You implied it by mentioning it in response to a discussion about Washington, and Republicans in Washington. Diebold electronic voting systems have nothing at all to do with anything I have been talking about. You decided to change the subject of voting in Washington state to some larger pet peeve about something marginally related.
Here's the fact that you cannot seem to accept: He has been feted as a guest at President Bush's Texas ranch, joining a cadre of "Pioneers and Rangers" who have pledged to raise more than $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign. Most memorably, O'Dell last fall penned a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."
I can't accept it? I'm the one who quoted it, after you misrepresented what was said!
Ummm, "Diebold" is a company. A company cannot say anything because it is not a person. The people who own and run the company can make statements.
Companies have official statements made on its behalf by its officers. Those are said to be statements made by the company. That is what is meant when one says a company says something, as you did. This was not one of those statements, as it was not said on behalf of the company.
Because I gave a clear example of Sam Reed blocking attempts to fix problems.
You're lying. You gave a clear example of one person saying that Reed was blocking attempts to fix an alleged problem.
Further, the initial statement was that Republicans do not trying to fix voting problems. Even if it were true that Reed was blocking attempts to fix voting problems in one case, that does not show that he is not trying to fix other voting problems.
So you have one example that does not show what you say, and cannot prove what you hope. Yay for you.
Hey, you might want to look up the company "Diebold" on this website called "slashdot.org".
Diebold electronic voting machines are not used in WA. Sequoia systems are used.
Paperless audit trails.
What about it? In WA, the Republicans have pushed for paper audit trails more than the Democrats.
Talking about delivering the election for the Republicans.
You're lying.
First, Diebold never said anything like that. The owner of Diebold said something like it, which is a very different thing.
Second, what he said was very different from what you report. He said he would help deliver "[Ohio's] electoral votes" to "the President." It was not the whole election but specific votes, and it was not Republicans in general but the President.
Third, any reasonable person knows the context he said it in was about campaigning, fund-raising, and other perfectly legal activity. He was foolish to say what he did, being in the position he was in, but only because liars like you and gullible people you talk to might believe he meant something nefarious.
The Republicans are NOT pushing for better methods of voting.
To quote you at you: Just because you don't like the FACTS does not mean that they aren't FACTS. Sam Reed has been advocating changes in the primary, changes to absentee voting, changes to voting machines, all to improve the voting process. There are others, but when I already gave an example you cannot refute and yet simply deny exists, why should I bother coming up with others?
Maybe you'd like to look at this story
What about it? Stephenson alleged the voting systems were bad, and he lost. How does this make my "hero" (he is no such thing) "dirty" (the court found the systems were just fine)?
Oh right: when it is against a Republican, mere allegation is all that you require. Silly me for even questioning it. If someone files a lawsuit against a Republican, that Republican is necessarily guilty. Duh.
And, this has nothing to do with electronic voting machines. These are optical scan systems. All that stuff about "Diebold" on "slashdot.org" had nothing to do with these systems. But you probably knew that.
As if following existing laws to their conclusion is remotely similar to passing NEW laws for your convenience
Since the law provides for the legislature having the ability to fix the problem of a broken election by nullifying it, yes, it is very similar. It's a much more drastic step, one that should not be taken lightly, and one I am not currently in favor of taking, but the Democrats were saying all along that we should follow the legal process to its conclusion and no one should concede. Well, then they have no grounds to demand Rossi's concession.
Can you not read? Those "two things [that are] still... true" were quite clearly enumerated: there are still questions remaining, and legal avenues to pursue.
Maybe you are trying to ask what questions are remaining? There's a large list of them, that the Republicans submitted to King County, and they are (I hope) trying to answer.
They asked for, and got their recounts as allowed by law.
Yes, and now they are demanding that Rossi give up his options as allowed by law, and concede.
What's predictable are your reflexive, baseless cries of hypocracy (sic).
How is it NOT hypocrisy to have one argument, then to argue against that argument when your position changes and that argument would only hurt you?
She followed existing law. He wants to pass a new law to allow for a new election so he might win a second time.... which existing law allows for. Pull your head out.
I think you are not following the context. I was responding to a comment that said that people voted for governor along party lines, which is obviously -- given the larger support Democrats get in most statewide elections -- not the case.
you can't think of compelling grounds why the legislature should step in, but if they do, they must have a good reason.
