Uh oh, Jack is getting a little testy.

This all sounds very fishy. First we hear that highschool kids are gathering sigs, people asking the same people for sigs, then the sigs don't add up, now "computer glitches". Who knows what is really going on, other than big money players (Coporations) want this on the ballot so the back scratching will continue.
How can we trust Government to make choices for the greater good if Corpo's are allowed to pay them off? Corporate owners are given special rights in exchange for Government oversight.
If they don't like it, they should become a regular old business like the "free-market" was supposed to be, not pay pay the pols to ignore their shady activities.

Even if this makes it to the ballot it has no chance, 35-65 at best.

You keep telling yourself that. The same folks who won't vote for a school tax (talk about your 65-35) aren't going to vote for a politician welfare tax, which is what clean money is.

As I've said, I might vote in favor of keeping clean money. But it belongs on the ballot. And if it makes it on there, I will laugh loud and long.

BTW, the people who count the signatures certainly aren't biased in favor of repealing clean money.

If elections officials would actually verify each signature, we'd get to vote on Free Money repeal. But instead, they manipulate the sample in order to disqualify it and keep it off the ballot.

Don't be fooled by the magicians' misdirection. This is about more than the particular Free Money proposal. They may not like it, but they like its repeal even less.

Why? Our officials do not like recalls or repeals in general, because the winning result is the repudiation of officials' acts and a loss of their political power. They really do not like initiative statutes. But they detest constitutional or charter amendments because that amounts to making "higher law" that should be reserved for the elite. They really only like counting the votes that elect them.

Statistical sampling works when the sample is random, but this Sec. of State wouldn't know a random sample if it fell on him like a big house in a Kansas twister.

The obvious answer is that Bradbury should end sampling and be forced to verify each signature until either enough good signatures are identified to approve the measure for the ballot, or not.

God forbid - Will I actually have a chance to vote on something in the CoP that has to do with spending money? Wouldn't that be funny if Erik couldnt even get this right?

OFFTOPIC - When are you going to have an item on the Armory (aka Geding/Edlen corp welfare)Theater? You should look at the numbers and how it is going to be paid for, if you loved the tram.

There is great irony the City has set such a high hurdle (9% of all registered City of Portland voters) in order to get an initiative on the city ballot and then saying they don't have the resources to verify all the signatures. Not to metion the hypocrisy in not including a vote (on Voter Owned Elections) in advance of its adoption.

This is the citizen's only direct access to the legislative (ordinance making) power of the City of Portland. In all other respects ("clean money" included), we rely on indirect democracy, but when our council representatives fail to represent us, this is our only recourse (outside of the courthouse).

When they’re done investigating this, I think they should look at the Ralph Nader campaign of 2004. My people tell me he was screwed over. And save your breath about Ralph: I know many people hate him for being the difference in Florida in 2000. That election was stolen by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush, who hired a firm that incorrectly removed approximately 90,000 voters from the registration lists; voters that would have made the difference.
Of course you didn’t hear about it from our media. However Greg Palast covered it well for the British media.
But even if Ralph Nader had caused Bush’s election, and even if the Republicans were helping him in 2004, which they were, keeping him off the ballot in Oregon in 2004 if he met the requirements was another step backwards for democracy in this country. And my people tell me he met the requirements. State officials kept Nader off the ballot citing irregularities in the candidate's petitions. Sound familiar? I know this is a city thing, and I know electronic voting nationally has rigged many elections, but at least we can fight for democracy here. It's not how you stand on this issue, it's about keeping corruption out of the process. This was about clean money; how about clean elections?

I don't want to get stuck in the "way-back" machine here, but I've got to answer Bill's people regarding the Nader petitions. (Jack, I apologize in advance if this post takes us way off topic.)

I saw those Nader petitions. They were a witches' brew(to continue to OZ metaphor we have going here) of corruption. They were full of fakes. They were rife with forgeries. Remember, Measure 26, which bans the practice of payment per signature, does not apply to candidate petitions, so the old-school practices of selling signatures kicked in with a vengence.

My opnion is no subjective. I interviewed people whose signatures were forged, including - and I'm not making this up - a CORVAIR colletor from East County who was shocked to find a shoddy forgery of his name on a petition for his nemesis. I met the janitor, a classic Portland liberal, who worked in the building where the campaign office. He was depressed and horrified when he heard Nader circulators teaching each other how to cheat the system and forge the signatures. The campaign took "by any means necessary," to a new level in Oregon. It was heartbreaking to see a campaign that believed so fervently in its cause being willing to break all the rules in order to get there.

