Sure thing... We'll get right on that.
This article from December 20 has a few days worth of dust on it but I have to link to any editorial that beats my favorite drum.
From the piece:
Every vote is supposed to count in America, but candidates too often maneuver to disqualify votes that they think might go to the other side. A month and a half after Election Day, battles are still raging in Washington State and in San Diego over whether to count all of the votes that were cast. The answer to that question must be yes.
...
Clearly the American election system needs significant improvement, starting with voter-verified paper trails for every vote cast electronically. In the current flawed system, the best chance we have of producing accurate results is to be on guard for manipulation of electronic voting machines and tabulation software, and to conduct conscientious recounts when the outcome is at all in doubt.
Count Every Vote
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Wherefore Art Thou, Ohio: Election Reform is the New Black
I spent my 37 seconds searching for news on the Ohio election activities today and found… Nothing.
I admit that I took my eye off of this ball, focusing more on Washington State, but still…
There should be something about Ohio out there, right?
Media bias = Silence.
Although I did find this interesting article on Salon.com:
Third World Democracy: The real problem with the American election system isn't fraud, it's good old-fashioned incompetence. And that's something we can fix -- if we have the will.
Big quote from the article:
But it can be fixed ... especially if activists take on the challenge. Before the election, many people -- people like Lockshin -- felt irrelevant with respect to politics in America. Now, after the election, many Americans are distressed by the results. Why not channel this despair into something productive for the future? ... Why not work to reform the abysmal American electoral system?
...
Unfortunately, in the past couple of weeks, while the Internet has been consumed by theories of a stolen election, the efforts of activists like Rodriguez-Taseff and of all the volunteers who manned the polls on Election Day have largely been overlooked. Focusing on the long-term reform of the system is not sexy, Rodriguez-Taseff concedes; it doesn't promise the kind of excitement you get from looking into ways that might overturn Nov. 2's results.
...
There should have been a big push for comprehensive election reform after the 2000 election in the United States, but that didn't happen. "Other things cut in line -- September 11, gay marriage, the war, you name it," Chapin says. Now, Chapin hopes, election reform will creep back onto the agenda.
Yet it's likely that the only way lawmakers will fix our elections is if citizens press for it -- and only if they press for it constantly, in a nonpartisan manner, as part of a broad effort to remake the way we vote rather than to reverse the results of the last election.
And for all the people who were so passionately involved in that election, what better way to spend the next four years than to dedicate your efforts to remaking our democracy? If you think the American system is broken, if you've felt alienated and abused by recent political affairs, doing the good, honest, hard work of fixing things may feel quite refreshing, activists say. Lockshin, the Berkeley student, offers this testimonial: "Now that I've worked on this with Election Protection, I'm sure I'll be doing it again. I'll be doing it every year, till they stop needing me."
I think I may have linked to this article before, but I am too lazy to review all of my posts this morning to check.
But I agree, election reform is the new black...
In the Salon article, I did find this link...
www.verifiedvoting.org
On this site, I found the following tidbit on Ohio...
The Ohio legislature passed a law that requires that ALL DREs in Ohio have a voter-verified paper audit trail (V-VPAT) by January 2006. Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections is planning to file a lawsuit to stop the purchase of any DREs in 2004 that do not have a V-VPAT.
Sexy stuff, this election reform jihad... But necessary.
I admit that I took my eye off of this ball, focusing more on Washington State, but still…
There should be something about Ohio out there, right?
Media bias = Silence.
Although I did find this interesting article on Salon.com:
Third World Democracy: The real problem with the American election system isn't fraud, it's good old-fashioned incompetence. And that's something we can fix -- if we have the will.
Big quote from the article:
But it can be fixed ... especially if activists take on the challenge. Before the election, many people -- people like Lockshin -- felt irrelevant with respect to politics in America. Now, after the election, many Americans are distressed by the results. Why not channel this despair into something productive for the future? ... Why not work to reform the abysmal American electoral system?
...
