Most of yesterday's meeting of the King County Canvassing Board was spent trying to determine the validity of various weird mailed in ballots -- whether envelopes that were received damaged and open had been tampered with or were merely mangled in error by the post office; whether the signatures on the ballot envelope matched the signature on the registration record, or in some cases, who submitted the ballot; whether envelopes with missing or illeigible postmarks were cast on time, etc. There were hundreds of such ballots, in addition to all of the funny "voter intent" ballots mentioned earlier.
A photo essay of frightening mail ballots follows. If King County moves to all-mail voting, the number of questionable mail ballots will increase by 50%. Take a look at the photos and post a comment and let us know whether you still think that all-mail voting is a good idea --
Dean Logan has a chuckle over of this ballot which was apparently mangled by the post office.
This ballot reportedly caught fire at the post office.
These are some of the hundreds of ballots for which it wasn't clear whether or not they were mailed on time.
The members of the canvassing board spent hours poring over postmarks using a magnifying glass.
This unpostmarked ballot was ruled to have been cast on time because the voter's signature date was before the election, even though the postal meter stamp was dated two days after the election.
Dean Logan and Dow Constantine try to figure out whether the signature on the ballot envelope (top) matches the signature on the registration record (middle) and whether either matches the signature on the resubmitted registration form (bottom).
Dean Logan also expressed concern about the new law on signature matching (part of the "sweeping election reform" passed by the legislature last spring). If the voter wishes to change the signature on their registration, they have to do so in person, not by mail. But if the signature on the voter's mailed-in affidavit matches the signature on the registration form, the ballot is to be counted, even if the signature on the ballot envelope does not match the registration form or the affidavit.
There are to many problems with mail in ballots. Yet the elites see it as salvation (of maintaining democrat power).
If you're too lazy to get your backside to the poll you don't value the franchise enough. Frankly if you hold your right to vote in such low esteem I don't care if vote and would rather you not vote.
Posted by: JCM on November 23, 2005 11:54 AMStalin was right… all that matters is who counts the votes.
the operative word here is - Stalin
just rename it Soviet Union of Seattle
Posted by: doug on November 23, 2005 12:15 PMIt’s no surprise that Neo-conservatism has finally crumbled under its own cumbersome weight after only a few short decades. No Neocon movement has ever lasted very long, and this one is long overdue for its demise.
Let us put it to rest and drive a stake through its black, evil heart.
Why are all Neocon movements doomed to failure? It’s simple really. Neo-conservatism is based on xenophobia. The fundamental tenant as put down by its American founder, Ronald Reagan, is that “All that is American is good, while all that is not American is bad.” This is a simple philosophy that appeals to simple minds and the easily-lead, and it works splendidly.
For a while.
Like other nationalistic movements, Fascism and the German version of Fascism, Nazism, the American Neo-conservative movement, in order to survive, must have an exterior enemy. It needs other countries or races or religions to hate and eventually try to kill. The paranoid Neo-conservative leaders fool their followers into thinking that the rest of the world poses a “Grave and imminent threat.” Does the word “Iraq” ring a bell?
The leaders use highly-charged rhetoric to create fear and hate of anything foreign (remember “Freedom Fries?) and they use these volatile emotions to gin up support and keep their flock of true believers in line and quell dissent.
Take Dick Cheney’s recent comments as a case in point.
The problem is, that any Real-Politik movement must be able to grow outside the borders of its country of origin in order to survive. Neo-conservatism, because of its xenophobic underpinnings, can’t do this. That’s why in this foul Year of Our Lord 2005, Neo-conservatism is dead. It’s just too stupid to fall down.
Liberalism, on the other hand is thriving. It’s an old movement dating back to at least the period 15,000 years Before Christ. The Neolithic paintings in the Great Hall of the Bulls in Lascaux, show that man had already developed a respectful and symbiotic relationship with his environment, a very Liberal concept.
