Editorial page editor Mark Trahant in today's column advocates for election fraud -- "Open election preferable to alternative":
Every day I read new evidence about Washington's corrupt election process. There's evidence of dead voters, felons who voted, fictional registrations, people who voted twice and registered at phony addresses.Cool! If he's reading about fictional registrations and phony addresses, he must be reading Sound Politics, because this sort of stuff doesn't seem to make its way into the P-I. I'm quite flattered by this. When I first starting blogging Seattle less than two years ago, one of my goals was to talk back to the P-I editorial page. Now I see that the P-I editorial page's goal is to talk back to my blog!
In any event, Trahant goes on to state that he'd prefer to disenfranchise legitimate voters by tolerating fraud rather than inconveniencing fraudulent voters by asking them to show ID. Whatever, dude.
Here's a modest proposal. I'm not advocating this, but I do think it would be screamingly funny if several thousand Republicans from, say, Texas would register to vote in Mark Trahant's hometown of Bainbridge Island. They could register with their residence as the Bainbridge Island City Hall, 280 Madison Ave N. Mark Trahant will undoubtedly use the power of his pen to defend their right to do this, even as they cancel his franchise by voting against, say, tax increases to subsidize ferry service
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 30, 2005 01:01 PM | Email ThisIf these illegal voters and the ones that allow them to vote illegally are prosecuted, it will hopefully keep them and everyone else from doing the same thing during the next and every other election. I don't see how anyone would want to hold an elected office that was gained through this type of illegal activity.
Posted by: Gil on January 30, 2005 01:43 PM
Fortunately, even WA case law seems to classify the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters through the dilution effects of fraudulent votes as being wrong. The only way to interpret Trahant's position is within the context of anti-American treason. Liberals who endorse and protect election fraud are doing nothing less than committing an act of war against the populace.
Posted by: Bill on January 30, 2005 02:06 PMPR
Posted by: PR on January 30, 2005 02:08 PMThen, I realized he was spouting all the conspiracy theories from the 2000 Florida election that the Civil Rights commission (he cites) found no evidence of.
Trahant is right making the argument over whether stopping fraud or ease of availability if the basic issue. He seemed to be making fun of our founding fathers, so it would not be possible to convience him of some of their wisdom.
In John Adams' "Thoughts on Government," he warned that "Human beings are capable of great good, but also great evil." I took this quote from David McCullough's "John Adams" biography.
Trahant is wrong, but helpful in showing that his side has won the battle recently. Here in Oregon you can register and vote by mail without ever any human contact to know that the voter exists.
Several friends of mine simply threw away the duplicate ballots they recieved last November. They assumed the county didn't realize the registration the moveon.org canvaser turned in for them created a new file instead of just updating their existing file.
Posted by: Ray J. Tuleya, Oregon on January 30, 2005 02:17 PMI can't say that I disagree with you on how funny it would be to hoist Trahant, or any of the other useful idiots, on their own petards.
Through their words, they describe a rationalization they are comfortable with when it meets their agenda, yet we all know the reaction if such measures interrupted or impeded their ability to impose their will on others. There is just no rationale on which to debate the subject. Fairness? Equality? The actual meanings escape such people.
Sadder still is that Trahant, Vessley, and others are looked upon with favor by so many. On the "fellow traveler" plan, no doubt. Gives those among us lacking in original thought the latest talking points and positions of their political bent. And that, in their minds, makes it ok. (Vessley earns his own scorn this morning for attempting to paint himself as a moderate, citing the centrism of David Broder. HA! I take issue with the label, and shows a clear lack of character on Vessley's part.)
Let's face it. The thinking among us know that we will not resort to lowering ourselves to such mechanisms, and by standing tall for true beliefs that bolster this grand experiment in democracy, we know that we will eventually prevail. If we choose not to be civilized in the face of the gathering crowds of self absorbed, agenda driven, and sheeplike idiots, we only add to the problem.
I too think of applying accepted practices on others, just to watch them squeal. Saw a Critical Mass protest out in front of Benaroya Friday, and it made my blood boil. The smarmy, confrontational, and ill mannered behavior among the protesters deserves an answer. But, you won't find my car impeding their rights on the Burke Gilman anytime soon. I'd love to see the uncertainty in the eyes of the usual suspects as law abiding, taxpaying, working citizens showed up in Olympia and took the place over by sheer numbers. I'd love to see the knee buckling as the general populace rose up and demanded an actual accounting for all that we spend to prop up this self perpetuating scam that they have created, bolstered, and proven themselves capable of acting illegally to retain.