Unfortunately, in the past couple of weeks, while the Internet has been consumed by theories of a stolen election, the efforts of activists like Rodriguez-Taseff and of all the volunteers who manned the polls on Election Day have largely been overlooked. Focusing on the long-term reform of the system is not sexy, Rodriguez-Taseff concedes; it doesn't promise the kind of excitement you get from looking into ways that might overturn Nov. 2's results.
...
There should have been a big push for comprehensive election reform after the 2000 election in the United States, but that didn't happen. "Other things cut in line -- September 11, gay marriage, the war, you name it," Chapin says. Now, Chapin hopes, election reform will creep back onto the agenda.
Yet it's likely that the only way lawmakers will fix our elections is if citizens press for it -- and only if they press for it constantly, in a nonpartisan manner, as part of a broad effort to remake the way we vote rather than to reverse the results of the last election.
And for all the people who were so passionately involved in that election, what better way to spend the next four years than to dedicate your efforts to remaking our democracy? If you think the American system is broken, if you've felt alienated and abused by recent political affairs, doing the good, honest, hard work of fixing things may feel quite refreshing, activists say. Lockshin, the Berkeley student, offers this testimonial: "Now that I've worked on this with Election Protection, I'm sure I'll be doing it again. I'll be doing it every year, till they stop needing me."
I think I may have linked to this article before, but I am too lazy to review all of my posts this morning to check.
But I agree, election reform is the new black...
In the Salon article, I did find this link...
www.verifiedvoting.org
On this site, I found the following tidbit on Ohio...
The Ohio legislature passed a law that requires that ALL DREs in Ohio have a voter-verified paper audit trail (V-VPAT) by January 2006. Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections is planning to file a lawsuit to stop the purchase of any DREs in 2004 that do not have a V-VPAT.
Sexy stuff, this election reform jihad... But necessary.
Faith and Reason: Another Look at Religion
It seems that the recent political debates on faith and the recent holiday has people all over looking at the politics of faith.
Mark Matson of The Moderate Liberal posted Faith Versus Reason for his Christmas entry:
Taking the Christian Fundamentalist argument that “evolutionists” have the same sort of belief in their science that “creationists” have in their faith that The Bible is the literal word of God, he responds:
I believe in reason and the scientific method not because I have some faith that cannot be confirmed but because reason has proven its worth. We see the success of the scientific method all around us and, as opposed to the natural world, we know where science came from.
He also adds that faith is important, writing, “I believe that other forms of faith also work, such as hope, optimism and confidence.”
It is a good post and you should read it.
Mark Matson of The Moderate Liberal posted Faith Versus Reason for his Christmas entry:
Taking the Christian Fundamentalist argument that “evolutionists” have the same sort of belief in their science that “creationists” have in their faith that The Bible is the literal word of God, he responds:
I believe in reason and the scientific method not because I have some faith that cannot be confirmed but because reason has proven its worth. We see the success of the scientific method all around us and, as opposed to the natural world, we know where science came from.
He also adds that faith is important, writing, “I believe that other forms of faith also work, such as hope, optimism and confidence.”
It is a good post and you should read it.
Social (In)Security…
The Social Security issue has always been strange for me. As someone in their early thirties, it has always seemed like an issue outside of the scope of my concern. Sort of like rooting for a major league baseball team when you live in Butte, Montana: it can be a fun sport to watch, but without a hometown team, it remains a bit removed and there is no “personal stake.”
Social Security does not feel outside of my scope of concern because the benefits are, knock on wood, thirty years away. It feels irrelevant to me because every since I was a teenager, I have never expected Social Security to still be available for my generation when we reached retirement age.
Because of this, I have never really dug deeper into Social Security than the “headline” level… I pick up the gist of the debate from sound bites and headlines, but avoid participating in any in-depth discussions or debates.
So, pretty much my thoughts on this current round have been… Giving the public control over investing their “accounts” on the stock market is about as wise as loaning your I-Pod to a heroin junky who is desperate for their fix.
I also read, somewhere along the line, that privatizing Social Security would take billions off of the national debt, so there is the sly, machiavellian angle the Administration is approaching this issue from.
Details, though… Here I am weak.
Today, I saw a post by Atrios that inspires me to take a closer look at the Social Security debate.
