The Washington state Senate has passed Eric Omeg’s bill to join the National Popular Vote compact.

Should the bill pass in the House and get signed by Gov. Gregoire, the new law will have the effect of…doing absolutely nothing. At least not for now. But once enough states have signed up—so that their combined electoral votes total at least 270—the law will change Washington’s allocation of electoral votes from the “winner take all” system (currently used by all but two states) to a system where signatory states select Presidential Electors who are pledged to the winner of the national popular vote.

In other words, the compact could eventually lead to a national popular vote—and does so while fully retaining the electoral college in all its (distributed¹) glory.

Currently the compact has been signed into law in Maryland and New Jersey. Illinois and Hawaii will likely join soon—there is a bill on the Governor’s desks in both states. Washington state joins Arkansas, California, Colorado, and North Carolina as states where the bill has passed one chamber. Combined, these nine states hold a total of 146 electoral votes. Bills have been introduced in 35 other states as well.

If you like the idea of a national popular vote, take a few moments and contact your Washington state Representatives.

¹The Electoral College doesn’t actually meet as a single body. Instead they meet in each State’s Capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, and conduct a series of votes under procedures mandated by Congress.

At one point during my first full day as a Republican yesterday, I was overcome by doubt. I had publicly announced my support for Mike Huckabee, but I realized that I didn’t have a good reason—as a Republican—to support him.

I mean, as a Democrat I’d have every reason to support Huckabee as the Republican Nominee. All national polls show him losing to both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. My own analyses of state head-to-head polls suggest that Clinton and Obama would beat Huckabee.

Now that I am a Republican I really should have some positive reasons to support the Huckster. So I examined his positions on many issues and realized I disagreed with almost all of them:

• I find Huckabee’s positions on homosexuality antediluvian. I disagree with his opposition to civil unions, same-sex marriage, and adoption by same-sex couples. I disagree with the harebrained idea of a constitutional amendment defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman.
• I am fundamentally opposed to Huckabee’s stance on abortion. In fact, I have voted for Republicans before over this very issue. While living in Pennsylvania in 1998, I voted for Sen. Arlen Specter instead of his “pro-life” Democratic opponent Bill Lloyd.
• I cannot agree with Mike’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research.
• I think Huckabee is a idiot for refusing to accept the findings of modern evolutionary theory (hell…even the Catholic Church has recognized for some 30 years that biological evolution is real and is not incompatible with Christianity).
• I don’t agree with Huckabee at all on education—charter schools, display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, or “character education” in public schools. Give me a fucking break!
• Huckabee’s promise to replace the income tax with a national sales tax is utterly ludicrous.
• I don’t agree with Huckabee’s anti-gun control stance.
• I oppose Huckabee’s opposition to a government-mandated universal health care system. And I think his ideas for isolating AIDS patients is fucked-up!
• On immigration I cannot figure out where the Huckster stands—it looks like he is all over the place.
• I find the Chuck Norris thing really, really creepy.
• Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister. Even though I was baptized at age nine as an American Baptist (and later became a Lutheran), Southern Baptists frighten me. They strike me as having a high proportion of radical extremists in their midst….
• Finally, I think Huckabee’s ideas of changing the Constitution to be more God-friendly reveal a radical extremist side to the man that I find scary.

In fact, there are only a small number of issues that I agree with Mike on. I pondered my political paradox. And then I fretted…and I fretted some more, and I….

Then, in the midst of my fretting, it struck me!

I don’t have to use rational positions, logic, consistency, or ethics at all. I’m a Republican now!

Being a Republican means never having to say you’re sorry for eschewing logic, rationality, consistency or ethics in a political context. As a Republican, all I need is a positive emotional response to Huckabee—some emotional bond….

That’s me (ca. 1984) and Mike. You see, we share the common bond of the bass. That’s the only connection I need.

So if you are a bass player or a guitar player, or play any instrument at all, you, too, can get behind Mike Huckabee this primary season. Maybe you like Chuck Norris movies…that’s a good reason, too.