The New Testament is Liberalism in its purest form. It replaces the Old Testament God of Retribution with a peaceful and forgiving God of Love.
Take our own constitution, a Liberal document if there ever was one. It was the ultimate rejection of the old, and a glorious embracing of the new and forward-thinking.
Liberalism is a forward-thinking philosophy, while Neo-conservatism clings to a tattered past and was rightly doomed from the start.
Still, I think Neo-conservatism could have struggled on a few more years had it not been for our boy-president, George W. Bush. George and his handlers are such vile, stupid and arrogant little creatures that they refused to see the fall coming.
Their crimes against humanity were manifold, but they crossed the line when they lied their way into a pointless war, murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the name of the American people and Jesus Christ.
The rest of the world and most smart people here at home have come to realize the horror we have caused and have condemned this horrendous and pointless Neocon war.
Even many of the Neocon faithful have begun to question George’s ability to do his part to keep the movement together, and as we all have seen with Newt Gingrich, the Neo-cons eat their wounded. Soon, Neo-conservatism will be swept aside and be replaced by an age of rational, reasonable, Liberal thought and action. We will work to end poverty, disease and war.
Our movement will be one of inclusion of all the peoples of the world.
So let us not mourn Neo-conservatism’s relegation to the ash heap of history. It will take generations to repair the harm it has wrought on this country and world and its death has come not a moment too soon.
After you vote at the poles, do you wait there until they count the vote? If not how do you know they credited your vote right? If there was a 100% way to vote online, with a 100% accuracy with checks and balances. Protected with strongest encryption levels. And a way to correct mistakes made by the voter. Taken out of the partisan hands. Both Parties’ would not use it
Posted by: Mark on November 23, 2005 12:29 PM
You can stand on your heads, hold your breath till you turn blue, put your fingers in your ears, and scream at the top of your lungs: "la-la-la, I can't hear you!", and you will lose this one.
We're going to all-mail, sooner or later, because THE VOTERS WANT IT.
Is it or is it not a fact that Spokane County, in the last election, voted by 60 percent(!) to go all-mail? That's a landslide however you slice it.
I'm not going to argue with anyone here over how it "should" be, or the upside or downside of all-mail voting. I'm asking you to look at the trend, deny if you will that it is unmistakable, and tell me just exactly what you propose to do about that, and why, and if you think the voters will buy it.
Posted by: Ivan on November 23, 2005 12:36 PM"George W. Bush. George and his handlers are such vile, stupid and arrogant little creatures that they refused to see the fall coming."
If this were true, why are all the enlightened dems saying that Bush tricked and deceived them. If someone of your description fooled the dems, what does that make them? Just curious.
Posted by: fred on November 23, 2005 12:42 PMThe world is flat. A land slide of people think so, especially the enlightened. If you are so ignorant as to think otherwise you will be put to death. Guess what - they were wrong too.
As JCM pointed out, we as a nation are lazy and will do it the easy way, even if not as good. I prefer not having to go somewhere to vote. I had no idea of the issues with mail-in voting. I would imagine if the issues were known that the vote would go the other way. Things can change; it takes people to make things change despite the odds. Probation was changed, internment was deemed wrong despite these being approved by over 60%. Many things change. These changes are not made by defeatists.
Posted by: fred on November 23, 2005 12:51 PMAs you say, the trend seems to be going in the direction of all mail voting. I prefer to vote at the polls. So what?
The bigger issue is how can we have a high confidence in the results of elections. You have a high confidence because everything appears to be going the way you like. I don't.
If we do not have integrity in following our election laws and in processing EVERY ballot EQUALLY and IDENTICALLY, then what does it matter how the ballot made it into the counties?
Every single election we run should be so squeeky clean and beyond reproach that even close races will give the electorate confidence in the results.
This means going out of our way to make sure that the elections laws we have are clear, unambiguous and followed to the letter.
U.S. citizen.