He writes:
Look, this is our issue. This is one we should be confident about winning -- perhaps not the legislative battle, but the '06 election. Democrats shouldn't be running scared from this, they should be salivating at the prospect of being handed a gift on a silver platter. They just need to be a bit smart.
He provides a couple of links that look at Rep. Harold Ford’s probable jump to the Republican side of this debate.
If Atrios is right, than this issue moves from the periphery, from being political background noise, to being very close to the heart of my political interests.
It is time to take a closer look at the issues emerging in the Social Security debate.
Tone Deaf
Sammy Glick on the Hill
Dear Congressman Ford
Social Security does not feel outside of my scope of concern because the benefits are, knock on wood, thirty years away. It feels irrelevant to me because every since I was a teenager, I have never expected Social Security to still be available for my generation when we reached retirement age.
Because of this, I have never really dug deeper into Social Security than the “headline” level… I pick up the gist of the debate from sound bites and headlines, but avoid participating in any in-depth discussions or debates.
So, pretty much my thoughts on this current round have been… Giving the public control over investing their “accounts” on the stock market is about as wise as loaning your I-Pod to a heroin junky who is desperate for their fix.
I also read, somewhere along the line, that privatizing Social Security would take billions off of the national debt, so there is the sly, machiavellian angle the Administration is approaching this issue from.
Details, though… Here I am weak.
Today, I saw a post by Atrios that inspires me to take a closer look at the Social Security debate.
He writes:
Look, this is our issue. This is one we should be confident about winning -- perhaps not the legislative battle, but the '06 election. Democrats shouldn't be running scared from this, they should be salivating at the prospect of being handed a gift on a silver platter. They just need to be a bit smart.
He provides a couple of links that look at Rep. Harold Ford’s probable jump to the Republican side of this debate.
If Atrios is right, than this issue moves from the periphery, from being political background noise, to being very close to the heart of my political interests.
It is time to take a closer look at the issues emerging in the Social Security debate.
Tone Deaf
Sammy Glick on the Hill
Dear Congressman Ford
It’s the Day After Christmas… Let’s Look at Religion
I wish I had seen this yesterday; it would have made a great post for Christmas.
Rev. Federici of the United Church of Christ in Vienna, Virginia wants his Jesus back.
This sermon was posted on his church’s web site (all lower case there, too):
i want my jesus back.
i want my radical jesus back.
i want my christianity back.
i want my radical christianity back.
i do not understand how jesus became the spokesperson for a christianity that is afraid.
i do not understand how jesus became the spokesperson for a christianity that honors judgement, condemnation and smallness of mind and heart.
i do not understand how jesus became so graceless, so heavy handed, so like an unpopular kid who suddenly becomes a classroom monitor, a tattle tale jesus telling his father god who is good, who is bad, who is fooling around, a wet blanket , blue chip, risk free jesus backed up with a secret swiss bank account.
how did jesus get so boring?
how did christianity get so embarassing?
I want Rev. Federici to have that Jesus back, too.
jesus and christianity need to be rescued from those who are using it in the service of fear, control, oppression, the keeping of the status quo.
jesus and christianity need to be rescued from being in service of the travesty of their counterfeit versions. those versions that pervert the heart of the gospel.
the wolf wearing sheep’s clothing.
underneath is simply an aberrant strain of hatred, cruelty and arrogance.
i want my jesus back.
i want my radical jesus and my radical christianity back.
right now.
Yes, this is the same UCC who’s ads were turned down by a couple of the broadcast networks recently because they were divisive (essentially chiding other churches for their hypocrisy on racial and sexual issues). That was the reason given for the ads being blocked, but really, the ads were pretty good and not the little Molotov Cocktails that they were described as.
It is unrealistic to ever expect faith and politics to truly be disconnected. This is why there is so much weight put on the Constitution’s First Amendment. Since faith and politics are so closely bound, it is important that the faith and politics of the minority is protected against repression by the political majority.
The separation of church and state also exists to keep the political majority from cramming their faith down the rest of the population's throat. The majority is allowed to be guided by their faith, but legislating it is strictly off limits, let alone using their political power to evangelize it.