But, it will never happen. And it shouldn't. We have jobs. We don't have time to lobby. We are too polite to assert our views on freedom of movement. We are involved in making our lives, and the lives around us that much better on our own accord than to beg for some pittance or consideration on the part of our duly elected public officials. And, responding in kind will only lead to a further degradation of the situation, perhaps escalating into personal violence. We, as citizens, will never be a part of such a thing.
Nope, let's leverage the information age and root out the corruption, malfeasance, and send the miscreants packing. I have a bit of time in my day to add to the greater effort. As does Deborah, Stefan, and a host of others. We'll do the hard work, and thank Stefan for his effectiveness in getting us access to the information. We'll watch and respond when they try to shut things down, make things more difficult, and try to use the law to hide. We'll applaud when things change. For all we want is a concept lacking in so much of society. Fairness. Give us a fair system, and we'll hold our own. We'll win some, lose some, and help make this a better place to live.
Fairness, integrity, and the ability to trust a system at all levels. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 30, 2005 02:19 PMProbably Kitsap County voters as a whole were not enthusiastic to subsidize their better off residents (like Trahant) who commute to high paying jobs in Seattle. The only areas that the tax proposal carried were those inhabited by wealthy liberal commuters, such as Bainbridge Island. People who live and work in Kitsap County rejected the proposal overwhelmingly.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2005 02:20 PM[Yes, he proposes EXPANDING the franchise by restoring voting rights to felons -- ignoring whether they've paid their court ordered debts. But that begs the point. That's his proposal, not ours.]
And that's where the left is today. They offer no intellectual argument. They just skip the reasoning and put forth the allegation as if that's persuasion. No, sir, that's intellectual laziness.
Posted by: JeanneB on January 30, 2005 02:34 PMHe claims that our founding fathers feared "direct democracy." True: That's why they established a republican form of government.
I would bet Trahant fears direct democracy. Has he expressed an opinion about the tax-cutting initiatives of the past few years? Those were exercises in direct democracy.
Trahant offers a false choice between an "open" elections process and a process which would make it more likely that the votes of our citizens actually decide the outcomes of our elections.
Trahant may not even recognize that he has presented a false choice, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has the cognitive ability to realize that his argument is fallacious.
Requiring that the county elections officials reconcile in each precinct the numbers of the ballots with the numbers of the eligible voters who participated in the election won't take the right to vote away from anyone who is eligible to vote.
It would make it far more difficult to stuff the ballot boxes.
Trahant also seems to be ignorant about the process of restoring the voting rights of felons. It isn't that hard a process -- and is virtually automatic when a convicted felon completes his sentence while still under the control of the department of corrections.
While we ought to have a public debate about the fairness of denying the right to vote to felons who haven't been able to pay all the financial obligations imposed as part of their sentences, there is no reason to go beyond that.
People in prison shouldn't be eligible to vote, and thankfully our constitution says they are disqualified.
Should they lose the right to vote forever? Probably not -- but deciding when and under what circumstances to restore their rights has nothing to do with having an "open" or "closed" election process. It has everything to do with ensuring that our elections' outcomes are decided by the votes of the responsible citizens of our state.
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2005 02:35 PMTell me I'm not crazy!
Posted by: JeanneB on January 30, 2005 02:37 PMNo substance, not meaningful, not relevant, not worth reading.
Posted by: Norm on January 30, 2005 03:16 PMWhich is the better analysis?
(1) In an election with X total voters, voter "A" had his vote diluted from 1/X to 1/(X+1) while voter "B" went from 1/X to 0/(X-1).
(2) Assuming the illegal voter voted differently from voter "A", voter "A" had his vote nullified the same as voter "B".
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 30, 2005 03:54 PMIf someone enters an illegal ballot that cancels out mine, that is the same to me as if someone intercepted my ballot and sent it to a shredder.
With version 1, it's easier to forget that votes have been stolen. Version 1 is the one preferred by some of the anti-revoters on this blog, probably for that very reason.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 30, 2005 04:35 PMI'd love recruit while I am here in Texas, but I will have to clear it with my conscience first. I don't think it will give me permission :-)
Trahant makes our point for us:
"Even after the Constitution formed a more perfect union, lots of U.S. citizens were denied the right to vote because they were Catholic, female, American Indian, African American, Chinese, couldn't pay a poll tax or pass a literacy test."
So our penance for the sins of our fathers is to re-enfranchise those long-dead victims of injustice by allowing the more recently deceased, or the non-resident, or the felon to vote - no questions asked?
He mentioned just before:
"One of the authors of the Constitution -- Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania -- thought voting should be limited to men of property because if the nation gives "the votes to people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich, who will be able to buy them."
Hmmm...that Gouverneur was perceptive, but I will not belabor the intended emphasis.
Finally, he sums up:
"Our government is based on consent of the governed -- and that principle requires as much participation as possible."
