Tomorrow's PI has the editorial County Elections: Make it mail. Nauseating. Yes. I'm sickened that forced mail voting enthusiasts (like the Editorial Board of the PI) have ignored the issues and made this about personalities. Apparently Juli Pettingill, Gentry Lange, myself, and all of us activists from the left are enthralled by the bad guys on the right. Presumably Stefan.
These people don't know me; I'm not easily led. Has Gentry Lange of the Green Party fallen under Stefan's spell? There were 18 people testifying. From all over the political spectrum. Most I'd never met before. I don't think the elderly woman from Federal Way, who took two buses to attend, was mesmerized either. And the PI certainly didn't listen to our testimony at Monday's council meeting. Fortunately, the Council did and delayed their decision two weeks. So that they could follow up on our concerns.
Any way, there's an online poll. Be sure to vote. And there's a comments section. I cut and paste mine below the fold...
Anonymous Editor-
Trifecta! Good job! You've managed to insult us, successfully repeat the talking points, and be horribly wrong. Again demonstrating that no one should ever allow their ignorance to prevent them from having an opinion.
Are we enthralled? By the truth, perhaps.
The protest against forced mail voting was Juli Pettingill's idea. The PI covered it. Unlikely allies fight all-mail voting. Our group invited our colleagues from the left and right to participate.
The recent op-ed opposing forced mail voting was written by my Juli Pettingill, Gentry Lange (Green Party), and help from others. Let the public decide on vote by mail
The forced mail voting enthusiasts dismiss our concerns with a wave of the hand. Telling us that they'll do everything they can to ensure security. And the next moment, telling us convenience trumps security. Of course, they usually repeat the inaccurate statements about reduced costs. (Perhaps they haven't read Logan's Vote by Mail proposal.)
There was a time when someone at the PI understood that forced mail voting was the incorrect solution to the problem of increasing turnout. Last Sept, Mark Trahant wrote Vote by mail? OK, so I was wrong .... Judging by the PI's new found enthusiasm for forced mail voting, all of the concerns have been addressed. Right? Yea, I didn't think so.
We spoke at Wallingford Neighbors for Peace and Peace Justice Meaningful Movie's showing of "Electile Dysfunction" last night.
Please, stop playing fast and loose with the facts. You're hurting our democracy.
We have legitimate concerns. That have not been addressed. The only responsible action forward is to let the people decide for ourselves how to conduct our elections. Then we can have a public debate. To educate concerned citizens about the merits of forced mail voting.
Jason Aaron Osgood / Seattle WA
Washington Citizens for Fair Elections
www.wafairelections.org
[Updated the intro to clarify that I'm responding to the PI, not the King County Council.]
[Updated again for wordsmithing and corrections.]
A misleading and quite frankly stupid statement. Let's turn it around.
How many registered voters are in King County? What percentage bothered to vote at all last November? 30%? 40%? How many eligible voters are even registered? 50%? The phrase in the PI would more accurately read, "If it helps, the council might note that more than 70 percent of the 35% of registered voters that normally vote, and which are only about 50% of total eligible voters, already have made up their minds; they already vote by mail."
So, by Julia Patterson's and the PI's reasoning, 60-70% of the registered voters don't think voting is that important to do at all. Maybe we can save even more money by cutting out elections all together. 60% of "their constituants" have already [not] voted.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 10, 2006 10:05 AMconstituents, not constituants....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 10, 2006 10:07 AMThat's hilarious! They even admit that they are willing to sacrifice security for convenience! And with a straight face (well, I can't say how straight ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 10, 2006 11:11 AM'Relatively secure' elections are like 'relatively safe' sex. Stupid.
Posted by: Jacob on June 10, 2006 11:27 AMBut why would requiring vote by mail increase voter turn out? I mean, I can see how allowing vote by mail would increase voter turnout- but how would requiring it help?
Posted by: Cicero on June 10, 2006 12:15 PMForced mail voting takes voting out of the public eye and will invariably lead to lower turnout, which is exactly what the incumbents want.
Fewer voters = cheaper campaigns
Posted by: Jacob on June 10, 2006 12:19 PM1. The PI
2. Your council member
3. Your friends
4. Other media
Please do so, and pass on a few of your concerns about VBM. Lists of problems, etc.
Then PI editorial was a farce. The "relatively secure" comment took the cake. What kind of bank do they hold their money in, oh well, it's relatively secure. That's fine by me! Must be the same bank Ron Sims goes to.
It was the same as Julia Patterson continually saying, "valid concerns". Well if they are valid, why keep ignoring them?
Please keep up the good work everyone! As a Green, and as someone who takes some heat from left and right alike, I felt super proud of the citizens from all sides of the political spectrum at the Council Meeting. Everyone is very informed, regardless of the MSM painting those who speak out as "bloviators". Do they think 10 cent words actually strengthen there arguments?
Posted by: Gentry Lange on June 10, 2006 01:49 PMI cant believe that these people actually work in the MSM.....They don't even LISTEN to people, or most likely, they don't care.
BTW, why cant we RECALL Ron Sims for NOT firing Dean Logan????
Posted by: Chris on June 11, 2006 12:07 PMDespite the failings of that first paragraph, I continued to read the rest of the editorial. Then I read all of the commentary made by readers. Two readers did a very good job responding paragraph by paragraph to the editorial. Thankfully some concerned people are responding to the lies put forth by the PI on this issue. Thanks to those who are speaking up and fighting for fair and accurate elections, regardless of their political party affiliation.
Posted by: Gary on June 12, 2006 10:16 AM
I took great offense at the attitudes of Larry Gossett, Julia Patterson and Larry Phillips at the council meeting. They showed utter disdain for we common folk--particularly Phillips, whose main purpose in attending the meeting seemed to be the opportunity to show off his puppy in a photo op, and vote on the animal welfare issue. Is it true that he has ordained that there shall be no public input at the next meeting? If that is so, I hope that Dunn and Lambert have been able to persuade Ferguson and Constantine that forced voting by mail is not the way to go and that the whole idea will be flushed down the drain.
NO FORCED VOTE BY MAIL!
Posted by: Marilyn on June 12, 2006 01:19 PMYou said "I took great offense at the attitudes of Larry Gossett, Julia Patterson and Larry Phillips at the council meeting."
Decent people are offended by fascist communists. Take it as a sign of good character on your part . . . I do.
And with the P-I covering for them as a propaganda foil complete with Potemkin voting statistics, they will have their way even with Squaloid meddling.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 12, 2006 10:35 PM