And if you liked what a saxophone player from Hope, Arkansas did for America, just imagine what a Bass player from Hope could do!

Vote Mike!

Over the approximately three years I have participated in the comment threads at Horses Ass, I’ve frequently been called a Democrat. And my typical response has been something like, “Actually I am not a Democrat. When I have lived in states that require registration by party, I have always refused—even to extent of being excluded from voting in primaries.” It’s true. I’ve never joined the Democrats—even though it is obvious that my political sensibilities and sympathies are closely allied with the Democrats.

This explains, in part, why I didn’t participate in the Democratic caucus. I didn’t participate in the Republican “caucus” either. In order to participate, the Democrats wanted me to “consider myself a Democrat” and the Republicans wanted me to be “a member of the Republican Party.”

But there was more to my non-participation. The fact is, I’d be equally happy with either Clinton or Obama as the Democratic nominee, so I had little reason to attend the Democratic caucus. I considered caucusing for Mitt Romney, but the bastard surrendered to terrorism while terrorizing his own supporters earlier that week. So I sat out that one, too.

Over the last week I’ve had a change of heart. I am ready to sign up for a party, for the first time in my life. And given how the Washington state Republicans are in shambles…I think they need me. Really. Yeah…maybe I’ll change my mind in a few days, but right now, I think the Republicans really need me, if only to boost their numbers. So I’m joining the Republicans and I’ll at least contribute half a vote to their primary on Tuesday.

I’m supporting Mike Huckabee. Given that McCain’s “victory” last Saturday was little more than a decree from Boss Esser, I think Mike Huckabee is entitled to a decree on Tuesday that arises from some sort of numerical system that proportionately reflects the make-up of the party faithful (like, um…me!).

I strongly encourage you to do the same thing. Sure…there will be the shame and humiliation of signing an oath that you are a Republican. And you might even feel like you’re lying a little bit. But, these days, the very act of lying pretty much fully qualifies you to be a card carrying Republican! Imagine the great opportunities in being a Republican…like, serving as a Research Assistant on Lori Sotelo’s Voter Suppression Squad™.

Think of your new membership as a trial subscription…. If you find it causes odd changes in your behavior, attitudes, or physiology like, say, a new-found desire to have sex in public toilets, or an unexplainable urge to knock your mother to the floor, or perhaps being turned on by falafel as a shower sex toy, then all you need to do is renounce your membership. Experiment over.

Hell…the trauma and uncontrolled trembling associated with casting your first ballot as a member of the Republican Party may be enough to cause an instant renunciation. If it induces vomiting, renounce immediately and completely; see a doctor.

How do you join the Republicans? Well…don’t go to the Washington State Republican Party web site. You won’t find any instructions on how to join there. That pretty much means you can join any way you want. The usual methods should work—kill a member of an endangered species, test drive a Hummer, drag a disadvantaged member of society down the road behind your pick-up truck, join the Ted Nugent fan club, shoot your neighbor’s dog…. If those methods are too much work, there is an easier way: leave a comment below stating that you are a member. Or, use an even easier method: simply do nothing except sign that poll-book or absentee ballot envelop declaration for Tuesday’s primary election. The WSRP explains (my emphasis):

You are eligible to participate in your local Republican precinct caucus if you are a registered voter in that precinct, show up at the caucus location at 1 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 9th, and sign a declaration indicating that you are a member of the Republican Party and have not and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party. It is not necessary for you to have previously declared that you are a member of the Republican Party.

If it works for the caucus, it works for the primary.

But what if you already participated in the Democratic caucus? Can you then vote in the Republican primary? The real answer is YES, although it is sure hard to tell from this piece in yesterday’s Olympian:

“What we’re telling people is just be honest,” said Pat McCarthy, Pierce County auditor. “You need to know that when you sign that oath you’re adhering to the statement of the oath.”

Or else … what?

“I’m not quite sure,” she said.

In fact, no one is, but everyone seems to have an answer that sounds plausible.