No, there's nothing circular about it. You're misunderstanding, perhaps. I am saying that at this stage I can see no justification for it, and predicting that they won't do it unless such justification is presented.
I think it might very well be that people said that Gregoire should concedede because they were sick of the whole thing.
It's largely because they have no faith that a second recount is more accurate than the first, and they were willing to live with the results, rather than have the parties see who is best at "finding" votes.
I've not seen any polls about Rossi conceding.
it is clear that the system is broken when the results are so close
It's not a close vote that shows the system is broken, it's using a less accurate counting method to reverse the result that shows the system is broken.
If Rossi were to get his revote and win (which remains to be seen), do you think many people would see (then) Governor Rossi as not legitimate?
I think Rossi would be seen with more legitimacy then than Gregoire would now, for two reasons. First, because he won the recount with the more accurate counting method. Second, because in the revote, people would likely have more confidence than they do now that the winner is the winner (unless this whole thing happens again!).
why don't you look at why the Republicans haven't been advocating improvements in the voting process?
Why do you ask me to look into why something that IS happening is NOT happening? Sam Reed -- a Republican -- has spent years advocating improving the voting process (and working to do it), and many other Republicans during this whole affair have advocated various improvements.
If the results of the hand recount overturn the election the state is obligated to pay for it, not because Gregiore (hateful shrew that she is) compels them, but because the law does.
She (well, her party, with her) compelled the recount. This is not rocket science.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I supported their right to do it, and didn't complain about their decision. But they are the ones who made the decision which then forced the state to pay out an extra $1m or so. It's a fact.
It's the proper result of a proper election, afterall.
Exactly. And if we had a new election because of a special law or a contest, that would also be the proper result of a proper election.
If you can't sign the freaking affidavit on your absentee ballot, you didn't submit a vote, you mailed the county your garbage.
Yes, I thought this was you again. And you're still lying. Many of the ballots discarded by the counties that the Republicans were trying to get included had been signed, but the signatures simply didn't match, according to the counties.
We get it, you hate Republicans. You don't need to say any more than that.
many of the smaller counties did, as part of their recounts, exactly what the republicans sued to keep king county from doing
And many others did not. So what?
if their opponent leads them by at least 42 votes, unless their opponent is a democrat, even if that person is leading them by a margin which is not only 3 times greater, but one which stataticians would have more confidence in
There is no statistical reason to have more confidence in the second recount. Stop making things up.
Gregiore has always said the system should run it's course.
You're a liar. Gregoire said Rossi should concede.
And on the absentee ballots.... King county sent them out in plenty of time.
The issue with the absentee ballots is with overseas voters, many of whom did not get them in time. This is not a county issue, it's a state issue.
I won't read anymore of your post. You're obviously uninterested in the truth, and only interested in making the Republicans look bad. Are you Paul Berendt?
Look. The Republicans -- reasonably -- asked for a list of all the voters. The county gave them a preliminary list that did not include all the voters, because they had some more work to do to get the complete list.
They could have held off until the complete list was finished, but then they would get accused of stalling.
As I noted in another comment, this is conflation. Such a law as being requested would not be a change in how this election was held, but a law that found this election was not properly conducted, nullifying the whole thing.
It's a different kind of thing (and, incidentally, a far more dangerous thing), and while I am no expert in WA state law, I can find nothing that forbids this to the legislature. Indeed, there is a long legal tradition predating this nation whereby a legislature can rule on whether or not its own laws were followed properly, and make new laws accordingly.
Why don't you comment on the merits of the statement itself instead of where it came from?
Why do you ask why I didn't comment on the merits of the statement itself, when I clearly did so?
I-872 was modeled on the statements of the Supreme Court that they themselves said would be legal.
The SCOTUS did NOT say that it would be legal. Now you're just making things up. It was a vague discussion of a general system, and did not declare anything in particular legal.
Where's your proof? How will this hurt third parties?
Right now, every third party that can get enough signatures, gets in the election. Under I-872, probably none of them will be in the election.
What I want to know is how you even have to ASK how this hurts third parties.
This law makes parties less relevant
Which necessarily means that the voice of the people is less relevant, since that is what the parties are: groups of people who band together for a collective purpose.
especially the big two standing in the way of the third parties.
In no way does this help third parties. You keep saying that, but it is a lie, and you provide no basis for the lie. You keep asserting it, with no support for the outlandish sentiment.