Washington Citizen/resident in voting precinct.
Properly and legally registered.
Ballot cast in accordance with the law and instructions.
Is this too much to ask for?
Do you need a referral to a therapist or psychiatrist? Because you're clearly delusional and in desperate need of medication.
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageIdiotToProposeUniversalHealthCare on November 23, 2005 01:23 PMSome of you are claiming that mail-in voting increases the likelihood of fraud. I'm saying that not only haven't you proved the OCCURRENCE of fraud, you haven't even proved the LIKELIHOOD of fraud.
Prove it and we'll deal. Blog posts with photos are not proof. It remains to be seen if they even are decent evidence.
Stefan is trying to cast doubt on the integrity of mail-in voting altogether. My point is that the voters, in increasing numbers, aren't buying it.
Posted by: Ivan on November 23, 2005 01:31 PMA case in point are the 2/3's of Bush voters who believed that WMD had been found and the 60% who thought collaborative ties between Saddam and Al Queda had been proven. Bush rode to the White House on a way of ignorance and now I have to live with the results of that near criminal stupidity.
Posted by: mike on November 23, 2005 01:46 PMI said nothing about fraud. I just said that I want to see, and feel confident that our election laws are being followed.
I'm sure you would agree that our right to vote is precious and that avoidable errors that dilute the legal votes should be discovered and permanently corrected.
Would you agree that there are problems with our elections processes, problems that could result in illegal ballots being accepted? What do you think some of these problems are? What do you suggest our government officials do to correct these problems?
You speak of proof. Why don't we apply the burden of proof to our elected, and non elected - i.e. appointed, government officials to prove that they indeed are scrupulously following those laws - in an open and transparent manner?
Please Ivan, share with us so that we may be able to find common ground from which to improve our election processes.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 23, 2005 01:58 PMPosted by: Roy on November 23, 2005 02:05 PM
Those are all legitimate questions that every voter everywhere should be asking. Regarding burden of proof, right now the law in this state places the burden of proof squarely on the challenger to anyone's vote.
Suppose we address this after the King County Canvassing Board has ruled on the Sotelo challenges. That should clarify things somewhat. That will be Monday at 10 AM.
Posted by: Ivan on November 23, 2005 02:20 PM
What in the world does that rant have to do with voting by mail?
Posted by: Bruce Welder on November 23, 2005 02:21 PMIf you want to vote late, just go ahead and back date your mail in ballot. remember that all you military voters, you can now vote even if you get your ballot late.
Dean Logan needs to be fired
Obviously, only those as wise and informed as you should vote because naturally, their enlightened views will match yours. You elitist, liberal f__k! Also a reminder, Mr. intelligent, this subject is about the high potential for fraud posed by mail-in ballots. You jacka$$es can't comment on anything without veering into an, "I hate GW" rant. Note the name of this site, Sound Politics - Sound = Puget Sound Region.
Phantom -
How many times can you say neo-con? Please define neo-con. Thank you.
With that being said, let me comment on this statement you made:
"Stefan is trying to cast doubt on the integrity of mail-in voting altogether. My point is that the voters, in increasing numbers, aren't buying it."
You are arguing that they aren't buying *Stefan's* arguments. Is it because the arguments, with their supporting evidence, are widely published, studied, and then debunked, or because most voters --R and D-- are ignorant about the actual, factual problems with mail-in ballots?
I would assume that MOST mail-in ballots are correctly marked, without problems or errors. That's fine. But what do we do with the rest? In a close election, those others matter a lot.
Stefan points out that the tabulation of those votes rests on inconsistent rules and the capriciousness of those who seem to think the system is fine.
Is the system really fine, or are the powers that be (i.e. big audience media publications) not interested in finding/seeing/publishing any problems? Where have the Seattle papers published any of these things that Stefan points out, and then demonstrated that it's not a problem?
They seem to ignore it--and that's the problem.