(And don't get me started about the RNC hiring an out-of-state signature gathering company to help Ralph get on the ballot.)

So, Bill's people, say what you will about desiring clean an election system free of corruption. I couldn't agree more. Just don't use the Nader signature gathering as an example of someone who got screwed. They failed to make the ballot because they cheated. It's that simple.

"Oh, the irony. We've got millions to pay for politicians' junk mailings, but we don't have enough to afford a computer system that can accurately count signatures on ballot measure petitions. How positively Stennesque."

That's not the case; I think you misunderstand the problem. Actually we DO have enough money to afford the computer system, but it's not the one that counts signatures--it's the one that stores voter registrations. And not only can we afford it, we bought it (mostly to help us comply with HAVA).

It has nothing to do with the sampling process; it's a matter of some registrations possibly being missed from the voter db. Obviously if you go to check the statewide list and a particular name isn't on it, you can't count it for the petition. So pinning this on Multnomah County (or more specifically as you do, Erik Sten) tends to expose the knee-jerk way with which anything the City does is criticized here. Electing not to sign a petition IS speaking, Jack.

The only polling I've seen contradicts Jack's contention that VOE wouldn't pass.

I don't understand the criticisms about not checking every signature--why would you bother? If they did, I'm sure someone at Jack Bog would complain about spending needless money, when sampling is a completely legitimate and supportable process. Checking 20% is more than adequate.

I see Ramon continues to float conspiracy theories about illegal manipulation of the sample, without mentioning who is doing it or why it's being done.

HAVA? VOE? WTF!

After they've "fixed" (is that the right word in this context?) the computer flaw that led to this mess, they should cross-check the names from the donor lists of the three (so far) VOE candidates against the sample of the First Things First petition signatures.

If both are in electronic form it should be a breeze.

I wonder if any donor names will show up more than once on the petition list.

ya think?

Patty, thanks for your reply. I will give my people a good talking to. I bet they say that there were irregularities, as there always are, but that Ralph had enough valid signatures to make it, and these irregularities were used as an excuse to keep him off the ballot.

The good signatures have to be checked - otherwise anyone wanted to derail an initiative could just forge some signatures, and then say, "Look at these irregularities! We have to throw this out." I also believe while we talk non-stop about spreading democracy around the world, it is in deep danger here at home. I felt this clean money thing was very unpopular, so I am quite suspicious about what has happened.

LoadedT:

Your premise (that "not signing the petition" is a form of political expression) is patently false.

Your premise assumes that every registered voter walked past a petition signing table and made a thoughtful decision to sign or not sign. In fact, most voters never had a petition presented to them; many of those who did were too busy to even learn the topic of the petition (fearing it was another 3 pounds/person of medical marijuana).

The rules of the signature gathering game and the counting mechanism were both designed to make it difficult to succeed. Elections officials know there are plenty of lazy voters willing to scribble their names on the petition despite not having updated their addresses, or signing twice by mistake. They use this "laziness factor" as an excuse to punish the petition sponsors.

Erik should be held responsible because this was his baby. He should have asked for the voter's approval of VOE before padding his wallet with taxpayer dollars. Erik is not responsible for the State/County verification screw-ups; Erik is the reason that signature gathering was necessary in the first place.

looks Jack, like you are trying to have your arguments both ways

"When people don't get a chance to vote on something, they've "spoken"?"

but than you say

"The same folks who won't vote for a school tax (talk about your 65-35) aren't going to vote for a politician welfare tax, which is what clean money is."

If the people haven't "spoken" how do you really know the people of Portland wouldn't vote for an increase in taxes, albeit begrudgingly, in order to save our children's education? And please don't refer to "the polls" because "the polls" show Portlanders in favor of "voter owned elections."

Not quite sure if there is a system of elections or results that would make people who comment on here happy. "Voter owned" doesn't appear to do the trick. Donations from the business community or "rich west hills people" don't appear to make people happy either. Even Potter's campaign, which was mostly made up of small contributions, seems to have left people around here mostly unimpressed - the Tram continues, the Light Rail Mall continues, his visioning program is a joke, condo towers are still going up, he's traveling around the world of junkets, Portland is still being "ruined," etc.