Anyway, I found this link on the blog GOTV. It was the Christmas post there.
Glory to God
“the foyer of wickedness”
UPDATE: December 26, 2005 - 3:00 PM
Elsewhere on the web, I found a link to this site. According to the message board post that made me aware of this link, it "attempts to distinguish what Jesus actually taught from what the Church teaches."
I have not had a chance to review the site yet, but I wanted to post the link anyway because it sounds very interesting to me.
Jesus Seminar Fourm
Rev. Federici of the United Church of Christ in Vienna, Virginia wants his Jesus back.
This sermon was posted on his church’s web site (all lower case there, too):
i want my jesus back.
i want my radical jesus back.
i want my christianity back.
i want my radical christianity back.
i do not understand how jesus became the spokesperson for a christianity that is afraid.
i do not understand how jesus became the spokesperson for a christianity that honors judgement, condemnation and smallness of mind and heart.
i do not understand how jesus became so graceless, so heavy handed, so like an unpopular kid who suddenly becomes a classroom monitor, a tattle tale jesus telling his father god who is good, who is bad, who is fooling around, a wet blanket , blue chip, risk free jesus backed up with a secret swiss bank account.
how did jesus get so boring?
how did christianity get so embarassing?
I want Rev. Federici to have that Jesus back, too.
jesus and christianity need to be rescued from those who are using it in the service of fear, control, oppression, the keeping of the status quo.
jesus and christianity need to be rescued from being in service of the travesty of their counterfeit versions. those versions that pervert the heart of the gospel.
the wolf wearing sheep’s clothing.
underneath is simply an aberrant strain of hatred, cruelty and arrogance.
i want my jesus back.
i want my radical jesus and my radical christianity back.
right now.
Yes, this is the same UCC who’s ads were turned down by a couple of the broadcast networks recently because they were divisive (essentially chiding other churches for their hypocrisy on racial and sexual issues). That was the reason given for the ads being blocked, but really, the ads were pretty good and not the little Molotov Cocktails that they were described as.
It is unrealistic to ever expect faith and politics to truly be disconnected. This is why there is so much weight put on the Constitution’s First Amendment. Since faith and politics are so closely bound, it is important that the faith and politics of the minority is protected against repression by the political majority.
The separation of church and state also exists to keep the political majority from cramming their faith down the rest of the population's throat. The majority is allowed to be guided by their faith, but legislating it is strictly off limits, let alone using their political power to evangelize it.
Anyway, I found this link on the blog GOTV. It was the Christmas post there.
Glory to God
“the foyer of wickedness”
UPDATE: December 26, 2005 - 3:00 PM
Elsewhere on the web, I found a link to this site. According to the message board post that made me aware of this link, it "attempts to distinguish what Jesus actually taught from what the Church teaches."
I have not had a chance to review the site yet, but I wanted to post the link anyway because it sounds very interesting to me.
Jesus Seminar Fourm
Washingtion Election Highlights Need for Election Reform
As voters hit the polls for the do-over on the election in the Ukraine today, voters (well, the political wonks, at least) in Washington State are still dazed and confused from their 2004 gubernatorial race. Final, for now, result: Democrat Christine Gregoire by 130, with a “microscopic margin of 0.0047 percent.”
Though the law only allows for this third and final recount, the Republicans are expected to now continue the fight in the courts, unless they decide to take the high road and to concede, giving Republican Dino Rossi the pole position for a run against Maria Cantwell for the 2006 Senate race or for another face off with Gregoire in the 2008 race for the governor’s mansion.
From the AP:
The only sure winner so far is election reform. Proposals for reforming Washington's election system are going to be as common as umbrellas at the state Capitol this winter.
Secretary of State Sam Reed has suggested a package of changes, though he has said he believes the election went well, all things considered.
"We don't expect it to be perfect," Reed said. "But we do have a system set up to correct those imperfections when they surface, and we have done that."
Wise. Beyond a single state, though, we need national election reform.
As The Seattle Times points out:
The counting of nearly 3 million votes three times uncovered a series of mistakes, by both voters and ballot counters.