If they REALLY thought it was bunkum, why wouldn't they spend the money and ink to argue for other explanations? Yet they ignore these findings, as if they are beneath contempt, because they are brought by a *gasp* partisan citizen?
Should these things be ignored, or brought out into the open, so *every* voter-- Repub and Dem-- can clearly see if they really want all-mail voting or not, based on actual evidence, rather than my feelings of convenience and trust in the system?
I recognize that voting by mail is currently popular. I suspect that one of the reasons people have been willing to accept it is that they believe that it is simple, secure, reliable and inexpensive. Certainly that's what election officials have been telling us and few in the mainstream media have even tried to challenge that assertion.
I think if more people understood that mail voting is less secure and reliable than we've been told it is then the public's willingness to accept it might diminish. Of course, I also realize that mail voting also entails hiring more members of the Teamsters Union to process the ballots, so I can understand your interest in persuading people to vote by mail.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 23, 2005 02:39 PMI think if more people understood that YOU CLAIM that mail voting is less secure and less reliable than we've been told it is then the public's willingness to accept it might OR MIGHT NOT diminish.
Demonstrate that it is so. When you have done so successfully, the media will take heed, and the voters might also.
Posted by: Ivan on November 23, 2005 02:51 PMThey understand that the Neocon wave has crested and broken and rolled back. Just look at the humiliating and total defeat of Neocon candidates and proposals in the last elections. They understand in their guts, if not yet in their minds, that when given the chance, most voters will reject their outmoded way of thought.
The only way for them to salvage any remnant of power or influence or relevancy is to suppress and intimidate as many voters as possible.
This is why they are so against mail-in ballots.
Mail-in voting simply spreads true democracy too far and wide and it scares the hell out of them.
Their opposition to mail-in voting is simply a symptom of their runaway paranoia.
It should be very obvious and not require any explanation.
Very nice letter you wrote. You might want to post it over at www.Horsesass.org they will appreciate it there.
Here your just; "Preaching to the liar." Posted by: danw on November 23, 2005 03:18 PM
You know, I'm getting a little tired of being called a Neo-con. I am a Conservative. The tag neo-con is just so evocative of "neo-nazi", and is REALLY insulting. In fact, I think I am OFFENDED. And since I am a minority in Washington, does that mean my being offended is actionable? Interesting. Washington has become the laughing stock of the country for its election fiasco, and that has nothing to do with conservatives, except for the fact that conservatives pointed it out. Liberal Democrats are in charge of elections in Washington, and the fact they are screwing up is not exactly a compliment. If you can't offer any constructive comments, but insist on name calling and negative silliness, don't bother to post. Posted by: katomar on November 23, 2005 03:26 PM
Still waiting for your definition of a neo-con. The fact that you use it so many times in your post indicates that you are receiving your weak arguments/statements from liberal talking points.
"Mail-in voting simply spreads true democracy too far and wide and it scares the hell out of them."
As far as spreading true democracy, our country is a democratic republic, not a true democracy. True democracy is two wolves and a sheep and they hold a vote on whether to eat the sheep.
Posted by: Jeffro on November 23, 2005 03:30 PM"Phantom:
You know, I'm getting a little tired of being called a Neo-con. I am a Conservative. The tag neo-con is just so evocative of "neo-nazi", and is REALLY insulting. In fact, I think I am OFFENDED."
Katomar---
Please close your eyes and take a giant-step backward......now open your eyes!!!
It's hard to be truly offended by a bunch of CLOWNS, isn't it?!!
The HUGE mistake many of my friends who are always RIGHT make is to keep calling LENIN'S USEFUL IDIOTS liberal.
STUFF THE LIBERAL WORD PERMANENTLY!!!!!
They are not liberal!
Rush Limbaugh is a fool to keep using that word.
These creatures are:
LEFTISTS
MARXISTS
SOCIALISTS
LEFTIST PINHEADS
CLOWNS
LENIN'S USEFUL IDIOTS
Some of them are flat-out anarchists where the end justifies any means.