And whereas previously, all third parties could get in the general election, few third party candidates would actually get elected because no one wanted to throw their vote away.
Yes, I know you said that people would be more willing to vote for a third party candidate in the primary, but there's no logical reason to believe that nonsense. And even if people were so inclined to do so in greater numbers, there's no way they would reach the top two unless they were already well known (like a Nader), in which case they don't need the help, or there's no one else running, in which case they have no greater chance in the general anyway.
Now since the primary decides which two candidates go to the election rather than the final winner, more people will vote for the candidate they like instead of along party lines.
No, they won't.
And again I note that every single third party in the state, and independent Ralph Nader, opposed I-872. If you must continue to insist I-872 helps third parties, then convince them.
No, the votes that mattered were the votes for Gregoire or Rossi. The 500 or so votes that went to Ron Simms (sic) didn't matter in the final count, except that they didn't go to Gregoire or Rossi.
Every vote matters, every vote counts. The question is, for what? Did those votes end up figuring in the final decision? No, but neither did yours or mine. If I had not voted, Rossi still would have lost; had you not, Gregoire still would have won. You're spouting nonsense.
The reason you chose a party on the ballot was that you were a member of that party.
You couldn't be more wrong. The system we just used did not separate people out by party. There was no registration by party, nor was voting in a party's primary a declaration of membership in that party. It was at most a declaration that you identify in some loose way with that party. This was made quite clear by the Secretary of State in the time leading up to the primary, but the Grange -- and you, apparently -- chose to ignore this fact.
Indeed, my primary voter guide is right here. It says to participate you have to "pick a party," that it is a "private choice," and that "absolutely no record will be kept of your party choice." It says the purpose is that parties have a right to know that voters picking their candidate "have some association with the beliefs of the party." This is not about membership, registration, or declaration. You're simply wrong.
Perhaps you are not involved much with politics in WA, but the same thing happens in the caucuses: membership in the party is not required. You only declare t
I do think their is a much higher burden for establishing new law, rather than following laws already established.
Well, yes, the obvious question the legislature must answer is if there is sufficient cause for a new election, why not arrive there through a contest procedure? And the obvious answer is because that is a long and arduous process, and expedience, while not of the utmost importance, is still important. It's not naive to mention these factors, though they should not be the primary ones.
I am leaning toward being in favor of a legislated recount without a contest only if there is significant evidence of problems such that a revote is the only reasonable remedy to the problem, and there's no need to go to the courts. But then the question is what constitutes "significant evidence of problems."
It is just so much more difficult for the Republicans to switch sides this time around.
It's always easier to be on the side that is winning...
Why is this a problem? Isn't voting for the person what we should be doing in the first place?
The whole point is who gets to determine who is on the general election ballot.
A party is a group of people of similar interests who get together and sign their names in numbers enough to get a candidate they decide on to be in the general election. That is the main purpose of a party.
It's the right of the people to form groups to do this, to get candidates in the election. A party is a formalized way to accomplish that goal.
But I-872 takes away that right of the people (either in or out of the party process), by saying that you must pass some primary system first.
I would ask if I have to spell it out for you, but it has already been spelled out. But one more time:
The Democrats said every vote should count; then they said (a week before certification, so there was still time) that it was too late to include additional votes.
The Democrats said even if certification has happened, that you should correct errors (as in the first count, when there was some machine error in one county which went in Rossi's favor); then they said you can't change anything once votes have been certified.
The Democrats said that it is irresponsible to concede as long as there are still questions remaining and legal avenues to pursue; then they said Rossi should concede despite those two things still being true.
The list goes on, but if you can't see those big ones, well, then you're a lost cause.
Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee.
When you're quoting someone else verbatim, you should reference it. Plagiarism is bad. Maybe you didn't do so because if people knew you were quoting The Grange, they would be less likely to believe it? And well they should. This was one possible proposition by the court, and not an idea under strict scrutiny, and once under scrutiny, would fall for exactly the same reasons as the others.
I knew exactly what I was voting for when I voted for this.
No, you did not. You think it will help third parties, which it in no way does, in the least bit.
This law gives more choice to the people. I-872 provides incentive for people to cast ballots for the person they want most in the election, regardless of party affiliation.
