Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

Good Thing Minnesota Has Someone in Charge Who Cares About Counting Every Vote

By Jay Walljasper, OnTheCommons.org. Posted November 26, 2008.


Mark Ritchie -- the man in the middle of Minnesota's Senate race recount -- is passionate about making sure every vote counts.
markritchie
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What happens or doesn't happen in Washington over the next two years may depend on who wins the Minnesota senate race, in which Democrat challenger Al Franken and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman are now separated by about 200 votes of 2.9 million cast. Democrats are just two seats shy of 60 in the Senate, which is the magic number at which they can shut down Republican filibusters against progressive legislation.

America is still waiting for results in two races. One will be decided December 2 in a Senate run-off election in Georgia, and the other depends on the laborious and already controversial outcome of a hand-by-hand recount of ballots in Minnesota's Franken-Coleman contest.

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie finds himself smack in the middle of what pundits say is the fiercest election in state history, and certainly the most expensive. Coleman, who won in 2002 after his opponent Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, is famous as a combative campaigner. Franken meanwhile is deeply determined to win back the seat once held by Wellstone, his close friend. Both camps are raising large sums of money to cover costs of monitoring the recount and whatever lawsuits may ensue. Coleman's election night margin see-saws up and down with each day's recount results. The race may be decided by what happens to challenged ballots that will be reviewed by Ritchie and the State Canvassing Board.

It is Mark Ritchie's challenge to ensure that every legitimate vote is counted in this hard-fought contest for which the whole country is waiting for the results. Already Ritchie -- voted into office in 2006 on the Democratic Farmer Labor (DFL) ticket, as Democrats are called in Minnesota -- has become a favorite target of right-wing commentators here and around the country. But he has also drawn complaints from the Franken camp for some of his decisions.

Each day Ritchie faces phalanxes of lawyers and recount observers from both sides as he tries to ensure the election results are accurate, fair and above partisan reproach. To that end, he appointed judges with ties to Republicans and the state's Independence Party (but none with apparent Democratic ties) to join him on the board that will oversee the recount' final results. Minnesota Governor Pawlenty, a Republican, has stated his public support for Ritchie and for the process despite complaints from the right-wing of his party.

Making sure that every vote counts is exactly the reason Mark Ritchie ran for Secretary of State. He realized the vulnerable nature of democracy in 2002 (not just in Florida, but in his home state) when Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash two weeks before election day.

Ritchie, a former high-ranking official in the state's agriculture department and founder of the Institute for Trade and Agriculture Policy, was shocked to learn that Minnesota's then Republican Secretary of State tried to block people who had voted for Wellstone on absentee ballots from casting a new ballot for Walter Mondale, who succeeded Wellstone as the Democratic nominee in the race against Coleman. (Several years earlier, a Democratic Secretary of State had done just the opposite when a new Republican candidate for Minnesota governor was added to the ticket at the last minute after a sex scandal and went on to win a very narrow victory.)

This struck Ritchie-a longtime advocate for small farmers, sustainable agriculture, fair trade policies, and human rights-as deeply unfair. It was not just that these absentee ballots could conceivably have made a difference in the election, but that citizens were to be denied the right to vote. (The Secretary of State ultimately allowed Minnesota voters to cast new absentee ballots.)

Ritchie views voting as what he calls, "a civic commons, which is essential to good government and democracy itself. But that commons can be taken from us by measures that make it difficult for many people to vote."

In 2004, Ritchie took a leave of absence from the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy to lead National Voice, a non-partisan organization working to increase voter turnout across America in the 2004 election. (You may not know the organization but you might remember the "November 2" t-shirts seen everywhere in the weeks before election day that year.)

Ritchie then made his successful run for Secretary of State in 2006, and did all he could to turn out voters for this year's election. It ranked first in the nation as it had in 2004. "Not withstanding Garrison Keillor's claim that we are all above average here, that's not the reason we have higher vote totals than other states" he explains. "It's that we have a system that encourages people to vote."

Central to that system is same-day registration, which means that you can register at the polling place on election day if you can prove you live in the precinct by showing an ID or even a utility bill. "Ten states have same-day registration or something very close," Ritchie notes, "and most of them have among the highest voter turn-out." Ritchie also champions voting by mail -which is done in Oregon, most of Washington State and the city of Milwaukee-as a "great way for some communities, especially in rural areas, to increase voter turnout."