Just setting aside the illegal voter question, answer this: why have election participation percentages gone DOWN rather than UP from cycle to cycle since the '60s?
Posted by: smegma on January 30, 2005 04:41 PMCan someone decipher this for me???? Isnt he saying that Felons lost the right to vote, and they became disenfranchised????
What is his point?
Thanks....Chris
Posted by: chris on January 30, 2005 07:09 PMDems care as much about elections as you and I do and I guarantee you that if they thought all this fraud was hurting their chances THEY WOULD STAMP IT OUT IMMEDIATELY.
After all, look how quickly they're acting to hurt the BIAW! Make no mistake, they know vote fraud helps dems!
Dems care as much about elections as you and I do and I guarantee you that if they thought all this fraud was hurting their chances THEY WOULD STAMP IT OUT IMMEDIATELY.
After all, look how quickly they're acting to hurt the BIAW! Make no mistake, they know vote fraud helps dems!
"Four years ago, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission investigated complaints from those disenfranchised in Florida. The conclusion was a mirror image of Washington's problems today."
The funny thing about this report the Civil Rights Commission delivered was that it was so one sided as to be laughable. By a 3-2 vote, the 5 member commission headed by Mary Francis Berry (no relation to yours truly), issued the "facts" which Trahant injects. Purely partisan, as the 2 dissenters were appointed by republicans, while the 3 runaways were appointed by democrats.
I was much more impressed by the Federal Water Quality Commission, which issued a report signed by all of it's members...
Posted by: smegma on January 30, 2005 07:27 PMFSJ
Posted by: Fraser on January 30, 2005 07:39 PMSo it's ok to cheat, to stuff ballot boxes, to vote in multiple states, to allow dead people voting, felons voting (we certainly would not want to disenfranchise rapists, murderers or pedophiles, would we), multiple votes by absentee ballots and/or poll voting, and so on.
But obviously to clueless Mark Trahant, that's a better course than disenfranchising illegal voters. WHAT AN IDIOT! "Professing themselves to be wise, they became as fools" and "Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". Both of these verses characterize the logic of Mark Trahant in this article to a tee!
Quite honestly this has got to be among one of the dumbest statements I have read in this whole WA election fiasco but in reality his whole article was one compounding statement of dimwit stupidity and idiocy!
The emphasis needs to be on the consent of the GOVERNED, not the consent of illegal stuffed ballot boxes, voters who voted multiple times, convicted felons, dead voters, or those who count the ballots or find mysteriously appearing and disappearing boxes and batches of ballots. In other words if our votes are being disenfranchised by thousand of illegal or mystery ballots, than we no longer have the consent of the governed but rather the complacency of those who would allow this type of fraud to remain unchallenged.
Posted by: Ralph R on January 30, 2005 08:42 PMThis would solve a LOT of problems.
First, it would ensure only citizens vote. It would ensure each citizen has ONE vote. It would apply UNIFORM standards across every state in the Union.
Second, it would ensure only citizens, or legal immigrants collect government services.
It would ensure that there is ONE form of ID, recognized everywhere in the US. Why is this bad?
Posted by: Dan on January 30, 2005 08:55 PMThe debate over a national i.d. is way too cumbersome. Personally, I'm not for it at all, though I think that's the direction we're heading. One uniform i.d. wouldn't preclude double voting (abs and poll), or miraculously appearing stacks of votes, or votes without poll signatures to match.
Fraud is fraud, and can be accomplished regardless of the form of i.d. KC just willingly looks the other way (at a minimum) or flat out winks at it.
Trahant accomplished what he wanted...to pontificate in such a manner to demonstrate his moral and intellectual superiority (tongue firmly planted in my cheek while typing this)
Posted by: dkpcowboy on January 30, 2005 09:12 PMFor all intents and purposes our Drivers License is a national ID however it is not strictly regulated or enforced and far too many individuals possess one who should not. Each license is unique and could be scanned for authentication.
FSJ
Posted by: Fraser on January 30, 2005 10:21 PMI would have risked my life to vote this time if thats what it took.
I would just like the law to be followed, not "corrected" by local activists who disagree with the decisions of the people.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 09:03 AMI am refering to something like a passport. A single ID card, with your social security#, voter registration, government benefits, etc. A card given ONLY to citizens, that MUST be presented to vote, obtain a job, purchase firearms or receive any government benefits. A card that becomes restricted upon commision of a felony. Simple, and efficient. Such an ID is already in place in the EU...why not here?
There are a lot of us democrats in favor of such a card..its the "black helicopter crew"..on the far right, and the "help all the illegals" crew on the far-left that are against this. I would maintain that most reasonable moderates would agree with this.
Posted by: Dan on January 31, 2005 07:09 PM