It provides no such incentive. It provides *opportunity,* but not incentive. And whereas previously, all third parties could get in the general election, now -- as a general rule, which will rarely if ever be broken -- none will.
Every vote is counted, but not every vote counts, which is what I meant.
And you are still wrong.
In this governor's election, the only votes that mattered were votes for either Rossi or Gregoire.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. Every vote matters just as much as every other.
The libertarian votes didn't count. The write in votes for Ron Sims didn't count.
Yes, they did. But don't let me stop you from discrediting yourself, and in the process, I-872.
Under I-872, you will never have to declare party or register by party in order to vote in the primary.
So? You never had to in any other election either, including the most recent primary and general election.
You may be talking about the fact that you could only choose one party's primary to vote in, but that in no way constituted registering or declaring a party. This was quite explicit in the law.
No political party is guaranteed a spot on the general election ballot.
Right, which means that you are taking away the right of people to put candidates on the ballot, which is the greatest crime of the whole system. Right now, if I get enough signatures, I can get my candidate -- whoever he is -- in the election. This right of the people is being stolen by I-872.
Parties will have to recruit candidates with broad public support and run campaigns that appeal to all the voters.
No, sorry. The only time a Democrat and a Republican won't get on the ballot is when there's a lot more voters who identify with one party over the other and there's two strong candidates of that party, or when there's two strong candidates in both parties (so each would get around 1/4 of the votes).
And again, you are implictly admitting that third parties are going to be shut out, where you previously claimed it would be helping them.
I-872 gives voters more choices in the primary and better choices in the general election.
This is the most clear bullshit the grange spouts. The general election is the real election. It's the one most people participate in, and it's the one that counts in the end. And the Grange tells us that more choice in an election is better. So why is *reducing* choice in the election that really matters a good thing?
There's no reasonable answer to that question, so don't bother trying.:-)
There is no current state law that provides for a (very costly) new election.
You're wrong. And it's odd that you could be so wrong, so obviously. This is one of the possible outcomes of the election contest procedure.
My biggest gripe is actually in the connotation of Gregoire "forcing" the state to spend money on a recount.
Gripe all you want, I couldn't care less.
If anything "forced" the state to expend money, it was current election law.
The real point is that the state paid for it because the state pays for it when it is the business of the people, when it is the state that is responsible for what is going on, which is why the Democrats would have ended up paying if the result were not changed. If this election is found to be too flawed to be trusted, and a new election is ordered, that exact same principle would apply.
This being said, your attempt to defend many time more to be spent on a new election is a difficult one to support: it would require brand new law for an election which has already happened.
So? I've said many times we should not change the laws governing a particular election, but to apply such a statement to this case is conflation. It's a different thing. It is not changing the laws governing the election, it is saying that the election was fatally flawed and its result cannot be trusted.
I am not opposed to such laws, though I think they should not be taken lightly, and -- contrary to what you imply -- I am far from convinced that such a law should be passed. But it is a valid legal avenue, without question.
We had an election under the laws as they stand. We followed the law and ended up with a result.
Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.
On what grounds could the leg possibly step in or Rossi contest the election?
I can't speak to the legislature stepping in, but rest assured, if it happened, it would be on reasonable legal grounds.
As to the contest: that is perfectly obvious. Hell, we've seen more than 129 examples of military people who didn't get their absentee ballots in time, and there are other forms of problems too, such as the counties who did not re-consider ballots with signature problems as King County did, which means their votes were not treated equally.
Legally he might contest or beg for a mulligan to be granted, but pragmatically you have to agree he should use this loss as a jumping off point for his next campaign.
If he had not won the first count and first recount, I would agree. But as he did, no, I don't agree at all with this. In every poll I've seen, the majority of people said Gregoire should concede, by a good margin, and even now, a significant number are saying they don't see Gregoire as legitimate (might even be a majority).
Let's be clear: it is 3,500 more votes than voters on an incomplete and preliminary list. That's not (yet) interesting, though it does require the county to finish the job with a more complete list. It is not in the least bit a compelling argument for fraud. It's not an argument for anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say Diebold voting machines were used.
You implied it by mentioning it in response to a discussion about Washington, and Republicans in Washington. Diebold electronic voting systems have nothing at all to do with anything I have been talking about. You decided to change the subject of voting in Washington state to some larger pet peeve about something marginally related.