He is interested to see how another new idea known as Instant Run-Off or Ranked Choice voting will work. This system, which has been adopted in a number of cities, including ten pilot locations in North Carolina and his hometown of Minneapolis, lets you vote for more than one candidate by ranking your choices in order of preference. The hope is that this system will bring fresh thinking into mainstream politics by making people feel more comfortable voting for third parties. It takes away the fear that voting for your favorite candidate (think Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan in 2000) might help your second favorite candidate lose to an opponent (think George W. Bush or Al Gore) you really do not want to see in office.

Under Instant Run-Off Voting all top-ranked votes are tabulated and if no candidate wins a majority then the second choices of people who voted for the candidate with the lowest overall totals are tabulated. This process continues until one office-seeker has a majority of votes. The Irish president, Australian House of Representatives, London mayor as well as the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, are elected this way-and the idea is gaining ground in places that do not use the proportional voting systems found in continental Europe and many other countries around the world.

To increase voter turnout in Minnesota, Ritchie is working on automatically updating a person's voting registration when they send a change-of-address form to the post office. He found ways to streamline voting for the 80,000 Minnesotans living abroad, including troops stationed in Iraq, by allowing them to receive ballots by email that were returned through a special arrangement with FedEx. He's also launching a campaign to reinvigorate the teaching of civics in Minnesota schools so young people can learn about the electoral system and why voting is important.

"Some people question efforts to expand the number of voters by saying democracy depends on the quality, not the quantity, of voters," Ritchie says. "Both are important. Voters being informed is a very important element of the democracy commons."

In an election year when voter suppression-bureaucratic hurdles to voting, especially for lower-income and first-time voters-has become a major issue in campaign coverage, Ritchie is well aware of the power of Secretaries of State to either expand or constrict the number of people participating in the democratic process. "It's part of my job to make it possible for everyone to go to the polls and make sure their vote counts. You make decisions morning, noon and night that help or hinder people in voting. "Helping people participate in elections is part of the historic process in America of extending voting rights," he adds. "We expanded suffrage to women and Native Americans and, thanks to the civil rights movement, to all African-Americans and then to 18-year-olds. This is all part of a battle for enfranchisement that continues today. It's an essential part of democracy-and of the commons-that everyone should be easily able to vote."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: senate, minnesota, recount, mark ritchie

Jay Walljasper is editor of OnTheCommons.org, a news and culture website devoted to recognizing the importance of the commons -- those things that belong to all of us -- in modern life.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
statistical accuracy
Posted by: billwald on Nov 26, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Far as I knows when a vote of millions is separated by only couple hundred votes the result should be settled by coin toss or a deck of cards because margin of error is larger than the vote difference.

If an election is sufficiently important maybe instead of counting paper ballots the ballots should be paired one at a time and thrown into a burning barrel. The winner would then be obvious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: statistical accuracy Posted by: dsmidwest
Ritchie is a treasure
Posted by: End The Echo on Nov 26, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You forgot a few important points:

That same day registration can happen in MN if someone else in the district vouches for you.

We have some great legislation that helps homeless people get registered, including letting workers at homeless shelters vouch for them. We also allow victims of domestic violence the ability to vote and their address kept off the publicly available voter rolls for their safety.

On IRV, well we haven't had a governor elected with more than 50% of the votes since 1994, both Jesse Ventura in 1998 and Tim Pawlenty in 2002 and 2006 did not get a majority because of three strong candidate (Jesse was that candidate).

In many of our US Representative races (2008) we had Independence Party candidates gaining 10% of the vote, notably the hotly contested 3rd and 6th districts, but also 4.48% in the 1st and 6.92% in the 5th districts where the incumbent won with 62.20% and 72.20% respectively. That is 4 of 8 Congressional districts that had significant showing for 3rd party candidates.

Lest you forget Mark Ritchie is part of the DFL - Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, that was a merging of the Democratic and Farmer-Labor parties, an earlier 3rd party powerhouse in Minnesota.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instant runoff voting
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Nov 26, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the most important things the american people need in order to begin taking this country back. With IRV, we will be able to vote for a third party candidate, without having to worry about causing a Nader-Bush-Gore scenario like in Florida 2000. That will encourage people to run, it will encourage people to vote, and it will allow the possibility for real change, instead of the "fake change" that we are getting now. It is pointless to even talk about changing the system, until we have instant runoff voting. Of course, the dems and reps will fight it tooth and nail, because they are one in the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mark Ritchie - IS INCOMPETENT
Posted by: ds1st on Nov 26, 2008 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the other states and votes are in and counted (almost 100%). It appears Mark Ritchie was not up to the task of being Secretary of States.

