The Juneau Empire printed an editorial favoring RAISING the costs to citizens for a recount, and asks in this week's online poll (to the left, down the page):
Should the state of Alaska pay for recounts that don't significantly change election results?
Please respond! The poll is here:
Juneau Empire.
So far it's "no" by a sizable majority. I think the Pubbies who want to use our recount to change things for the worse have mobilized, and those who would prefer to keep things as democratic as possible have not, unfortunately, yet realized what's going on.
Here's the editorial: (at
Juneau Empire Archives):
December 26, 2004
Empire editorial: It's important to ensure votes count, but there's no call for recall expenseThe standard for financial accountability in Alaska's election recounts needs a little tightening.
Maybe when lawmakers set it in the 1980s, $10,000 seemed sufficient to cover the expense, but clearly it is not so anymore. The costs for recounts this month - mostly in a U.S. Senate race that was plainly over, and to a lesser degree for a close state House contest - appear to have run to $50,000. That's $10,000 from Alaskans for Fair Elections, the group that wanted to test the Senate results, and $40,000 from Alaskans. The outcome was never in doubt, the defeated Knowles campaign never even got involved, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski is still Alaska's junior senator.
Democratic government has no more basic calling than to ensure that votes count and that outcomes are fair. When an election is in question, it is the state's duty to pore over the results and make sure they're right. This is why there are provisions allowing for government expense when a victory is whisker-thin or when the recount actually changes the result. Ideally, anyone who wishes to challenge an outcome must either meet those requirements or pay the bill.
In these days of court-challenged votes and cries of stolen elections, it is understandable that voters would question the state's ability to conduct fair elections - especially with new technology. But the challengers' contention that the recount was a success because it showed that the state's Accu-vote technology worked properly rings hollow. The time to test the machinery on the state's dime is beforehand or, if something is fishy, in court or in a recount that costs the state nothing if it achieves nothing. But nothing was fishy here. Few seriously doubted that Murkowski's 9,500-vote victory was legitimate, regardless of what Election Day exit polls said.
This year's Senate rivals and their political parties broke the bank, raising $5 million apiece. And the state gets stuck with a $40,000 tab for an unnecessary tally.
**************************************************************So they presented one side of the issue, then asked people their opinion!
This is an online poll, at the end of the week they'll print a group of comments anonymously. Letters would also be helpful. One of the main points to make is that the Alaskans for Fair Elections were not just looking at the "accuracy of the machines" but the integrity of the system.
The Division of Elections got points for their openness and willingness to cooperate, in contrast to other places. They got points because Alaska programs its own memory cards and counts its own votes, using opti-scan machines, keeping the vendor (Diebold) somewhat at bay. There's also a good system of bipartisan panels checking memory cards at the state and regional level, using tests of their own devising, not just the vendor's tests. And good security. The system may not be entirely tamperproof, but a lot of thought has gone into it. It was designed by our previous lieutenant governor, Fran Ulmer.
This was good for Alaska and its Department of Elections; now people are pointing to Alaska as a model for other states to follow. This has been publicized. It was educational for everyone involved. The last statewide recount was ten years ago, it's not as if this is a frequent event.
However, paper ballots do us no good if the cost of a recount to citizens becomes prohibitively high. Under Alaska election law, there's an automatic recount if the votes are less than 0.5 percent apart. Obviously therefore, anyone wanting to RIG an election would ensure the votes were a LARGER margin apart.
The fact that citizens can raise $10,000 and ask for a recount is a deterrent for any such people. It was very hard to raise that amount in five days, which is the legal requirement - must be raised within five days of certification. Trying to raise any MORE than that would be difficult to say the least, but the cost of a recount is relatively low for the state (see the Empire's October 24 editorial about our lieutenant governor, who was ordered by the court to redo a ballot which was worded in a biased way - THAT cost the state $295,000, in contrast to the $40,000 or so for a recount. All Empire articles are Archived, in an easy to use calendar.)
There's definitely a campaign on to up the ante. Some Republicans were annoyed about the recount. We've got a Republican governor and legislature, and it will be hard to stem this tide but a pity if it happens, if our recount results in a law making it harder to ever get another one.
If anyone can think of other good points, post em here, and also vote on the online poll!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(48 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