Here's the fact that you cannot seem to accept: He has been feted as a guest at President Bush's Texas ranch, joining a cadre of "Pioneers and Rangers" who have pledged to raise more than $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign. Most memorably, O'Dell last fall penned a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."
I can't accept it? I'm the one who quoted it, after you misrepresented what was said!
Ummm, "Diebold" is a company. A company cannot say anything because it is not a person. The people who own and run the company can make statements.
Companies have official statements made on its behalf by its officers. Those are said to be statements made by the company. That is what is meant when one says a company says something, as you did. This was not one of those statements, as it was not said on behalf of the company.
Because I gave a clear example of Sam Reed blocking attempts to fix problems.
You're lying. You gave a clear example of one person saying that Reed was blocking attempts to fix an alleged problem.
Further, the initial statement was that Republicans do not trying to fix voting problems. Even if it were true that Reed was blocking attempts to fix voting problems in one case, that does not show that he is not trying to fix other voting problems.
So you have one example that does not show what you say, and cannot prove what you hope. Yay for you.
Hey, you might want to look up the company "Diebold" on this website called "slashdot.org".
Diebold electronic voting machines are not used in WA. Sequoia systems are used.
Paperless audit trails.
What about it? In WA, the Republicans have pushed for paper audit trails more than the Democrats.
Talking about delivering the election for the Republicans.
You're lying.
First, Diebold never said anything like that. The owner of Diebold said something like it, which is a very different thing.
Second, what he said was very different from what you report. He said he would help deliver "[Ohio's] electoral votes" to "the President." It was not the whole election but specific votes, and it was not Republicans in general but the President.
Third, any reasonable person knows the context he said it in was about campaigning, fund-raising, and other perfectly legal activity. He was foolish to say what he did, being in the position he was in, but only because liars like you and gullible people you talk to might believe he meant something nefarious.
The Republicans are NOT pushing for better methods of voting.
To quote you at you: Just because you don't like the FACTS does not mean that they aren't FACTS. Sam Reed has been advocating changes in the primary, changes to absentee voting, changes to voting machines, all to improve the voting process. There are others, but when I already gave an example you cannot refute and yet simply deny exists, why should I bother coming up with others?
Maybe you'd like to look at this story
What about it? Stephenson alleged the voting systems were bad, and he lost. How does this make my "hero" (he is no such thing) "dirty" (the court found the systems were just fine)?
Oh right: when it is against a Republican, mere allegation is all that you require. Silly me for even questioning it. If someone files a lawsuit against a Republican, that Republican is necessarily guilty. Duh.
And, this has nothing to do with electronic voting machines. These are optical scan systems. All that stuff about "Diebold" on "slashdot.org" had nothing to do with these systems. But you probably knew that.
As if following existing laws to their conclusion is remotely similar to passing NEW laws for your convenience
Since the law provides for the legislature having the ability to fix the problem of a broken election by nullifying it, yes, it is very similar. It's a much more drastic step, one that should not be taken lightly, and one I am not currently in favor of taking, but the Democrats were saying all along that we should follow the legal process to its conclusion and no one should concede. Well, then they have no grounds to demand Rossi's concession.
What's true about it?
... true" were quite clearly enumerated: there are still questions remaining, and legal avenues to pursue.
Can you not read? Those "two things [that are] still
Maybe you are trying to ask what questions are remaining? There's a large list of them, that the Republicans submitted to King County, and they are (I hope) trying to answer.
They asked for, and got their recounts as allowed by law.
... which existing law allows for. Pull your head out.
Yes, and now they are demanding that Rossi give up his options as allowed by law, and concede.
What's predictable are your reflexive, baseless cries of hypocracy (sic).
How is it NOT hypocrisy to have one argument, then to argue against that argument when your position changes and that argument would only hurt you?
She followed existing law. He wants to pass a new law to allow for a new election so he might win a second time.
I think you are not following the context. I was responding to a comment that said that people voted for governor along party lines, which is obviously -- given the larger support Democrats get in most statewide elections -- not the case.
you can't think of compelling grounds why the legislature should step in, but if they do, they must have a good reason.
No, there's nothing circular about it. You're misunderstanding, perhaps. I am saying that at this stage I can see no justification for it, and predicting that they won't do it unless such justification is presented.
I think it might very well be that people said that Gregoire should concedede because they were sick of the whole thing.
