The Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board, which has never met a tax or a form of vote fraud it didn't like, continues its campaign in favor of mail ballot fraud
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 26, 2005 08:27 AM | Email This(editorializing a bit, I thought they loved public works, things like state owned libraries, schools....why do they NOT want us to mill about these places to vote?)
Posted by: Righton on April 26, 2005 08:55 AMdon't feed him.
Posted by: Don't feed him on April 26, 2005 09:05 AMNo, most people on this board don't want all mail elections becasue it's easier to cheat or screw things up (like KC has done in this past election).
So if we who are against this want to vote in a way that makes it harder to commit fraud, and in the process that prevents more Democrat voters, what exactly are you saying about Democratic voters?
And how, exactly, is it harder for Democrats to vote with out absentee ballots, unless they are voting illegaly? That is such an idiotic statement, it would almost be laughable if it wasn't about to become law for that very logic.
Posted by: Mike H on April 26, 2005 09:08 AMIn the spirit of KC elections. I fraudulently voted twice in the PI's silly poll.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/221553_mailvoted.asp#pollArticle
Posted by: sixsigma on April 26, 2005 09:16 AMSo, the logical conclusion is that democrats don't want to eliminate vote fraud because it is one of their major constituencies and it's how they win elections in this state.
Next time you hear a democrat say that fighting vote fraud will stop democrats from voting, tell them: "Are you saying democrats vote fraudulently?" Watch them squirm as they try to equivocate vote fraud with legitimate voters.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 26, 2005 09:17 AMFunny, I traveled through SW Oregon last week and heard the exact opposite opinion.
Oregon suffers from the same problem as WA. Take away the biggest city and it's a light red state.
Posted by: MB on April 26, 2005 09:22 AMIt's the same reason that we divine who they voted for when they couldn't follow simple instructions like "fill in the oval next to the candidate you are voting for."
Posted by: Mike H on April 26, 2005 09:35 AMFormer Presidential candidate John Kerry (aka "Hanoi John") is coming to Seattle this weekend, May 1st. He will be at Discover Park in Magnolia, and guess who his "guest of honor" is?!? Temporary Governor Gregoire!!!
He is coming to raise money for Gregoire and the Dems defense fund.
Straight from The Jackasses Mouth
"Join Senator John Kerry and special guest Governor Christine Gregoire on May 1st
You’re invited to join Senator John Kerry for a seafood reception to benefit the Washington State Democratic Party's Governor's Defense Fund with special guest Governor Christine Gregoire.
Event Sponsorship: $250, Individual Sponsorship: $100, Individual Ticket: $75.
Where: Daybreak Star Indian Cultural Center
Discovery Park, Seattle (Magnolia Neighborhood).
When: Sunday, May 1st 6:30 – 8:30 pm.
RSVP: Shawna Ousse at 206-583-0664 or shawna@wa-democrats.org."
Who wants to throw a "warm welcome" party for our favorite two Democrats?
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on April 26, 2005 09:44 AMOn a funny note, pay attention to the opinion poll on that page. As of the time of this post, 64.5% of the readers say all mail balloting is the wrong method to go with and that it enables cheating. Interesting...
Posted by: Brent on April 26, 2005 09:45 AMWhy isn't there rationale being provided for why this makes sense?
Posted by: ranboy on April 26, 2005 09:54 AMArrogant Labour knew risks of all-postal voting
Labour's behaviour over the postal votes affair has been so brazen, so shameful, so un-British that it is hard to find suitable words of condemnation.
It is not just the revelation of systematic vote-rigging by Labour activists in Birmingham that shocks (although party strategists must now be thanking whatever powers they pray to for the combined distractions of the royal wedding and papal funeral). Nor is it Tony Blair's insouciant reaction to the scandal; nor even his refusal to commit himself to scrapping the system.
No, the worst aspect of the whole business is that Labour knowingly brought in a method of postal voting that it had been told was open to abuse.
We do not say this with the gift of hindsight. When all-postal voting was first proposed, we said that the chosen system was bound to encourage malpractice. The Conservatives and Lib-Dems agreed.
So, more to the point, did the Electoral Commission. Labour, determined to tackle the falling turnout in its own areas, pushed ahead regardless.
But we now learn that, in doing so, it consciously rejected a proposal that would have tightened the rules by requiring applicants to have their signatures cross-checked. In other words, Labour did not simply fail to insert a key anti-fraud measure; it deliberately and studiedly removed one.
And why? Because, faced with a choice between bolstering turnout in its target constituencies and hindering impersonation, it opted for the former.
If our judgment sounds overly harsh, ask yourself the following question: would the Government have been so relaxed about fraud if the beneficiaries had been the Tories or the Lib-Dems?
Or consider another question: is it likely that the industrial levels of vote-rigging that have been exposed in Labour Birmingham would have taken place in, say, Tory Sussex?