Calling them merely Liberal is like patting them on the head.....
Y'all need to learn to call a spade a spade and punch'em below the belt where it really hurts!!!!
Calling these Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 23, 2005 03:44 PM
We were switched to all mail voting here in Thurston County this cycle quite abruptly. Now the USPS says they are doing away with the Olympia postmark, and all mail will go to Tacoma for marking. So -- how will that affect ballots? Will people who post them on election day run the risk of being disenfranchised?
Not that I mail mine anyway -- I take mine to the city hall drop off site. But that was wierd this time, too. I was ready to slide them ;-) into the box and a gal there said "Oh, wait, I have to check the precinct numbers." Then she grabbed them out of my hand! She wrote down the numbers in a log, then handed them back. They were never out of my sight, but I thought that was a little odd. I don't like the idea of anybody who isn't a qualified election worker handling my ballot. That includes the USPS. They've mishandled or lost my mail too often for me to have much confidence in them.
Posted by: starboardhelm on November 23, 2005 03:46 PMIvan, voting has been done at polling places forever. There is a trend to move to all mail voting. Since all mail voting is the "change", why should its proponents not need to prove that it is better rather than making people that like to vote at polls have to prove that all mail voting is worse?
I've heard only that all mail voting is cheaper and more people can vote. So what?
This is where newpapers could come in. This is where our government officials could come in.
What are the pros and cons with polling places? What are the pros and cons to all mail ballots?
How do these affect each other?
How does one offer greater accuracy than the other? Which system has less opportunity for errors?
Which system has the greater ability to guarantee that my vote will not be cancelled by an illegal ballot? How?
What, specifically, is the government doing to address each of the concerns and how will they keep me informed on how they are doing? How about better accuracy in ballot accounting reports where ALL ballots returned must be accounted for? How about reconciliation that shows that every ballot had a legal voter?
The inaccuracy of last year's report, coupled with the closeness of the election have not made me comfortable that we have the accounting in place to support all mail elections.
One last question, HAVA allows for provisional ballots. If we are all mail, then where would I get a provisional ballot? If it is anywhere farther than my current polling place, how is the better?
I'd even support taxpayer financed notaries to make it happen.
The inconvenience of having your ballot notarized would coerce a lot of people back into the polls where people control the process and not political hacks down at the county's Election headquarters.
Posted by: Mike on November 23, 2005 03:59 PMCommunists in the 1950’s went by the handle “Progressive” and had many similiar ideas…..particularly when it came to forcing individuals to give up individual property rights “for the good of the commune-ity".
Then, as now, a joyful picture of the “good-life” was painted with high salaries, low-cost of living, less stress and the “government” taking care of all of our basic needs. People who were tired of scratching out a living allowed human nature to take over…..they wanted more for doing less. And the “Progressive” promoters promised them an easier life. Class warfare….the bottom-line. Take from the minority rich….and give to the poor easing their burden while resulting in the unwanted consequence of killing their motivation. Thus, a dependent Society. The leaders of the Progressive movement, then & now….attempt to build their power base on getting the poor & downtrodden to believe “Government” will take care of them. Really no different from today’s Progressive movement.
Encourage communal thinking, take away individual initiative and promise Big Government will give you an Idyllic life.
Pretty attractive somedays, I must admit.
Sadly, some of the Pied Pipers of the New Age Progressive movement are so brainwashed about this vision that they fail to comprehend the inevitable “Unwanted Consequences".
That’s why the innocently naive LEFTIST PINHEADED CLOWNS are referred to as LENIN’S USEFUL IDIOTS. Lenin KNEW these do-gooders from the West could be co-opted to push forth his agenda.
Lenin had ZERO respect for the CLOWNS….just used them.
Same as today. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 23, 2005 04:02 PM
2000 or so more ballots than voter's paranoia? Nah, I think your delusional.