It's largely because they have no faith that a second recount is more accurate than the first, and they were willing to live with the results, rather than have the parties see who is best at "finding" votes.
I've not seen any polls about Rossi conceding.
it is clear that the system is broken when the results are so close
It's not a close vote that shows the system is broken, it's using a less accurate counting method to reverse the result that shows the system is broken.
If Rossi were to get his revote and win (which remains to be seen), do you think many people would see (then) Governor Rossi as not legitimate?
I think Rossi would be seen with more legitimacy then than Gregoire would now, for two reasons. First, because he won the recount with the more accurate counting method. Second, because in the revote, people would likely have more confidence than they do now that the winner is the winner (unless this whole thing happens again!).
I do not agree with undemocratic voting systems, no.
why don't you look at why the Republicans haven't been advocating improvements in the voting process?
Why do you ask me to look into why something that IS happening is NOT happening? Sam Reed -- a Republican -- has spent years advocating improving the voting process (and working to do it), and many other Republicans during this whole affair have advocated various improvements.
Stop making stuff up.
If the results of the hand recount overturn the election the state is obligated to pay for it, not because Gregiore (hateful shrew that she is) compels them, but because the law does.
She (well, her party, with her) compelled the recount. This is not rocket science.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I supported their right to do it, and didn't complain about their decision. But they are the ones who made the decision which then forced the state to pay out an extra $1m or so. It's a fact.
It's the proper result of a proper election, afterall.
Exactly. And if we had a new election because of a special law or a contest, that would also be the proper result of a proper election.
If you can't sign the freaking affidavit on your absentee ballot, you didn't submit a vote, you mailed the county your garbage.
Yes, I thought this was you again. And you're still lying. Many of the ballots discarded by the counties that the Republicans were trying to get included had been signed, but the signatures simply didn't match, according to the counties.
We get it, you hate Republicans. You don't need to say any more than that.
many of the smaller counties did, as part of their recounts, exactly what the republicans sued to keep king county from doing
And many others did not. So what?
if their opponent leads them by at least 42 votes, unless their opponent is a democrat, even if that person is leading them by a margin which is not only 3 times greater, but one which stataticians would have more confidence in
There is no statistical reason to have more confidence in the second recount. Stop making things up.
Gregiore has always said the system should run it's course.
You're a liar. Gregoire said Rossi should concede.
And on the absentee ballots.... King county sent them out in plenty of time.
The issue with the absentee ballots is with overseas voters, many of whom did not get them in time. This is not a county issue, it's a state issue.
I won't read anymore of your post. You're obviously uninterested in the truth, and only interested in making the Republicans look bad. Are you Paul Berendt?
Yes.
And for the third time, this is not an ex post facto law.
You can disagree with me on that point, but merely restating your assertion that it is doesn't interest me.
It certainly is evidence of fraud.
No, it is not.
But it's rare that lists of registered voters are incomplete.
It is not a list of registered voters, it is a list of people who actually voted.
You don't even know what this list is that you're talking about!
Look. The Republicans -- reasonably -- asked for a list of all the voters. The county gave them a preliminary list that did not include all the voters, because they had some more work to do to get the complete list.
They could have held off until the complete list was finished, but then they would get accused of stalling.
Chill.
As I noted in another comment, this is conflation. Such a law as being requested would not be a change in how this election was held, but a law that found this election was not properly conducted, nullifying the whole thing.
It's a different kind of thing (and, incidentally, a far more dangerous thing), and while I am no expert in WA state law, I can find nothing that forbids this to the legislature. Indeed, there is a long legal tradition predating this nation whereby a legislature can rule on whether or not its own laws were followed properly, and make new laws accordingly.
Why don't you comment on the merits of the statement itself instead of where it came from?
Why do you ask why I didn't comment on the merits of the statement itself, when I clearly did so?
I-872 was modeled on the statements of the Supreme Court that they themselves said would be legal.
The SCOTUS did NOT say that it would be legal. Now you're just making things up. It was a vague discussion of a general system, and did not declare anything in particular legal.
Where's your proof? How will this hurt third parties?
Right now, every third party that can get enough signatures, gets in the election. Under I-872, probably none of them will be in the election.
What I want to know is how you even have to ASK how this hurts third parties.
