Voting/election changes

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Met with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie yesterday as well as Patty O'Connor, Blue Earth County election official.
Proposal to change Minnesota elections rules are:
1. Institute early voting for anyone. Allows you to vote 15 days early. Argument is that many people do this "quasi-legally" by signing up for absentee. Why not just let everyone do it under the rules is the argument for. 32 states already allow early voting.
2. Count absentee votes at the county level, avoid putting them in cars and driving them to the precincts in which voter resides, and having already busy election judges count them there.
3. Online voter registration, verified with driving licenses, voter registration list and cross checking with post office lists of changing address. This would eliminate some same day voting registrations for those who only need to change their address. Many states do this.
What does the forum think of these proposals?

[Dan Conner]

Met with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie yesterday as well as Patty O'Connor, Blue Earth County election official.
Proposal to change Minnesota elections rules are:
1. Institute early voting for anyone. Allows you to vote 15 days early. Argument is that many people do this "quasi-legally" by signing up for absentee. Why not just let everyone do it under the rules is the argument for. 32 states already allow early voting.
2. Count absentee votes at the county level, avoid putting them in cars and driving them to the precincts in which voter resides, and having already busy election judges count them there.
3. Online voter registration, verified with driving licenses, voter registration list and cross checking with post office lists of changing address. This would eliminate some same day voting registrations for those who only need to change their address. Many states do this.
What does the forum think of these proposals? I think these are all improvements, particularly the proposal to keep absentee ballots at the county. It seems inefficient and probably more error-prone to drive these to the precincts. I was a poll challenger in the last election and noticed that it took considerable extra time for judges to count absentee ballots. Early voting is great, but this will bump up the date the counties need to get ballots done. Anything to make it easier to register would encourage more people to vote and therefore improve the system.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I am intrigued by Oregon's Vote by Mail (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40032-2004Dec31.html) system. According to the linked editorial, at least, it looks like something worthwhile to try. Maybe we could do it for local city and county elections here in the Mankato area as a way to increase voter turnout for off-year elections.

[Matt Christianson]

There is vote my by mail in rural ares of this state already. My parents live in Butternut township and the township, with its very limited funds, was required to buy 2 optical scanners costing something like $70K. Their other option was to institute a vote by mail system.

[Bob Jentges]

There is vote my by mail in rural ares of this state already. My parents live in Butternut township and the township, with its very limited funds, was required to buy 2 optical scanners costing something like $70K. Their other option was to institute a vote by mail system.

I realize that the number of eligible voters in Butternut Township is quite small, but I would be interested to know how the system worked for the Township?

[Dan Conner]

I realize that the number of eligible voters in Butternut Township is quite small, but I would be interested to know how the system worked for the Township?Actually, I'm very proud of the Minnesota administration of voting. Overall, the recount of 2 million votes only affected about 400 votes. That says alot about the accuracy and honesty in the system. In addition, the mandatory recount was honestly done, with lots of candidate input from both sides. Then, the court process dwas handled well, allowing lengthy testimony and consideration of the facts. While no systen is perfect, Minnesota's cme damn close. Good job Minnesota! I noticed the honesty in Minnesota when it bucked the trend and used optical scanners and maintained a hard (paper ballot) record. That is another move with intended an intended move to preserve integrity. There might be a few things that can be tweaked around the edges, but the overall system is great. I am very thankful for Minnesotas system of accountability and integrity.

[Bob Jentges]

Actually, I'm very proud of the Minnesota administration of voting. Overall, the recount of 2 million votes only affected about 400 votes. That says alot about the accuracy and honesty in the system. In addition, the mandatory recount was honestly done, with lots of candidate input from both sides. Then, the court process dwas handled well, allowing lengthy testimony and consideration of the facts. While no systen is perfect, Minnesota's cme damn close. Good job Minnesota! I noticed the honesty in Minnesota when it bucked the trend and used optical scanners and maintained a hard (paper ballot) record. That is another move with intended an intended move to preserve integrity. There might be a few things that can be tweaked around the edges, but the overall system is great. I am very thankful for Minnesotas system of accountability and integrity.

I too favor use of optical scanners and maintaining a paper ballot record.

I also agree some minor "tweaking around the edges" might be considered. But I have long expressed opposition to major changes in our State voting procedures that makes it easier to vote. Voting is an important ingredient in citizenship. Certainly there could be special cases that need special attention, but considering the ease of transportation for most in this day and age if someone is not willing to put themself out a little to go to the polls and cast their vote maybe they do not take the election serious to cast an informed vote.

Math is not my strong suit, but I thought Coleman won the first count by about 700 votes and Franken won the recount by about 300 votes. To me that suggests a turn around of about 1000 votes. Regardless of whether the question is 400 or 1000, the percentage is miniscule when compared with the number of votes cast.

[Dan Conner]

I too favor use of optical scanners and maintaining a paper ballot record.

I also agree some minor "tweaking around the edges" might be considered. But I have long expressed opposition to major changes in our State voting procedures that makes it easier to vote. Voting is an important ingredient in citizenship. Certainly there could be special cases that need special attention, but considering the ease of transportation for most in this day and age if someone is not willing to put themself out a little to go to the polls and cast their vote maybe they do not take the election serious to cast an informed vote.

Math is not my strong suit, but I thought Coleman won the first count by about 700 votes and Franken won the recount by about 300 votes. To me that suggests a turn around of about 1000 votes. Regardless of whether the question is 400 or 1000, the percentage is miniscule when compared with the number of votes cast.Well, I guess you are right about the number of votes, but like you said, it was miniscule either way. I do disagree with the the way you described the election results. Coleman was the provisional winner, but a Minnesota State law required a recount becuase of the closeness of the election. The results of the state mandated recount showed that Franken was the actual winner. I don't think elections are described as winners of first votes and recounts. Franken was the election winner.