Posted by: JCM on November 23, 2005 04:10 PMSome of us work 10+ hour shifts and have commutes that take more than an hour each way. Being a part of a 24/7/365 operation, I wouldn't get the day off either. There's no way I'd be able to make it to the polls unless election day was on my weekend (which isn't Sat/Sun).
Needless to say, an online system could easily be more much more secure than the current system. Though it's debatable if it would be more costly.
Btw, has anyone thought of using photo verification of a voter instead of trying to match a scribble?
Posted by: grog on November 23, 2005 04:17 PMPoint taken on hours, that's why time off to vote would be required. As someone who works in high tech I am extremely skeptical of ANY electronic form of voting. I want to see what each person did and be able to look at their vote. There are just too many ways to flip a bit.
Posted by: JCM on November 23, 2005 04:44 PMFor 20 years or so, I have voted at the polling place, in the morning before work. For 20 years or so I have used a couple of vacation hours to accomplish this, and advised my employer accordingly in advance. For 20 years or so, not in one instance did any employer tell me I couldn't do it, or complain in any way. You just have to be prepared to give a little to get a lot. Posted by: katomar on November 23, 2005 04:54 PM
Mr. Cynical is having an apoplectic fit. In my mind's eye I can see his fevered visage reflecting off his pglegm-speckled computer screen as he composes his invective spattered screeds.
Like my old Granny used to say: "You can fool a lot of people, but it'll be a cold day in May when you can fool a Poon!" Well, I can tell you, I come from an ancient line of Poons and this is one Poon you neo-cons won't be foolin' too soon!!!!
Posted by: Harry Poon on November 23, 2005 05:19 PMAre you sure Logan is claiming that the signature on the envelope doesn't need to match the signature on file, if the "updated" affidavit sent in response to the notice of a mismatched signature does match the signature on file?
RCW 29A.40.110 still says the signature on the envelope must be verified before the ballot envelope can even be opened:
(3) Before opening a returned absentee ballot, the canvassing board, or its designated representatives, shall examine the postmark, statement, and signature on the return envelope that contains the security envelope and absentee ballot. They shall verify that the voter's signature on the return envelope is the same as the signature of that voter in the registration files of the county.
RCW 29A.60.165(2)(ii) doesn't change the need to verify that the signature on the envelope matches the one on file.
Posted by: Micajah on November 23, 2005 05:41 PMThe Neocon philosophy as practiced by the Republican party since Reagan differs from traditional "Country Club Conservatism" of the Rockefflers, in that Neocon philosophy places greater emphasis on the social aspect, while traditional conservatism focuses more on the economic aspect.
For instance, before the advent of the modern American Neocon movement, traditional conservatives generally did not take a strong stand on a woman's right to chose, church/state separation, or the teaching of science in schools--and they certainly didn't use religion as a centerpiece of their platform.
Posted by: The Phantom on November 23, 2005 06:08 PMThank you for the lesson. I was well aware that neo means new. I was also well aware of the technical definition of neo-con. However, I was referring to the "liberal man in the street's" use of it as equating to neo-nazi. Maybe we should start using the phrase neo-lib, since the term liberal used to mean tolerance, acceptance of differing views, compassion, in the Democrat style of Joe Lieberman and Zel Miller. That's all changed, though. It's a new political philosophy now. I can recall the days when Libs were not hate mongers and you could have useful discussions with them. That certainly has changed. Posted by: katomar on November 23, 2005 06:22 PM
"We must fight them on the beaches, we must fight them in the skies, we must fight them on the land...."
-Winston Churchill
Posted by: The Phantom on November 23, 2005 06:24 PMRCW 49.28.120
Employer's duty to provide time to vote.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, every employer shall arrange employees' working hours on the day of a primary or election, general or special, so that each employee will have a reasonable time up to two hours available for voting during the hours the polls are open as provided by *RCW 29.13.080.
