Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, November 10, 2009
Election And Another Thing About the Ballot Counting
Posted by Eli Sanders on Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM
A modest proposal: Buy more machines to count the mail-in ballots, hire more elections office workers to feed the machines, and get rid of this annoying phenomenon by which we are all sitting around well after election day waiting for ballots that arrived well before election day to be counted.
No need to make that mail-in deadline earlier.
Just speed up the counting before and after the deadline.
If we did that, then on election night we'd have a good, solid snapshot of where the early and on-time voters fell. After that, the secondary drama—because, really, a lot of this complaining is about mail-in balloting interfering with the media's old dramatic narrative schedule—can be in the (hopefully brief) counting of the late arrivals.
1
OR...how about everyone not get their bloomers in such a bunch, and wait for the results to come in as they do, instead of throwing more money at the problem to "count faster". It's not like the mayor is sworn in the next day or even the next week; the count is over when it's over, and everyone can just chill until then.
2
I'm with Banna. They could buy a million machines and they couldn't count the ballots that haven't arrived yet any faster. Most of the ones that took so long were still at the post office. And Connelly's plan to "solve" that "problem" is even worse than yours.
3
@1 and 2: This year, well after election day, there were still a huge number of uncounted early-arriving ballots. That's the problem I'm talking about solving.
4
Or, alternately, go back to the superior, previous method of voting at the polling places, like normal American citizens. Mail-in ballots are for shut ins and invalids.
5
How about we get rid of the fricking poll tax (stamps) instead? I had to give 3 friends (McGinn voters) stamps to get them to vote. It's a major hassle for poor people to get to a post office during working hours or to buy a $15 book of stamps in order to vote, or to get to one of the 5 or whatever dropoff points if they don't live or work nearby.
People are smart enough to know their one vote doesn't make a difference so they won't take money and time to pay the poll tax. As a group, though, eliminating the poll tax would probably swing election results 5+ points in a progressive direction, especially since poor people tend to be minorities and immigrants.
Eliminating the poll tax should be our #1 election reform priority. Nothing else comes close.
People are smart enough to know their one vote doesn't make a difference so they won't take money and time to pay the poll tax. As a group, though, eliminating the poll tax would probably swing election results 5+ points in a progressive direction, especially since poor people tend to be minorities and immigrants.
Eliminating the poll tax should be our #1 election reform priority. Nothing else comes close.
6
@3, so? What's the rush. I mean yeah ideally it would be nice to know sooner, but its not that big of a deal. It wasn't even a week and in a really close race speeding up the counting will only get to the recounting and fighting sooner.
Its also not like the County is rolling in money right now. How about we keep the public health clinics staffed, restore the lost bus service, and increase mental health funding before we spend a couple million on making sure we know the winner right away.
This is not a big deal. At all.
Its also not like the County is rolling in money right now. How about we keep the public health clinics staffed, restore the lost bus service, and increase mental health funding before we spend a couple million on making sure we know the winner right away.
This is not a big deal. At all.
8
Why do we have to know on election day? There isn't even an "election day" anymore, only a due date for ballot postmark/delivery.
Whatever that due date is, they should just wait until ALL the ballots are counted before they release ANY results. They would hopefully have a set date for that announcement, giving themselves plenty of time to CAREFULLY count all ballots and not do a rush job. Campaigns would schedule their parties then, NOT on the ballot due date (seriously, why?).
No drama, problem solved. The only potential problem would be leaks of the interim results, but how is that any worse than the "yay mcginn is ahead, oh no mallahan is catching up, no wait mcginn is far ahead now" bs?
And if you really need to know the results on the first Tuesday in November, then yes, move up the ballot deadline date.
Whatever that due date is, they should just wait until ALL the ballots are counted before they release ANY results. They would hopefully have a set date for that announcement, giving themselves plenty of time to CAREFULLY count all ballots and not do a rush job. Campaigns would schedule their parties then, NOT on the ballot due date (seriously, why?).
No drama, problem solved. The only potential problem would be leaks of the interim results, but how is that any worse than the "yay mcginn is ahead, oh no mallahan is catching up, no wait mcginn is far ahead now" bs?
And if you really need to know the results on the first Tuesday in November, then yes, move up the ballot deadline date.
9
I'm with Banna too.
Seriously, we didn't even use to seat Presidents, Congress, and even State Legislatures until many months after the election because that process took months.
And, still does.
Seriously, we didn't even use to seat Presidents, Congress, and even State Legislatures until many months after the election because that process took months.
And, still does.
10
Sorry, Eli. The only people who really care about snappy election results are those in the media who have just spent that last six months speculating about who will win and just can't wait any longer.
Election Day is a big anticlimax for you, because nothing the candidates do or say will change the outcome, and without results, you've got nothing to talk about.
Election Day is a big anticlimax for you, because nothing the candidates do or say will change the outcome, and without results, you've got nothing to talk about.
11
"The only people who really care about snappy election results are those in the media who have just spent that last six months speculating about who will win and just can't wait any longer."
That's just not true, however, I'd rather have complete and certified results rather than "with 50% of ballots counted, McGinn leads by 0.5%". I could do without the day-by-day results and endless speculation about how late voters swing McGinn and Mallahan needs 52% of remaining votes to win and other such bullshit.
The Stranger is just as guilty of that as everyone else, if not more so.
That's just not true, however, I'd rather have complete and certified results rather than "with 50% of ballots counted, McGinn leads by 0.5%". I could do without the day-by-day results and endless speculation about how late voters swing McGinn and Mallahan needs 52% of remaining votes to win and other such bullshit.