If you are still in doubt, ponder one question more: why did Labour explicitly overrule the Electoral Commission and the House of Lords to hold postal ballots for the 2004 local and European elections in its own heartland regions?
Labour's cavalier response to these questions is proof, if proof were needed, of how arrogant that party has become in office. Whenever concerns are raised about the integrity of the ballot, ministers airily respond that a higher turnout must surely be a good thing.
But, as we contemplate the Birmingham vote-factory, we are entitled to ask whether an increase in the number of ballots received necessarily means an increase in the number of people who cast them.
The day after the scandal broke, the Foreign Secretary pronounced, without irony, that the Zimbabwean election had not been fair. It is a measure of how low British democracy has sunk that Robert Mugabe might legitimately have responded by offering to send Zanu-PF election monitors to this country.
VOTE BY MAIL has been proved to be an invitation. Those who support it need to be voted out of office... while our votes still count.
Posted by: Splatter on April 26, 2005 10:03 AMLiberals in general are in denial in regards to realities of this world, past or present.
They ignore the fact that the leftist political agenda destroys everything it touches,
and they are unwilling or unable to accept responsibility for the failures of Socialism
because liberal ideology taken to the extreme results in dementia.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly,
while always expecting different results to occur.
Such as over taxing to "fix" problems.
However, in the case of Vote-by-Mail-Fraud, the Democrats know that this is about
the only way for them to retain power, and they don't want different results.
They want Power, and the end always justifies the means for the liberal.
"Crazy like foxes."
Sometimes the Republicans in this state need to not be so serious....so "adult" and highlight these things when communicating a vote fraud defense.
Posted by: MB on April 26, 2005 10:42 AMChildren, retarded people, and liberals cannot be expected to be responsible for their actions. If you correct them or hurt their feelings they intentionally break things to spite responsible people and to display/exercise their power. Children and retarded people can be brought into line, but liberals must be voted out. Thus—the problem at hand.
I don’t like it, but the writing seems to be on the wall. Such obdurate popular trends make it appear more and more likely that it will take a terrible disaster to awaken liberals to reality. Even then, liberals would expect and demand compensation from the government for the inconvenience, and they would be shopping at the mall while conservatives are cleaning up the mess.
If you were a Middle Eastern terrorist looking for a place within America to attack, where would you choose?
A place:Where law enforcement is hampered by weak local leaders, such that free movement of personnel aids deployment of weapons and infrastructure.
Where local political leaders help you by calling their own President "Hitler," and demonstrate a willingness to turn against their own defenses.Where local government shows open partisan contempt for federal authorities over defense issues and thus likely to inadvertently aid your efforts.
That is obviously disorganized by corrupt leadership who make irrational decisions, and are likely to unwittingly aid you in killing them.
Whose leaders are at once both steeped in liberal ideology and delusional enough to think you are their friend when in fact—it is liberals you hate most virulently and that you want to kill the most--and a place where liberals live in abundance—sheep to the slaughter.
If you had corrupt delusional friends who tacitly support your efforts like Christine Gregoire, Jim McDermott and Patty Murray, and that are stupid enough to believe you are their friends, when you really want to murder them and their followers wholesale, where would you attack?
I certainly do not wish for this, but given such leadership as we have in this state, I sometimes wonder if it is not inevitable.
Here are a few names you mentioned in a crisis scenario:
An attack in Seattle would yield praises from Patty Murray about how Bin Ladden was trying to teach us as she believes he has done such great work in the middle east. McDermott would blame us for not being more accepting of the fundmentalists movement. And Gregoire would head to the east side of the mountains on a healing tour. Then blame talk radio for whipping up the terrorists!
That's a simple answer: arrogance.
Each and every liberal (especially the ones in "power") truly believes that what has failed in the past will succeed because he/she has a nuance, a plan, a new-&-improved strategy and if we only do it THEIR way it will not only succeed, but nirvana will be ours. They don't believe or accept any given 'thing' has failed, but that the way it was attempted didn't work quite right. That's why they don't believe s*cialism is a failure, that's why they don't believe education is a miserable failure - just that they haven't been TRIED in the right way...their way.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of my country, my family and my children being guinea pigs for liberals to experiment with.
Posted by: Cheryl on April 26, 2005 12:26 PMNah, More likey it's a great big "WHO CARES?!!"
You are quite right, this is an over-arching concern all of us should have, but apparently we do not.
As I wrote my comments above, the concern crossed my mind that one of our esteemed liberal fuehrers might accuse me of promoting terrorism just by speaking of it in association with their ineptitude. We live in truly bizarre times amongst truly twisted people. Often liberals are amusing, right now they are pretty scary because they are our leaders.
Thanks for your comment.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 26, 2005 02:22 PM...it's the same mindset that believes there are no right or wrong answers in mathematics. It's all about the "process" and not the "result."
Thanks for posting this. I submitted my letter to the editor regarding this story, and made it in today's paper. Thanks! :)
Posted by: Brent on April 28, 2005 04:24 PM