If an employee's work schedule does not give the employee two free hours during the time the polls are open, not including meal or rest breaks, the employer shall permit the employee to take a reasonable time up to two hours from the employee's work schedule for voting purposes. In such a case, the employer shall add this time to the time for which the employee is paid.
(2) The provisions of this section apply only if, during the period between the time an employee is informed of his or her work schedule for a primary or election day and the date of the primary or election, there is insufficient time for an absentee ballot to be secured for that primary or election.
[1987 c 296 § 1.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: RCW 29.13.080 was recodified as RCW 29A.44.070 pursuant to 2003 c 111 § 2401, effective July 1, 2004.
Posted by: RG on November 23, 2005 07:17 PMIn addition to my last post,
RCW 29A.40.020
Request for single ballot.
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a registered voter or out-of-state voter, overseas voter, or service voter desiring to cast an absentee ballot at a single election or primary must request the absentee ballot from his or her county auditor no earlier than ninety days nor later than the day before the election or primary at which the person seeks to vote. Except as otherwise provided by law, the request may be made orally in person, by telephone, electronically, or in writing. An application or request for an absentee ballot made under the authority of a federal statute or regulation will be considered and given the same effect as a request for an absentee ballot under this chapter.
The net result is an employer probably would never need to allow time off to vote. This is also the most likely the reason absentee ballots are so widely used.
RG
If the Dems want to make new rules, we can all test them.
Posted by: GS on November 23, 2005 08:37 PMWhy even bother with elections. Why don't we just let the Seattle Times tell us who won?
And, looks like Dean Logan's been having extra helpings of Thanksgiving dinner already. Is that two or three chins?
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2005 09:57 PMRequiring that all businesses shut down on election day isn't going to happen, not the way businesses operate now. I understand peoples fears of electronics, however if done properly, the level of security and accuracy in an electronic voting system could never be touched by hard copies, especially when hand counted.
Katomar,
Some of us are not able to take vacation in hours. Some of us don't get vacation, or get very little. If I take the day off to be able to vote, either the person covering my shift would have to vote within walking distance of the office, or they would have to not be a registered voter.
Ideally elections day would be April 16th, right after everyone pays their taxes.
It's not that I am afraid of electronics, I am all too familiar with them. There are ways to secure an electronic system. What I see is the voter votes and has a ballot printed, a fail-safe hard copy. Then the printed ballot is feed into a tabulating machine, completely isolated from the voting machine and running a different OS and software package. That reduces the chances of one hack screwing up the totals. Then totals would be compared from the voting machine to the tabulation machine with the hard copy used to resolve differences. Having two independent systems effectively doubles the cost.
It would be far too easy for a single line of code to flip votes, we would be dependent on the software for the count. With paper ballots we can track the count, electronically we have to trust the machine.
In my business I test electronics, sometimes to the 1/100,000 of an amp. And the question becomes is the test equipment accurate, is the equipment used to calibrate the test equipment accurate. It gets pretty crazy tracking faults sometimes.
Basically we need a inviolate record of the votes vote, the only thing I can think of is a printed page. There is no inviolate electronic records. The system can alter the data being burned onto write once read only media.
Posted by: JCM on November 23, 2005 10:25 PMOne line of code would never affect data if done proplerly. It would require multiple lines of code in multiple locations in a co-ordinated attack that would need to involve corruption in all parties represented.
Essentially you would have to have multiple representatives from your party of choice (Rep., Dem., Lib., Grn., etc.) conspire to give away votes for their own party.
Posted by: Grog on November 24, 2005 01:12 AMShe evidently made some errors but who the he*l do you think you are by blaming her ? You are appealing to the sheeple who want to live in a nanny state who are too lazy to get out there and show it. If this state had passed some meaningful voter reform, this kind of crap would not have happened to the extent that it did, but no - they didn't. So if there are 1600 illegitimate voters and 300 who were found to be acceptable, this still accomplished something that Sims Logan, et. al. were too dishonest and partisan to examine - and that has already been documented.