This law makes parties less relevant
Which necessarily means that the voice of the people is less relevant, since that is what the parties are: groups of people who band together for a collective purpose.
especially the big two standing in the way of the third parties.
In no way does this help third parties. You keep saying that, but it is a lie, and you provide no basis for the lie. You keep asserting it, with no support for the outlandish sentiment.
And whereas previously, all third parties could get in the general election, few third party candidates would actually get elected because no one wanted to throw their vote away.
Yes, I know you said that people would be more willing to vote for a third party candidate in the primary, but there's no logical reason to believe that nonsense. And even if people were so inclined to do so in greater numbers, there's no way they would reach the top two unless they were already well known (like a Nader), in which case they don't need the help, or there's no one else running, in which case they have no greater chance in the general anyway.
Now since the primary decides which two candidates go to the election rather than the final winner, more people will vote for the candidate they like instead of along party lines.
No, they won't.
And again I note that every single third party in the state, and independent Ralph Nader, opposed I-872. If you must continue to insist I-872 helps third parties, then convince them.
No, the votes that mattered were the votes for Gregoire or Rossi. The 500 or so votes that went to Ron Simms (sic) didn't matter in the final count, except that they didn't go to Gregoire or Rossi.
Every vote matters, every vote counts. The question is, for what? Did those votes end up figuring in the final decision? No, but neither did yours or mine. If I had not voted, Rossi still would have lost; had you not, Gregoire still would have won. You're spouting nonsense.
The reason you chose a party on the ballot was that you were a member of that party.
You couldn't be more wrong. The system we just used did not separate people out by party. There was no registration by party, nor was voting in a party's primary a declaration of membership in that party. It was at most a declaration that you identify in some loose way with that party. This was made quite clear by the Secretary of State in the time leading up to the primary, but the Grange -- and you, apparently -- chose to ignore this fact.
Indeed, my primary voter guide is right here. It says to participate you have to "pick a party," that it is a "private choice," and that "absolutely no record will be kept of your party choice." It says the purpose is that parties have a right to know that voters picking their candidate "have some association with the beliefs of the party." This is not about membership, registration, or declaration. You're simply wrong.
Perhaps you are not involved much with politics in WA, but the same thing happens in the caucuses: membership in the party is not required. You only declare t
How is it?
I do think their is a much higher burden for establishing new law, rather than following laws already established.
...
Well, yes, the obvious question the legislature must answer is if there is sufficient cause for a new election, why not arrive there through a contest procedure? And the obvious answer is because that is a long and arduous process, and expedience, while not of the utmost importance, is still important. It's not naive to mention these factors, though they should not be the primary ones.
I am leaning toward being in favor of a legislated recount without a contest only if there is significant evidence of problems such that a revote is the only reasonable remedy to the problem, and there's no need to go to the courts. But then the question is what constitutes "significant evidence of problems."
It is just so much more difficult for the Republicans to switch sides this time around.
It's always easier to be on the side that is winning
Why is this a problem? Isn't voting for the person what we should be doing in the first place?
The whole point is who gets to determine who is on the general election ballot.
A party is a group of people of similar interests who get together and sign their names in numbers enough to get a candidate they decide on to be in the general election. That is the main purpose of a party.
It's the right of the people to form groups to do this, to get candidates in the election. A party is a formalized way to accomplish that goal.
But I-872 takes away that right of the people (either in or out of the party process), by saying that you must pass some primary system first.
When did the Democrat's argument change?
When Gregoire took the lead last week.
I would ask if I have to spell it out for you, but it has already been spelled out. But one more time:
The Democrats said every vote should count; then they said (a week before certification, so there was still time) that it was too late to include additional votes.
The Democrats said even if certification has happened, that you should correct errors (as in the first count, when there was some machine error in one county which went in Rossi's favor); then they said you can't change anything once votes have been certified.
The Democrats said that it is irresponsible to concede as long as there are still questions remaining and legal avenues to pursue; then they said Rossi should concede despite those two things still being true.
The list goes on, but if you can't see those big ones, well, then you're a lost cause.
Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee.
:-)
When you're quoting someone else verbatim, you should reference it. Plagiarism is bad. Maybe you didn't do so because if people knew you were quoting The Grange, they would be less likely to believe it? And well they should. This was one possible proposition by the court, and not an idea under strict scrutiny, and once under scrutiny, would fall for exactly the same reasons as the others.