What would make you guys happy? The election of whom? The defeat of whom? Specifics, specifics...

Those who avoid, obstruct, prevent or make difficult a public vote do so because they anticipate that vote outcome would not be to their liking.

Too often initiative signature gathering is misrepresented as equal to voting in order to attach a more prohibitive means.

Union lobbyist Patty Wentz, who posted on Nader, represents an agenda which relies upon misrepresentation of initiative signature gathering.

The frequent use of "People have no idea what they are signing" mantra is equally disingenuous and is bantered about to inflate and justify the need for signature and signature sheet disqualification for any reason.

Along with the old signatures-new signatures problems are simple date entries or page numbers used to stop public votes.

Sure the systems needs cleaned up.

But Patty Wentz and her camp are not cleaners.

Until signatures can be confidently verified at a high level of certainty election's officials should error on the side of allowing votes versus stopping them.

The competing campaigns and voting will easily neutralize any of the less relevant irregularities currently used to prohibit public votes.

And at the end of the day, Patty and the Oregonian can always lecture that "voters didn't know what they were voting for" as they work to ban voting altogether.

"""""What would make you guys happy? The election of whom? The defeat of whom? Specifics, specifics...""""""""

Good point Sirajul.

It's simple. Elect people who will allow public votes on those major public investments.

Everyone currently in office seems to have aligned themselves with the more-rail-at-costs
agenda and will never consider any allowing any public votes.

The Tram [rimshot] / Sowa and Urban Renewal are facing fiscal mayhem and the light rail Transit Mall has more red flags and fatal flaws than any prior Porkland boondoggle.
Yet Potter et al. yet to recognize any of them.

From what I have read Dave Lister is keenly aware of the impending fiscal calamity these boondoggles promise and the current drain on basic service's budgets they cause.

He actually grasps the notion that affordability matters.

With the election so near Portlanders have a golden opportunity to elect someone who will pull back on the accelerator the current commissioners are pushing as the fiscal brick wall approaches.

City of Portland Community Budget Forums - This Week!

Looks like the Tuesday session would be a good one for all of you urban renewal fans to attend.
Paul Allen should attend Wednesday's meeting - maybe he can get his share of the $18Million they are divvying up there.

Tuesday, February 28 Community Budget Forum
- Community Development & Public Safety Services -
IRCO Community Room - 10301 NE Glisan
Community Info Fair - 5:45-6:30
Public Forum - 6:30-8:30

Wednesday, March 1 Community Budget Forum
- One-Time Funding For City Services and Schools -
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1220 SW 4th
6:00-8:00 PM
Seating limited to 150

I'd wager it will not be on the ballot despite how much money is poured into the attempt. Even with the signatures in question the corporate interests will still face legal challenges over the lies told by their signature gatherers that have been reported by numerous people. Though they have the money to fight such challenges (and grease the palms of the judges) the time it takes should be prohibitive. Though VOE may not be ideal, I suspect it will work well for the citizens of this city to loosen corporate control (and it's clear the corporate interests agree with me on this one) and enable the people of this city to improve upon VOE.

Thank you, thank you, Voting is Better. On the subject of the 2004 Nader campaign, the big O is quick to say that Republicans were trying to sabotage Democrats by showing up at the July nominating convention and signing petitions. I dunno; I do know plenty of Republicans-church going -types were looking for an alternative to GWB and that Nader was poised as a viable alternative. I also know that the Nader campaign got a copy of a memo circulated to Democrats asking them to pack the convention and not sign the petitions . When the O goes with an unsubstantiated half-truth over a substantiated yet unpleasant truth about Democrats, it takes a credibility dive. I am still on the Dem's roster, but hardly proud.

Thanks for the link, Jack. Gard & Gerber's "sabotage" conspiracy theory - that the LWV and VOE supporters engaged in a vast criminal effort to keep the FTF off the ballot deserved to be insulted, because there wasn't a shred of evidence to back it up. Not that that seems to be stopping people.

If PGE, Qwest & Gard & Gerber manage to narrowly make it on the ballot, great. Game on.

But if they don't - it's really hard to say, "well the people didn't get a chance to speak/sign" when the campaign spent a record $350,000. If that's not enough, someone on the other side of this issue please give me a specific dollar amount which you consider adequate to get the repeal onto the ballot.