Posted by: KS on November 24, 2005 09:16 AMDid Dean Logjam decide it was valid with the hand written date before or after he saw it was a vote for his owner Sims?
Posted by: reggie on November 24, 2005 11:01 AM“Voting rights,”--to the extent that they actually exist--must be limited or they mean nothing. Making it easier for illegal votes to be cast in exchange for the certainty that less voters are “disenfranchised,” is like releasing criminals from prisons en masse to vindicate the dubious interest of a theoretic proportion of falsely convicted inmates.
There is no established evidence that simplicity, security, and expense are enhanced by all mail voting. Its proponents talk about ease for the voter, but: How can it be considered simpler to add the substantial tier of activity, distance, and difficulty of mailing ballots? How can it possibly be considered secure to add the substantial tier of activity, distance, and difficulty of mailing ballots? Can it be considered less expensive to add the substantial tier of activity, distance, and difficulty of mailing ballots? I don’t know but I am skeptical, and no one from King County elections is addressing this issue in any sincere manner.
Nevertheless, all other criteria must take a second place to reliability or integrity. Of course nothing is perfect, but abandoning integrity in favor of simplicity, security, and expense is abandoning the public trust in favor of feckless incidentals. Ease be damned, the public must be able to have some assurance that their votes count fairly lest the elective franchise in Washington State mean nothing but the easy defeat of procedural democracy.
Any responsible adult recognizes that where people exist, and possibilities for partisanship, self interest, and corruption are allowed to prevail, they certainly will prevail. Public virtue exists only where laws make it more useful to act virtuously. English theologian and philosopher Joseph Preistly said, “No people were ever better than their laws, though many have been worse.” and English statesman William E. Gladstone “Good laws make it easier to do right and harder to do wrong.” The ridiculous assumption that public virtue alone will restrain voter misconduct falls on hollow grounds and exhibits that Democrats will believe in anything so long as there are no facts involved, and they expect us to buy this canard as well.
NO SALE. In reality the Democrat party sees a way to perpetuate it’s power in substituting the rights of the people for its own interests. Beyond that, “All Mail Voting” serves very few practical purposes, but it certainly creates the opportunity to satisfy a cynical predilection to corruption.
In this light, it's easy to see why a dim-witted party hack like Ivan Weiss likes the system.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 25, 2005 03:27 PMIt certainly makes sense to fix some of the problems with mail balloting. For example, clarify the rules for interpreting incorrectly-completed ballots. Don't require challengers to know the voter's real address. And prosecute deliberate lawbreakers.
Posted by: Bruce on November 25, 2005 04:21 PMThere is nothing difficult about formatting data in a write-once medium so that any alteration of a ballot after it is cast will be proof that something is amiss.
The bigger problem is letter voters see that the ballot recorded on the medium in fact matches their candidate selections.
My personal preferred approach would be to have people select candidates on some sort of machine, and have that machine print them on a machine-and-human-readable ballot form. The voter would inspect this ballot, confom their selectiosn, and either insert the ballot into an electronic ballot box or void it and return it to the election officials for a new one. The electronic ballot box would be designed to physically reject any invalid ballot.
Otherwise, my next-favorite approach would be lever machines, if there were a few small tweaks made to the design to prevent fraud.
Posted by: supercat on November 26, 2005 09:03 PMMike says, "A case in point are the 2/3's of Bush voters who believed that WMD had been found and the 60% who thought collaborative ties between Saddam and Al Queda had been proven. Bush rode to the White House on a way of ignorance and now I have to live with the results of that near criminal stupidity."
Then he has the brass to talk about requiring a literacy or general intelligence qualification to vote.
Hey MSM Mike, start the testing with yourself moron.
Posted by: Amused by liberal dolts on November 27, 2005 05:55 PM