The final hand recount showed that 4,018 votes of validly registered state residents had been missed in the original tally from the Nov. 2 election.
A handful of ballots were found left in machines, hundreds more were discovered in misplaced trays, and many more didn't get counted for a variety of reasons. For example, an optical-scanning machine might have failed to read votes that weren't marked properly. Additional ballots were found in nearly all of the 39 counties during the final recount.
As for the candidates in this race, the AP goes on to say:
The two candidates predictably split over whether this election was free and fair.
"Like many people across Washington, I'm very concerned about the integrity of this election process, and I'm also very concerned that not all votes are being treated equally," Rossi said in an e-mailed statement Thursday. He said Washington has neither a clean election nor a legitimate governor.
Gregoire, on the other hand, brimmed with confidence in the Washington electoral system after the results were announced Thursday night.
"I think we have been a model to the rest of the nation and to the world at large," she said. "This is the biggest display of democracy I have ever seen, and I am proud of it."
The Seattle Times article from today has a question and answer section that covers the idea of setting aside the November 2 results and holding a new vote on this race.
Q: Haven't some people called for a new election?
A: Yes. Some Republican supporters of Rossi, notably former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, have called for a new election because the current results are so muddled. They worry that voters won't have confidence that a true winner was selected.
Q: Is a new election possible?
A: Republicans would have to go to court to contest the election. State law says a judge has the right to "set aside" an election because of "error, wrongful act, or neglect" in the conduct of the election.
Q: How would that be proven?
A: Essentially, a judge would put the election on trial. Republicans could present evidence and witnesses to make their case that the election was flawed.
The judge could confirm the election, make Rossi the winner instead, or annul the election.
Q: What happens if the election is nullified?
A: No one seems to know for sure. The law does not specifically say the judge can call for a new election, just that he or she could set aside the current one.
State Elections Director Nick Handy said his reading of the law is that a judge's action to set aside the Rossi-Gregoire election would create a vacancy in the governor's office. That would call for a special election, which would be open to any valid candidates, not necessarily just Rossi and Gregoire.
The state Supreme Court, which is likely to eventually rule on any contested-election case, could set a runoff election between Gregoire and Rossi.
The Seattle Times also points out that there is a precedent in Washington State for nullifying the November election:
Q: Has there ever been an election set aside under the contested-election law?
A: Yes, though not in a statewide race. In 1974 there was an Adams County Commission election nullified by a Superior Court judge, a decision later upheld by the state Supreme Court, over concerns about ballot security. The loser in the race argued that security was lax and presented evidence that ballots had been tampered with.
The Supreme Court ruled "that the irregularity was such that the actual result of the voting could not be ascertained and a new election should be held."
There is no mention of what happened after the results were set aside.
I don’t know if they need to re-do the whole election up there or not, but they definitely need to look at reform. The whole country needs to look at reform. Some would probably argue that the tight margin in races across the country reflects our current political climate, and that once that shifts, these problems will just go away on their own. To some extent, I believe that is why the reforms after the 2000 election were so lightweight.
Even if it is 50 years before the lines are drawn so tightly again, these are the times when the system needs to be at its best. To make it worse, it is hard to “steal” an election when one candidate has a 10% margin of victory and a clear majority. However, this year has shown that it is possible to steal an election when the race is as close as some we have seen this year. If an election is stolen when passions and politics are this heated, real, lasting damage can be done to the system. I am not saying that this actually has happened anywhere this year, but we need to be sure that it did not happen.
Looking to the future, we need to fix the system, regardless of how long it is before those changes prove their worth.
Votes tallied for governor, but what's next is unclear
Washington Governor's Race May Not Be Over
Though the law only allows for this third and final recount, the Republicans are expected to now continue the fight in the courts, unless they decide to take the high road and to concede, giving Republican Dino Rossi the pole position for a run against Maria Cantwell for the 2006 Senate race or for another face off with Gregoire in the 2008 race for the governor’s mansion.
From the AP:
The only sure winner so far is election reform. Proposals for reforming Washington's election system are going to be as common as umbrellas at the state Capitol this winter.