".... as they work to ban voting altogether." -Posted by Voting is better at February 27, 2006 03:54 PM

Hmmm... I'm still processing the allegations of "Bill's people" but could you provide a link or some more detail to this "ban voting proposal?" I've worked in Oregon politics for a few cycles and am unfamiliar with this plan.

it's really hard to say, "well the people didn't get a chance to speak/sign" when the campaign spent a record $350,000.

Really? Nobody came to my door. I never saw a single petition form.

Just because somebody screwed up a petition drive does not mean that the majority doesn't support their position.

Well, get get out more often.

I was approached several times - as were many of my friends - and if signing a petition is a political act, I still don't see how declining to sign should not also be considered a political act.

"Anne" said that no one went to her door either. Is this the standard now? What campaign in the history of Oregon has ever had the resouces to personally knock on the door of ALL elligible voters? And why is the responsibility of supporter of Voter Owned Elections to see that the signature drive is run competently??

OK, there were some typos in the above post - but here's what none of the repeal advocates are admitting: to simply get this repeal on the ballot, it shouldn't have been even close. At all.

Regardless of whether it makes it - and VOE supporters are prepared either way - the lack of signatures the FTF collected is completely inconsistent with the notion of a citizen uprising against VOE.

The effort to ban gay marriage was able to turn in twice the amount of signatures necessary to qualify in record time, despite not paying a dime for paid gatherers. I opposed that effort, but clearly it was deeply felt by supporters.

And that's the big difference between this in-limbo effort and those with genuine (albeit misguided with this example) support.

Chucky,

Are you channeling Pauline Kael?

When asked, after Nixon's 1972 landslide victory, to comment, "she replied that she couldn't because she didn't even know anyone who had voted for Nixon."

speaking of getting out more often...

Also:

Who, exactly was it that said:

"well the people didn't get a chance to speak/sign"

The scarecrow?

As for "the lack of signatures the FTF collected is completely inconsistent with the notion of a citizen uprising against VOE."

Is this your new "citizen uprising" standard for legitimacy for initiatives? Watch out, it may bite you somewhere south of the equator.

Nagg: "Who exactly was it that said: 'well people didn't get a chance to speak.'

1) Jack wrote: "Nobody came to my door."
2) Alice wrote: "most voters never had a petition presented to them"
3) Jack wrote (initial post): The best one I heard was "The people of Portland have spoken."

Jack wrote:

Just because somebody screwed up a petition drive does not mean that the majority doesn't support their position.

Well, we agree that mailing to the same list twice, approaching the same household twice, and having petition gatherer say they are from the City of Portland are all pretty screwed up ways to run a petition drive.

But that doesn't mean the repeal advocates get to follow a different set of rules than everyone else. I mean, John Kerry ran a lousy campaign which he should have won too - but we don't get a "do over" because he made mistakes do we?

Chucky,

Jeez,

I thought this here "cut and paste" dealie really worked - otherwise I wouldn'ta put them thar "quotation markers" around the words I took right off your comment.

"But if they don't - it's really hard to say, "well the people didn't get a chance to speak/sign" when the campaign spent a record $350,000. If that's not enough, someone on the other side of this issue please give me a specific dollar amount which you consider adequate to get the repeal onto the ballot."

You know, I'm not sure there is a specific dollar amount if people don't support it.

Or, if the "gang that can't count straight" gets their mitts on it.

Ricky, if you think this is a conspiracy from "the gang that can't count straight" (and I assume you mean the elections officers, not the campaign who failed to count the duplicate signatures and overlapping turf) - then show us some proof.

Charlie: You said it yourself -- game on. If this thing makes it onto the ballot, you had better bring your "A" game.

Well, get get out more often.

How about you find find yourself another soapbox for a while?

See you at the ballot box!

Bring Opie with you.

Darn,

You win.

Alas, I have no proof - only a suspicion.

I suspect you are this literal-minded (dare I say obtuse) only when it suits your purpose.

The "scarecrow" metaphor holds - your fevered imputation that, because I doubt the outcome of the "counting" done in this instance, I suspect a "conspiracy" - is warrantless.

I hold out for the strong possibilty that they just didn't know what they were doing.

Nothing so dramatic.

Just SOP.

Did you request proof that "Bush lied'?

To illustrate your tactics AND to paraphrase Randy Leonard (my favorite ex-firefighter):

"Why do you hate votes?"

