Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Seattle Times Wants To Change Our Election Rules... Gee, I Wonder Why?

Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Goldy is slapping around the Seattle Times and SeattlePI columnist Joel Connelly for their calls—made here and here—to change the deadline for mail-in ballots. Instead of being postmarked by election day, the Seattle Times and Connelly want ballots received by election day.

Gee, I wonder why the Seattle Times in particular would want to make this change? We knew by Friday night who won the mayor's race—yesterday's returns were a formality—so we only had to wait three days, and the eventual winner—Mike McGinn—was in the lead the entire time. On election night we knew who won the King County Exec race, we knew who are new city attorney was, we knew who won city council seats, we knew who won seats on the school board, we knew the results on R-71 and I-1033. This election was hardly the clusterfuck of cliffhangers that the Seattle Times would lead us to believe.

What's really going on? Maybe the Seattle Times just doesn't like the choices made by last-minute voters. Late voters tend to be younger and younger voters tend to be more progressive. That's why ballots received after last Tuesday have heavily favored Mike McGinn and Dow Constantine. The Seattle Times endorsed Joe Mallahan and Susan Hutchison.

Now it all makes sense.

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (31) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
mrbombit 1
Just one more element of the failing business model that is the newspaper. Both the PI's and Seattle Time's online coverage of the elections were sketchy. The SLOG keep me much more up to date, and had much better comment boards. The Times can go to hell, along with the other dead and rotting newspapers.
Posted by mrbombit on November 10, 2009 at 9:03 AM
hartiepie 2
You KNEW what was in the envelopes? Such clairvoyance! Quick to the casinos!!
Posted by hartiepie on November 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM
3
I would like to see some proof that later voters are younger and progressive. I not sure if I really believe this. Also, if you changed the mail in date, it would just move up the election. I do not see how that would have a big impact as people who vote late as they could still vote just before the deadline for the mail in. It seems as you are just looking for reasons to hate the papers.
Posted by bhoff on November 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM
DOUG. 4
Joel really shouldn't worry about reporting on the 2012 election. What's left of his brain will likely be guacamole by then.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on November 10, 2009 at 9:18 AM
5
I always hate when somebody tries to get away with more thinly veiling their agenda than I do.
Posted by gloomy gus on November 10, 2009 at 9:22 AM
elenchos 6
The Seattle Times is not that smart. They want to frustrate late voters because that's the dick move. That's all.
Posted by elenchos on November 10, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Jenny from the Block 7
Gov. Gregoire made a similar statement yesterday, so I'm not sure what you're getting at...
Posted by Jenny from the Block on November 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Catalina Vel-DuRay 8
How about making the ballots postage free?
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://post.thestranger.com/seattle/MyProfile?oid=1500457 on November 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Posted by Jenny from the Block on November 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 10
Their proposed plan is how things already work here. I can't say that it makes much of a difference one way or the other.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on November 10, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Fnarf 11
How could you even possibly make this change? You wouldn't know when the voting deadline is, because you couldn't be absolutely sure how fast the post office would process your ballot. Could you get away with dropping it in the mailbox the day before Election Day? Probably, but maybe not. So you'd better drop it in two days before. But even then, who knows for sure? So better drop it in three days before Election Day.

But a voting deadline of three days before Election Day is just so profoundly stupid, there are no words.

A lot of people don't decide until the very end. The candidates campaign up until the very end. Would the candidates stop campaigning three days before Election Day? No. But the calculus of how to spend one's campaign dollars would change, and become impossibly murkier.

Stupidest idea I've ever heard. Connelly, you're a stone cold moron.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on November 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM
12
They are jealous of you, Dan.
They wish they were the Seattle KingMakers.
Cause the Slog won this one for McGinn.
And Dow.
All by your lonesome self.
Everyone who looked at the Slog went out and voted as instructed.
Every hit equals a vote!

The Rooster crows,
the Sun comes up.
Soon the Rooster thinks he makes the Sun come up...
Posted by Silly Rooster on November 10, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Kris 13
@11, My sentiments exactly.
Posted by Kris on November 10, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Matt from Denver 14
@ 10, fortunately we have election drop boxes to use if you can't do it on time. I do that anyway because their fucking weird postage rates bug me.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 10, 2009 at 9:51 AM
passionate_jus 15
@3 Did you look at the day to day ballot count done by King County Elections?

The ballots that were counted Friday and later were all ballots received by the elections department on Tuesday and beyond. They increasingly broke in McGinn's favor, by ever increasing margins. And, due to polling done just before election day, McGinn's supporters were more likely to be younger and call themselves liberal.

So we can say that younger and more liberal/ progressive voters are more likely to vote later than older and more conservative voters.
Posted by passionate_jus on November 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM
16
This is a pretty simple issue, and "no" is the correct answer.

We all want to know our winners more quickly, sure, but when we chose to go to all-mail in voting, we lost that ability. The primary was moved into August so that we would have more time to pick amongst those who made it through that contest, and changing this date would have to push that back at least another week or two.

Of course, as was previously pointed out, the biggest issue is trusting of the USPS. Sometimes it takes them one day, sometimes two, sometimes three. It would make more sense to say that ballots must be received by election day, or postmarked by the Friday before the election. But then you run into all sorts of issues re: different deadlines for different people.