Secretary of State Sam Reed has suggested a package of changes, though he has said he believes the election went well, all things considered.
"We don't expect it to be perfect," Reed said. "But we do have a system set up to correct those imperfections when they surface, and we have done that."
Wise. Beyond a single state, though, we need national election reform.
As The Seattle Times points out:
The counting of nearly 3 million votes three times uncovered a series of mistakes, by both voters and ballot counters.
The final hand recount showed that 4,018 votes of validly registered state residents had been missed in the original tally from the Nov. 2 election.
A handful of ballots were found left in machines, hundreds more were discovered in misplaced trays, and many more didn't get counted for a variety of reasons. For example, an optical-scanning machine might have failed to read votes that weren't marked properly. Additional ballots were found in nearly all of the 39 counties during the final recount.
As for the candidates in this race, the AP goes on to say:
The two candidates predictably split over whether this election was free and fair.
"Like many people across Washington, I'm very concerned about the integrity of this election process, and I'm also very concerned that not all votes are being treated equally," Rossi said in an e-mailed statement Thursday. He said Washington has neither a clean election nor a legitimate governor.
Gregoire, on the other hand, brimmed with confidence in the Washington electoral system after the results were announced Thursday night.
"I think we have been a model to the rest of the nation and to the world at large," she said. "This is the biggest display of democracy I have ever seen, and I am proud of it."
The Seattle Times article from today has a question and answer section that covers the idea of setting aside the November 2 results and holding a new vote on this race.
Q: Haven't some people called for a new election?
A: Yes. Some Republican supporters of Rossi, notably former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, have called for a new election because the current results are so muddled. They worry that voters won't have confidence that a true winner was selected.
Q: Is a new election possible?
A: Republicans would have to go to court to contest the election. State law says a judge has the right to "set aside" an election because of "error, wrongful act, or neglect" in the conduct of the election.
Q: How would that be proven?
A: Essentially, a judge would put the election on trial. Republicans could present evidence and witnesses to make their case that the election was flawed.
The judge could confirm the election, make Rossi the winner instead, or annul the election.
Q: What happens if the election is nullified?
A: No one seems to know for sure. The law does not specifically say the judge can call for a new election, just that he or she could set aside the current one.
State Elections Director Nick Handy said his reading of the law is that a judge's action to set aside the Rossi-Gregoire election would create a vacancy in the governor's office. That would call for a special election, which would be open to any valid candidates, not necessarily just Rossi and Gregoire.
The state Supreme Court, which is likely to eventually rule on any contested-election case, could set a runoff election between Gregoire and Rossi.
The Seattle Times also points out that there is a precedent in Washington State for nullifying the November election:
Q: Has there ever been an election set aside under the contested-election law?
A: Yes, though not in a statewide race. In 1974 there was an Adams County Commission election nullified by a Superior Court judge, a decision later upheld by the state Supreme Court, over concerns about ballot security. The loser in the race argued that security was lax and presented evidence that ballots had been tampered with.
The Supreme Court ruled "that the irregularity was such that the actual result of the voting could not be ascertained and a new election should be held."
There is no mention of what happened after the results were set aside.
I don’t know if they need to re-do the whole election up there or not, but they definitely need to look at reform. The whole country needs to look at reform. Some would probably argue that the tight margin in races across the country reflects our current political climate, and that once that shifts, these problems will just go away on their own. To some extent, I believe that is why the reforms after the 2000 election were so lightweight.
Even if it is 50 years before the lines are drawn so tightly again, these are the times when the system needs to be at its best. To make it worse, it is hard to “steal” an election when one candidate has a 10% margin of victory and a clear majority. However, this year has shown that it is possible to steal an election when the race is as close as some we have seen this year. If an election is stolen when passions and politics are this heated, real, lasting damage can be done to the system. I am not saying that this actually has happened anywhere this year, but we need to be sure that it did not happen.
Looking to the future, we need to fix the system, regardless of how long it is before those changes prove their worth.
Votes tallied for governor, but what's next is unclear
Washington Governor's Race May Not Be Over
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)