I knew exactly what I was voting for when I voted for this.
No, you did not. You think it will help third parties, which it in no way does, in the least bit.
This law gives more choice to the people. I-872 provides incentive for people to cast ballots for the person they want most in the election, regardless of party affiliation.
It provides no such incentive. It provides *opportunity,* but not incentive. And whereas previously, all third parties could get in the general election, now -- as a general rule, which will rarely if ever be broken -- none will.
Every vote is counted, but not every vote counts, which is what I meant.
And you are still wrong.
In this governor's election, the only votes that mattered were votes for either Rossi or Gregoire.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. Every vote matters just as much as every other.
The libertarian votes didn't count. The write in votes for Ron Sims didn't count.
Yes, they did. But don't let me stop you from discrediting yourself, and in the process, I-872.
Under I-872, you will never have to declare party or register by party in order to vote in the primary.
So? You never had to in any other election either, including the most recent primary and general election.
You may be talking about the fact that you could only choose one party's primary to vote in, but that in no way constituted registering or declaring a party. This was quite explicit in the law.
No political party is guaranteed a spot on the general election ballot.
Right, which means that you are taking away the right of people to put candidates on the ballot, which is the greatest crime of the whole system. Right now, if I get enough signatures, I can get my candidate -- whoever he is -- in the election. This right of the people is being stolen by I-872.
Parties will have to recruit candidates with broad public support and run campaigns that appeal to all the voters.
No, sorry. The only time a Democrat and a Republican won't get on the ballot is when there's a lot more voters who identify with one party over the other and there's two strong candidates of that party, or when there's two strong candidates in both parties (so each would get around 1/4 of the votes).
And again, you are implictly admitting that third parties are going to be shut out, where you previously claimed it would be helping them.
I-872 gives voters more choices in the primary and better choices in the general election.
This is the most clear bullshit the grange spouts. The general election is the real election. It's the one most people participate in, and it's the one that counts in the end. And the Grange tells us that more choice in an election is better. So why is *reducing* choice in the election that really matters a good thing?
There's no reasonable answer to that question, so don't bother trying.
There is no current state law that provides for a (very costly) new election.
You're wrong. And it's odd that you could be so wrong, so obviously. This is one of the possible outcomes of the election contest procedure.
My biggest gripe is actually in the connotation of Gregoire "forcing" the state to spend money on a recount.
Gripe all you want, I couldn't care less.
If anything "forced" the state to expend money, it was current election law.
The real point is that the state paid for it because the state pays for it when it is the business of the people, when it is the state that is responsible for what is going on, which is why the Democrats would have ended up paying if the result were not changed. If this election is found to be too flawed to be trusted, and a new election is ordered, that exact same principle would apply.
This being said, your attempt to defend many time more to be spent on a new election is a difficult one to support: it would require brand new law for an election which has already happened.
So? I've said many times we should not change the laws governing a particular election, but to apply such a statement to this case is conflation. It's a different thing. It is not changing the laws governing the election, it is saying that the election was fatally flawed and its result cannot be trusted.
I am not opposed to such laws, though I think they should not be taken lightly, and -- contrary to what you imply -- I am far from convinced that such a law should be passed. But it is a valid legal avenue, without question.
We had an election under the laws as they stand. We followed the law and ended up with a result.
Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.
On what grounds could the leg possibly step in or Rossi contest the election?
I can't speak to the legislature stepping in, but rest assured, if it happened, it would be on reasonable legal grounds.
As to the contest: that is perfectly obvious. Hell, we've seen more than 129 examples of military people who didn't get their absentee ballots in time, and there are other forms of problems too, such as the counties who did not re-consider ballots with signature problems as King County did, which means their votes were not treated equally.
Legally he might contest or beg for a mulligan to be granted, but pragmatically you have to agree he should use this loss as a jumping off point for his next campaign.
If he had not won the first count and first recount, I would agree. But as he did, no, I don't agree at all with this. In every poll I've seen, the majority of people said Gregoire should concede, by a good margin, and even now, a significant number are saying they don't see Gregoire as legitimate (might even be a majority).
Let's be clear: it is 3,500 more votes than voters on an incomplete and preliminary list. That's not (yet) interesting, though it does require the county to finish the job with a more complete list. It is not in the least bit a compelling argument for fraud. It's not an argument for anything at all.