He GOOFED the VOTE once, so the solution should be not to let him goof the VOTE a second time.

Mark Ritchie is INCOMPETENT and screwed up the VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The money spent on the recount should be going to HEALTHCARE FOR THE CHILDREN.

SHAME ON YOU Mark Ritchie, he HURTS OUR CHILDREN!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Friggin trolls Posted by: End The Echo
Ummmm
Posted by: sdskyle on Nov 27, 2008 6:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""Helping people participate in elections is part of the historic process in America of extending voting rights," he adds. "We expanded suffrage to women and Native Americans and, thanks to the civil rights movement, to all African-Americans and then to 18-year-olds. This is all part of a battle for enfranchisement that continues today. It's an essential part of democracy-and of the commons-that everyone should be easily able to vote.""

I hate to take away from his message here, but black people got the right to vote when congress ratified the 15th amendment in 1870, which I don't really associate with the civil rights movement. National women's suffrage didn't come until 1920 with the 19th amendment. This guy should know history better to not sound like a total dumbass while talking about voting rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Voting Schemesevils
Posted by: skc on Nov 27, 2008 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instant Run-Off Voting: Per the article, “all top-ranked votes are tabulated and if no candidate wins a majority, then the second choices of people who voted for the candidate with the lowest overall totals are tabulated.” Unfortunately, that obviously means that the stated purpose of this voting methodology is thwarted if one person wins a majority on the initial count. Like so many other crooked schemes, it's made to sound like one thing, but a loophole is inserted so that you are handed something else. A true implementation would obviously be like this. All votes are tabulated at the first-choice level, determining the top three candidates (if more than two). Then the votes of those who voted for none of those three candidates at the first-choice level are tabulated (assigning the vote, at the highest choice level of the voter, to the appropriate candidate) and added to the results of the first count. This determines the top two. The third-place candidate is then taken out of the running, and the votes of those who voted for that candidate are then tallied in the same manner as above, yielding the final counts for the top two candidates and determining the winner.

Let me warn you all that this is the obvious and straightforward methodology for such a voting system, and only politicians - with evil schemes in mind - come up with skewed methods such as that proposed in this article. Similarly, B. Hussein Obama's scheme to take from the rich (which ain't me, mind you, I'll be a recipient) and give to nearly everybody else is not an effort to achieve "fairness" (it's unfair by definition, in the first place, and will only result in inflation and a return to nearly the status quo in the long run), it's an effort to buy votes - pure and simple. And watch for the return of "The Fairness Doctrine," which is anything but fair, and a new ploy called localism - designed to snuff out the remaining strong voice of conservative thinking, talk radio. The efforts to dumb down America are coming to roost, and there are dark times ahead unless Americans wake up.


Voting by mail: Those who "champion" this method are either stupid or highly suspect, IMHO. Mail can be stolen from mailboxes or intercepted by [even a very small number of] post office employees or corrupt politicians (even others, perhaps), and replaced with another vote. People can be threatened and told not to vote, and then the thugs mail in the vote in "in their stead." And there are probably less obvious ways that unscrupulous minds can think of to take advantage of this stupid idea if the American people are too dull to recognize it for what it is, and stop it.


Same-day registration: A utility bill can be easily forged. Same-day registration invites voter fraud. And what's wrong with registering far enough ahead of time that the validity of the registration can be verified? I can't help but suspect that people who push for these types of measures have something up their sleeve. They know of a loophole or a way they can take unfair and/or illegal advantage of it to get illegitimate votes, and they plan to do so. And the destiny of America shouldn't be decided by people who aren't willing to register prior to the day of voting. People need to start thinking of the natural consequences - and possible consequences - that such "progressive" ideas lead to. Our government worked quite well (compared to all previous forms of government), for a long time, at holding back corruption in government. This was because of the foundation laid by the Founding Fathers, a foundation built upon the premise that man is power-hungry and the power of government must be strenuously limited and held in check.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]