*I do disagree with the ease of voting issue. I believe all possible obstacles to voting must be removed, provided true identities and eligibility of voters can be determined. I think I echo the sentiment of the state. That's why people can register at the polls in Minnesota. That's why there is no pooll tax or other impediments to prevent voters from voting. I believe all voters must be encouraged to vote if we are to really have a representative democracy.

[Bob Jentges]

I agree "...voters must be encouraged to vote...", but in your phrase I would insert the word informed. If a voter does not have a basic understanding of the principles/platform of the person/party they are voting for I am not convinced that vote is really representive of the person casting it. I try to avoid discussing politics in get-togethers with family and friends. But if one is started I have found that often a person will claim to be a Democrat but favor conservative principles, or visa versa.

One other comment: The United States of America is not a "representative democracy". It is a representative republic.

[Dan Conner]

I agree "...voters must be encouraged to vote...", but in your phrase I would insert the word informed. If a voter does not have a basic understanding of the principles/platform of the person/party they are voting for I am not convinced that vote is really representive of the person casting it. I try to avoid discussing politics in get-togethers with family and friends. But if one is started I have found that often a person will claim to be a Democrat but favor conservative principles, or visa versa.

One other comment: The United States of America is not a "representative democracy". It is a representative republic.

While I understand what you say, there are millions of people that already vote today that know little about the parties, or what they stand for. I don't think adding more will damage our system. Today, there are people voting who don't even know who the President is, etc. Who knows, there might be more informed people prevented from voting that know more than people who vote. Besides, I don't think the right to vote can be abrogated simply because we think someone is not wise enough. Otherwise, how can gun advocates object to all sorts of screening criteria for purchase of weapons? I believe a right is a right, with very few exceptions.

I have found the same, but for conservative causes instead. I talked with a "Republican" who thought "Republicans were liberal and Democrats conservative. They had things 180 degrees out of kilter. To me that's inexcusable ignorance, but he still has the right to vote.

[Bob Jentges]

Although probably getting close to the fringes of the title (Voting/election changes) of this thread, it has become a topic of discussion in the City of St. Paul and I think may have already passed in the City of Minneapolis. It seems to me I heard there are areas out-of-state where it is already law.

I have not studied the IRV issue and have no position on it one way or the other at this time. But I will say if it were the procedure where I vote I do not think it would affect the order of candidates I selected. I certainly would not go into mathmetical gyrations like the article in the link below suggests some might, but then again a few others might. In a close election could that result in the winner receiving fewer first place votes than other candidates?

http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_135814515?_check=1

[Dan Conner]

Although probably getting close to the fringes of the title (Voting/election changes) of this thread, it has become a topic of discussion in the City of St. Paul and I think may have already passed in the City of Minneapolis. It seems to me I heard there are areas out-of-state where it is already law.

I have not studied the IRV issue and have no position on it one way or the other at this time. But I will say if it were the procedure where I vote I do not think it would affect the order of candidates I selected. I certainly would not go into mathmetical gyrations like the article in the link below suggests some might, but then again a few others might. In a close election could that result in the winner receiving fewer first place votes than other candidates?

http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_135814515?_check=1Bob, the link said the article is no longer available.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, the link said the article is no longer available.

Sorry!

I read it in the St. Paul Pioneer Press online this morning.

If you are interested you might be able to find it a twincities.com if you click-on "Columnists" and Joe Souchery.

[Dan Conner]

Sorry!

I read it in the St. Paul Pioneer Press online this morning.

If you are interested you might be able to find it a twincities.com if you click-on "Columnists" and Joe Souchery.Why don't you attach another URL? It shouldn't be my responsibility to substantiate your allegations.

[Bob Jentges]

Why don't you attach another URL? It shouldn't be my responsibility to substantiate your allegations.

This is getting silly!

If you do not want to take the time to enter twincities.com, click-on "Home" and then click-on "Columnists" and scroll down to Joe Souchery, so be it. I do not intend to help you any more than that.

Besides, I was not alledging anything. I simply said I found Souchery's column in IRV of interest.

[Dan Conner]

This is getting silly!

If you do not want to take the time to enter twincities.com, click-on "Home" and then click-on "Columnists" and scroll down to Joe Souchery, so be it. I do not intend to help you any more than that.

Besides, I was not alledging anything. I simply said I found Souchery's column in IRV of interest.That's OK Bob, I'm used to reading your unsubstantiated allegations.

[Bob Jentges]

That's OK Bob, I'm used to reading your unsubstantiated allegations.

I and other members have questioned whether you actually read what we write. If you do, I for one wonder if you comprehend what you read.

For example, in my post #16 I wrote: "...I was not alledging anything. I simply said I found Souchery's column on IRV of interest".

[Dan Conner]

I and other members have questioned whether you actually read what we write. If you do, I for one wonder if you comprehend what you read.

For example, in my post #16 I wrote: "...I was not alledging anything. I simply said I found Souchery's column on IRV of interest".Apparently, you need the support of others? I certainly comprehend what you say. Unfortunately, it is often not what you mean. In fact, your ideas morph over time. Also, you evade questions by claiming the events happened before you jopined the forum. Pretty juevenile I think. You were not limited to that prior period to complain, especially since you saturate the Forum with reactionary comments. Then, you make wild claims of politicians acting Unconstitutionally? I asked you to substantiate your comments with evidence, and instead, you divert the discussion to personal attacks.

Well, I'm going to restate my question you seem to evade: Where and what is the evidence that our politicians have been acting unconstitutionally? Are you simply fear mongering? When you make such as sweepingly wild statement, you should be willing/able to support it. Otherwise you aren't discussing politics, you are diseminating propaganda.