. Stefan: but Cicero would get his ballot by mail anyway.

John Bailo: HELL NO. A thousand times HELL NO. Secret voting is a hallmark of the democratic process.

(BTW, this is one of the reasons why all-mail balloting is terrible: it allows someone to pay you, or threaten you, to vote a certain way, and be certain you did so. They can be there as you fill out the ballot, seal it, and mail it. This is an acceptable potential when absentee voting is limited to those who require it in order to vote at all, but it is not acceptable when a majority of voters -- let alone all -- are voting absentee. Someone with enough money can literally buy a lot of votes, which is not possible in poll voting.)

Posted by: pudge on November 6, 2007 08:53 AM
13. I've never had any problems with my ballots. I'm sure passing I-25 will have no effect on whether you receive your ballot or not. Someone in a different threat lived in Australia and still managed to get his ballot 4 days after he called in. Obviously the people not receiving ballots are isolated incidents.

Posted by: Cato on November 6, 2007 09:46 AM
14. Cato: I-25 could make a big difference. When you get your ballot is dependent on when it gets sent out, and that is dependent on how timely all the work gets done preparing it. And even beyond that, I-25 would likely make the department be more responsive to problems when they do arise.

Posted by: pudge on November 6, 2007 10:07 AM
15. That's me!

Wow... I got quoted on the first page. Yeah... right now I'm waiting for the mail to arrive so I can fill out my ballot and then rush it to the Post Office in time to get to post marked before midnight. Hopefully my ballot will come today- but knowing my luck it won't arrive until tomorrow.

Posted by: Cicero on November 6, 2007 02:47 PM
16. Cicero, did you get it?

Posted by: pudge on November 7, 2007 09:50 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?