The Stranger is just as guilty of that as everyone else, if not more so.
12
Don't hire elections workers, ask established volunteer organizations to pitch in. Volunteer firefighter associations, firefighter or police officer unions, PBS phone-bankers, or many others.
The only mandatory requirement is that no one organization can provide volunteers more often than once every five years.
The only mandatory requirement is that no one organization can provide volunteers more often than once every five years.
13
Allow ballots to be processed and counted as they arrive -- current state law prevents opening ballots until election day. This is a simple way to have results faster and keep the costs down. Just change the law.
You would need intense security to prevent early results from being released and influencing late voters, but that should be feasible. Then come election night you could have the the majority of the vote counted and only have to wait a couple of days for the stragglers to trickle in. You'd know the winners immediately with the exception of particularly close races.
You would need intense security to prevent early results from being released and influencing late voters, but that should be feasible. Then come election night you could have the the majority of the vote counted and only have to wait a couple of days for the stragglers to trickle in. You'd know the winners immediately with the exception of particularly close races.
14
Despite some incompetency over there, I don't think the Elections office is unaware of that. I think you miss a larger point behind this, Eli...
It costs $$$ to hire more election workers, have them work longer hours, provide more supervised drop boxes, provide postage-paid envelopes, etc.
Considering that nearly half of all registered voters couldn't be bothered to open an envelope mailed directly to them, and that means MORE THAN half of the population doesn't vote, why would they support spending more tax dollars on something they apparently don't think is an important function of government?
It costs $$$ to hire more election workers, have them work longer hours, provide more supervised drop boxes, provide postage-paid envelopes, etc.
Considering that nearly half of all registered voters couldn't be bothered to open an envelope mailed directly to them, and that means MORE THAN half of the population doesn't vote, why would they support spending more tax dollars on something they apparently don't think is an important function of government?
15
actually why shouldn't early results influence later voters?
just imagine..all us political hacks would actually have to start hitting on people who are registered but don't vote and come up with reasons for them to vote.
a nice civic dynamic.
just imagine..all us political hacks would actually have to start hitting on people who are registered but don't vote and come up with reasons for them to vote.
a nice civic dynamic.
16
#12: Totally. Ask the firefighter's union (the same one that donated $100,000 to Mallahan's campaign and were fined for breaking the law by not reporting it) to count the votes. Good plan. I'm sure they'll be happy.
17
@11 -
Maybe I shouldn't have said nobody cares. What I should have said is nobody other than the media is affected in any concrete way.
One benefit of the trickling in of election returns is the strategic data it gives campaigns. For example, much was made of McGinn's last-second GOTV push, and based on his "late voter" performance, it appears to have paid off.
Maybe I shouldn't have said nobody cares. What I should have said is nobody other than the media is affected in any concrete way.
One benefit of the trickling in of election returns is the strategic data it gives campaigns. For example, much was made of McGinn's last-second GOTV push, and based on his "late voter" performance, it appears to have paid off.
18
@17 McGinn's campaign says they delivered around 200 ballots to the post office after 8pm on Nov. 3rd. Let's assume that a higher proportion (or even all) of those were votes for McGinn, that quantity wasn't material to his eventual 5000 vote lead.
21
How about we change our poll tax to a progressive system? The $8.80 cost of a book of stamps prevents most poor people in our county from voting, so let's turn it into a system makes sense for everyone. Have the county pay the stamp poll tax and charge a progressive 1% poll tax for all incomes above the $45,000 mean cost of living in Seattle.
You make under $45,000? $0 poll tax.
You make $50,000? $50 poll tax per election.
You make $100,000? $550 poll tax per election.
You make $1,000,000? $9,550 poll tax per election.
This will allow everyone to vote, instead of the current regressive poll tax that prevents people who make equal to or less than their cost of living from voting. Any additional revenue can be used to buy more vote counting machines and whatnot.
You make under $45,000? $0 poll tax.
You make $50,000? $50 poll tax per election.
You make $100,000? $550 poll tax per election.
You make $1,000,000? $9,550 poll tax per election.
This will allow everyone to vote, instead of the current regressive poll tax that prevents people who make equal to or less than their cost of living from voting. Any additional revenue can be used to buy more vote counting machines and whatnot.
22
@21 - While I mostly agree with you about the regressive "poll tax", I don't understand your proposed tax structure.
There were about 1.8 million ballots turned in statewide (about a 50% turnout). Having the state pay the postage on that would be less than $800K (and I'm sure the state could negotiate a better bulk rate with the USPS). What you suggest would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars. That's a lot of counting machines and whatnot.
There were about 1.8 million ballots turned in statewide (about a 50% turnout). Having the state pay the postage on that would be less than $800K (and I'm sure the state could negotiate a better bulk rate with the USPS). What you suggest would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars. That's a lot of counting machines and whatnot.
23
The state should pay postage. You know, with all that money they saved on not delivering poll booths to every grade school and church in every precinct (because those delivery people get paid).
And the results shouldn't be announced until they are ready. It takes a few weeks to count, and then they go through certification. Two weeks should be enough time for the first count. This puts a delay between election day and the result, but still provides a set date for the politicians to schedule their parties and the news talking heads to have some drama.
And the results shouldn't be announced until they are ready. It takes a few weeks to count, and then they go through certification. Two weeks should be enough time for the first count. This puts a delay between election day and the result, but still provides a set date for the politicians to schedule their parties and the news talking heads to have some drama.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (23) RSS