People will vote for a "politician welfare tax", as it was so pejoratively put, if it means never having to vote for another school tax. That is to say, some people believe that once the candidates who have been financed through corporate backing are removed from office we may never have to see another OHSU tram fiasco, but instead we can enjoy properly funded schools. And put yet another way, one who wants to see sensible spending in government may oppose a band-aid school tax (depending on an assessment of which of 2 evils is the worse) and may also approve a measure to reduce the corruption from corporate money, even at a cost (especially if one believes that the net effect on taxes will be beneficial). Since we've witnessed that political candidates tend to be beholden to their campaign donors and not their constituents, it is reasonable for the constituents to become the campaign donors in order to be properly represented. Ideal, perhaps not, but it could be a good step toward ideal.

once the candidates who have been financed through corporate backing are removed from office we may never have to see another OHSU tram fiasco

Surely you jest. Look at Erik Sten, the crown prince of clean money. He was, and still is, the biggest tram fan of them all!

Don't mistake ineptitude for corruption.

Let the purge begin?

Sculpting the perfect Portland
Issue date: 01/22/04
http://portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=22611
• Robert Landauer, Northeast Portland: “The very first thing we have to do is purge the city of Portland’s politicians from City Hall.” ---

So I am going on a tangent, but please indulge me. I am against this ballot measure. I was solicited three times including at my front door by deceptive petitioners.

I put myself on the side of stronger Representative Government. There is too much work to be done to have every major issue decided at the ballot box. This state has been hijacked by anti-tax zealots who are trashing our children's future through misleading initiatives. It is hypocrisy for them to claim children as their beneficiaries of this campaign. Exhibit A- Measure 30 repealing a bi-partisan budget agreement and directly hurting our children.

The amount of money at stake on this public finance measure is just so damn small that it is incredible to me that the West Hills Mafia is willing to spend as much $ on this repeal as the city will spend on campaign financing for the fiscal year. If everyone claiming to want money for kids had stepped up against Measure 30, then maybe we'd have both feet out of the grave now.

Jack, where is your proposal to secure adequate funds for our children's future? You have the background and the credibility to lead us out of the mess we are in. Can't you write a white paper on how to stabilize oregon's tax situtation? It makes me so angry that kids here get such a raw deal compared to what I had in public schools in Ohio in the 1980's. I had music teachers, art teachers, shop teachers, smaller class sizes than here, access to sports programs without exorbitant "activity fees", AP classes, field trips, and low in-state tuition at well regarded state univerities. Can't we do as well or better for our children here?

David,

Are you sure you covered all the points?
Check the list.

Your anger is misdirected. Your "solutions" have been tried and are no longer tenable. Your mistrust of voters and your yearning for more Representative Government (telling that you capitalize that term) speaks to an unwillingness to face the reality that the system is unsustainable. You demonize and lash out at those who advocate radical change from behind your hostages - "the children".

You seek a Deus ex Bogdanski (apologies).

It's OVER.

"Business as usual" for the PPS is about as realistic an option as returning to your childhood memories. The world has changed since the 80's - haven't you noticed. The concept of "pensions", as they existed in the 80's, no longer exists - except for PERS. "Health care" means something vastly more expensive these days. Little more than half the number of students attend PPS but the district just can't face the prospect of the fiscal imperative of closing schools and selling school buildings. The kids aren't coming back! Things are DIFFERENT!

Charter schools and vouchers are regarded as anathema to the current board not because of concern for "the children" but because of union pressure. The old model has absolutely no flexibility; and because it wouldn't bend - it broke.

For years, school boards and unions were unwilling to acknowledge the changes and adapt in a reasonable, rational, well-thought-out process. These are the same folks who brought you this latest "crisis". Apparently they only know the one tune. These Pied Pipers are willing to steal schools' (and kids') future if they aren't paid enough gold. THAT'S not what we bargained for!

The well has dried up and look where we are.
Still dippin' the bucket and cursing the well.
What a productive approach.

It's time to stop pretending and put it all on the table. Somebody's gonna be pissed - but somebody's ALWAYS pissed.

>> Look at Erik Sten, the crown prince of clean money. He was, and still is, the biggest tram fan of them all!

While Sten may be trying to champion VOE, he has certainly been backed strongly by certain financial interests who are now strongly in favor of the tram (or, more accurately, the money being spent on the tram project). It's how this city has been running for a while. I think now is a good time to try something new. Besides, VOE may be the best chance to remove 2 incumbents in this election, which should make a lot of people happy.

And don't call me Shirley. ;)