And yes, make the return envelopes postage pre-paid. Having to pay to vote, even if it is only $0.44 (or a bus ride or drive to your closest drop box) is close enough to a tax to make me uncomfortable.

What really needs to happen is that voters need to be more decisive in their choices, and we should have fewer instances of close races. Duh.
Posted by michaelp on November 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM
17
Don't they have to have some sort of deadline anyway? I mean the post office loses mail occasionally. What happens if 2 ballots come in 3 months late and change the vote?

Or maybe hypothetical bad cases make bad law.
Posted by daniel412342134 on November 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM
passionate_jus 18
@7

I think Governor Gregoire is making some serious mistakes lately.

By getting involved in the Seattle mayor's election (a contest between two Democrats) she is sure to piss off a decent sized segment of her own party's base.

She has also pissed off a certain segment of Seattle voters by ramming the tunnel down our throats even though the city will probably be on the hook for all cost overruns.

And now this -- going with the likes of the Seattle Times editorial board and the Republican Secretary of State.

I think she needs to cool it if she wants to even consider running for re-election.

As someone who has volunteered for her in the past, I know I'm not feeling the love these days.

I might vote for her again but I might not waste my time volunteering for her. And if enough people do as I do she loses.
Posted by passionate_jus on November 10, 2009 at 10:12 AM
19
So not only would our votes depend on the Postal Service delivering them, but on the Postal Service delivering them in a predictably-timely manner? It's bad enough that our ballots are treated with no more care than a bag of first-class mail is treated. Changing from traditional in-person polling to all-mail-in voting should have accounted for the cost of time-definite delivery with tracking.

The idea of going from what we have now, a process whereby votes are invalidated if some first-class mail gets lost, to one whereby votes are invalidated if some first-class mail is delayed, is ridiculous.
Posted by Phil M on November 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM
20
@18 -

I highly doubt that Gregoire will run for a third term. On the GOP side, I'm guessing Rob McKenna will be the nominee. On the Democrat side, I'm envisioning a primary between Aaron Reardon (Snohomish County Executive) and Jay Inslee.

But I don't see Gregoire on the ballot again. If Obama wins a second term, I see her going to DC.
Posted by michaelp on November 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM
passionate_jus 21
@17

The deadline is November 24th, when the canvassing board of each county has to certify the election.

Before that, no election is over.

Take the mayor's race. Legally, if by magic 5000 Mallahan votes are found, he becomes mayor. Concession speech or not. Concession speeches have nothing to do with the legal process.

Again, no race is over until the canvassing boards certify the election.
Posted by passionate_jus on November 10, 2009 at 10:18 AM
passionate_jus 22
This is a bad idea and completely unnecessary. As Goldy pointed out, in 2008 Multnomah County wasn't any faster than King County in counting ballots, even though in Oregon ballots have to be received at the elections department by 8PM on election day.
Posted by passionate_jus on November 10, 2009 at 10:22 AM
23
. @15, I still do not think that proves beyond a doubt that later voters are progressive or young. My comment was more in reference to general voting patters. The men running in the mayoral election were both Democrats and the election was taking place in Seattle so I feel like it might not show a norm. I think that a broader study would be needed to prove it.

Also, you point to the polls. But were these the same polls that showed McGinn behind before the election. To be truthful I no longer live in Seattle, but I did follow the election through Slog, which showed McGinn two points behind just before the election and all prior polls showed McGinn farther behind. I understand that in that last poll it was labeled a statistical dead heat and that one could argue that the poll correctly showed the outcome, but I could also see arguing that they did not properly voters feelings and therefore demographics.

I am not saying that there is not a correlation, I just felt like Dan Savage made the statement without backing it up. I find that people who are passionate about something, usually calling themselves either liberal or conservative typically act, and make sure to vote. I would venture to say that it might be normal for independents to vote late and that in the case of the Seattle election, independents broke toward McGinn.

Posted by bhoff on November 10, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Will in Seattle 24
"Help, I've fallen and my stakeholder position translates to ZERO votes in elections!"
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Will in Seattle 25
oh, and Cell Phones for the win!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM
26
Dan:
Why are you becoming Goldy's publicist? Add you first person references in your respective writings and the total reaches the four figures.
Posted by edmundburke on November 10, 2009 at 11:28 AM
27
More ballot drop boxes would probably speed things up a bit. And improve turnout.

Mixed feelings about this voting by mail business. But if we're going to do it, making the postmark date the election date is the only sensible way. That's when people have to turn in their ballots. What happens through the post office is not in the voter's control. And the voter shouldn't be held responsible.

Also, Dan's right.
Posted by slag on November 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM
28
They should stick to running papers. Their endorsement of Hutchison was absurd. It cost them
big time.
Posted by Vince on November 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM
29
Something as subjective as "received by deadline" (through the post) opens the ballot counting process up to an insane amount of tribulation. A post-mark is simple, and as close to fair as it could get. Connelly is a nut bag.
Posted by Dougsf on November 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM
30
@26: That's still more people than the total readership of the Times' editorial page.
Posted by J.R. on November 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM
31
voting by mail is terrible and should be eliminated for all but the truly absent and the disabled
Posted by Reader1 on November 10, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Add a comment

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use