The Seattle PI editorial board has a sunny view of the potential for election reform.
Nonetheless, election systems can be improved. We really do have consensus on this point in Washington state, whether one subscribes to the views of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens or Independents. If the political process starts with the consensus, the next step ought to be a clear recognition of what resources are required to make it so.
But that "consensus" breaks down immediately as soon as you ask the groups to define improvement. For most Republicans, improvement means tighter controls on fraud, which we see as a significant problem. In contrast, most Democrats do not see fraud (at least by Democrats) as a significant problem and want to see a more "open" system. (A few Democrats, I am sorry to say, see fraud as the solution, or at least as part of the solution.)
Most King County Republicans think any significant improvement here will require the replacement of King County Executive Ron Sims. If any King County Democrats agree, they have been remarkably slow to say so.
So, we don't agree. And saying that we agree won't make it so.
(I would like to think that the Seattle PI knows that Ron Sims has promised improvements in the elections office many times in the past, but I found no evidence of that in the editorial.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 07, 2005 01:20 PM | Email ThisIn other words, the new building. All fixed. Feel better?
Posted by: Dogbert on June 7, 2005 01:27 PMRon Sims -- using King County government as a tool for personal gain since 1997.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 7, 2005 01:38 PMThey will TALK about it... much like their bogus "performance audit" bill... but the only way to get genuine election reform will be a statewide initiative.
Posted by: Who... me? on June 7, 2005 01:39 PMThey will TALK about it... much like their bogus "performance audit" bill... but the only way to get genuine election reform will be a statewide initiative.
Posted by: Who... me? on June 7, 2005 01:39 PMWhy in hell would they do that? Fraudulent voters are an important part of their constituency. There is no demand or investigation from the MSM.
Why the hell would they do anything meaningful? Are they NUTS?
You can go back to the King 5 dead people voting investigation. You can go back to two previous heads of the election office. You can go back even farther.
There is a clear track record of problems being found, and King County officials saying, "we must do something to restore voter confidence....therefore we have done the following ......and now the problem is fixed." The problem is that what was promised to be fixed never gets fixed, whether it is dead people voting or improper handling of absentee ballots.
To me the civil definition of fraud would allow a class action lawsuit against King County. King County has told people repeatedly in the past that it has fixed problems X, Y & Z, when it has not. It has lied to the public and the public has relied upon the statements by elected officials who have a fiduciary responsiblity to the public regarding elections.
I remember reading how King County implemented the last Citizens Election Advisory Committee recommendations, and now Ron is saying, "Oops we forgot the one about a building to consolodate ballot counting and managment activities. We have fixed all the past problems, trust us! We hope building acquisition restores your faith in fair and honest elections (wink, wink)!"
Posted by: Bob on June 7, 2005 02:10 PMA few Republicans, I am sorry to say, see tightening election rules as a good way to disnfranchise minorities and lower-income people, who they see as less likely to vote Republican.
Whee! Making unsubstantiated accusations is fun! I wonder what Judge Bridges would think if I made them in court!
Posted by: eponymous coward on June 7, 2005 02:19 PMHey, he has been spoon fed this lie so long he may actually believe it.
The justice system discriminates against the minorities and the poor as it is more likely to find them guilty of a felony than rich whites.
Rs want to make sure only legal voters vote - that disenfranchises minorities and low income from voting, as they vote D.
All the felon votes in the 2004 gov votes voted for Rossi.
Tie these "statements of fact" from the lib spin machine and you have contradictory garbage.
Posted by: fred on June 7, 2005 02:53 PMAnd the rest of ya trolls - at some point, maybe you'll get it, maybe not. Illegal votes are illegal votes. I don't care who's casting them. If you want to put a bunch of D observers to "harass the nice, elderly poll workers" do it. Who's stopping you?
Diebold. Diebold. Diebold. Yawn.
Yeah. Those are 'our' rules. Whatever.
One thing I've certainly learned during the past day - the only thing worse than a bunch of Democrats whining about how they lost, is their gloating when they win. You have no shame, and worse - you don't want any.
Posted by: jimg on June 7, 2005 02:58 PMWhy hold voting to such a high standard?
I'm so sick of these pinko morons.
Posted by: On the Far Right Side of the State on June 7, 2005 03:03 PMAs a voter I'm very confident that I had better vote in every election to come, and that I had better get everyone around me to vote, too. If we have to overcome whatever number of illegal votes go into the hopper, the best way is to vote in numbers sufficient to make the illegal votes a trivial nusiance instead of an election-breaker.
Posted by: gaelwolf on June 7, 2005 04:08 PMAnyone heard anything? Think it will happen?
It would seem that SOMEONE in this country would consider the shennanigans performed to be a violation of either state law or the Voting Rights Act.
(sigh)
Posted by: Patches Pal on June 7, 2005 04:24 PMThe only meaningful election reform that will have a chance to avoid fraud and manipulation of the vote totals is:
Eastside counties must refuse to release their election results until KC releases and CERTIFIES their results. Period. End of story. Station armed Sheriff's deputies to guard the counted ballots until it is time to release results. Be upfront about the plan. Say it right out: "We're holding up election returns until KC reports."
Republicans should pay attention to who their county election officials are. I don't know whether you elect your election officials, as most Oregon counties do (you won't be surprised to know that is not the case in the three most populous counties), but that is where to start.
Yes, the press will whine and cry about delayed election returns, but who cares. That's what they do.
Posted by: mac on June 7, 2005 05:15 PMI say GREAT! You see, those of us who are for fair honest elections don't have a need to fear any non-violent challenge at a poll. If we are asked to show ID, we will show it. If we are asked to sign a pollbook in person, we will sign it. If we are asked to dip our fingers in ink, we will wear that ink as a BADGE OF HONOR that we did our civic duty and voted - ONCE. The fact that you assume (dare I say, PROJECT) that everyone would fear these "challenges" is very telling, and if you would take just a moment of introspection and ask yourself why you believe everyone would fear rules and order, you might learn something about just how "mainstream" you are.
RR
Posted by: RookieRick on June 7, 2005 08:22 PMs_choir happily shows his/her i.d. at the payday loan store or bank regularly and does not throw a fit. Nor will conservatives do the same at the polls.
Afraid to show an i.d. or be (properly and politely) challenged? Then you are an illegal alien, illegal voter, you are up to something no good or just another "victim status" person looking for a quick lawsuit settlement lottery windfall. In any case, legal voters do not want you and you should be ejected. Simple rules that transcend parties and help minimize fraud.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 8, 2005 11:12 AM