“It’s against the law,” said Joanie Deutsch, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State’s office. Deutsch dialed up RCW 29.19, relating to primaries, before determining that such acts constitute voter fraud.

But ask Nick Handy in the elections division of the Secretary of State’s office and you get another perspective: It’s a violation of the law for which the law provides no sanction.

Translation: Yes, it’s illegal. But since there’s no punishment assigned to it, you conceivably could break that law with abandon and not get any flak.

Here’s another interesting part, Handy said. Since caucuses are party-run affairs, only the parties knows who went last Saturday.

Aside from the parties, that is. And they’re not sharing.

For the final word, Handy suggested asking Jeff Even, deputy solicitor general in the Attorney General’s office and an expert on the matter.

His take: It’s hypothetically legally binding.

It would be almost impossible to prosecute someone for voter fraud, perjury, or the gross misdemeanor of false swearing for pulling a switcheroo, Even said.

And so the question becomes, if the oath creates a crime that’s impossible to prove, prosecute or punish: Why write one in the first place?

“Most people would take an oath seriously,” Even said.

Hypothetically legally binding, my ass. In fact, there is nothing in the RCW or the WAC that prevents you from participating in a Democratic caucus and a Republican primary. It’s true that you would be lying to both Parties in doing so, but lying to both the Democrats and Republicans seems like the perfect rite of passage for becoming a Republican.

I’m not a lawyer…so consider my reasoning but come to your own conclusions. The relevant law is found in RCW 29A.56 (not RCW 29.19 as the spokeswoman for the Secretary of State supposedly “dialed up”). Also check out the appropriate portion of the WAC.

You will not find anything dealing with an unfaithful oath to a party in the primary. The core issue is whether a violated oath could result in second degree perjury (RCW 9A.72.030) or false swearing (RCW 9A.72.040a) charges. But the language (found in WAC 434-219-140) states

(3) Each registered voter desiring to participate in the presidential primary of a major party that requires a declaration shall subscribe to the declaration.

As Sam Reed was so kindly pointed out during the SignatureGathererGate in May of 2006:

Both perjury in the second degree and false swearing require the statement be made under an oath “required or authorized by law”. This is a term defined in the statute:

“An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths[.]”

Apparently, by WAC 434-219-140, even the desire to participate in a party’s primary requires one to make an oath to the party! More importantly, the word “subscribe” in legalese simply means to sign one’s name. In other words, the oath is to a party, but the legal requirement is simply a signature on the oath provided by the party. The oath itself is meaningless (except as a way to join the Republican Party) for another important reason: because it doesn’t conform to the legal requirements for an unsworn oath. RCW 9A.72.085:

Unsworn statements, certification.
Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, order, or requirement made under the law of this state, any matter in an official proceeding is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by a person’s sworn written statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, the matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established, or proved in the official proceeding by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, which:

(1) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;

(2) Is subscribed by the person;

(3) States the date and place of its execution; and

(4) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.

The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:

“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct”:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Date and Place) (Signature)

This section does not apply to writings requiring an acknowledgement, depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a special official other than a notary public.

Finally, as Nick Handy points out, there are no provisions written into law to punish people who sign the oath but violate it.

All this is simply academic for me, since I didn’t participate in the Democratic caucus, and the very act of writing this post is my way of joining the Washington state Republican Party. I can sign in good conscience.

You can become an Insta-Republican too. It’s easy. Simply say so in the comment thread. Or sign that declaration on your ballot and mail it in.

And vote for Mike Huckabee—because real change comes out of joking about razor blades in each hand in a nice warm tub!

Images from the Washington caucuses:

(These and some eighty other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

Even though the Senate sold out America by passing a new wiretapping bill that includes retroactive immunity for telcos that broke the law, the House is standing firm. As a result, the Terrorist-in-chief is not amused. And he is threatening to postpone his trip to Africa in order to sit in a corner and pout:

Leaving aside the problems with the wiretapping portion of the bill, what’s with this telco immunity bullshit? If the telecom companies need retroactive immunity, why the fuck doesn’t Bush simply use his presidential pardon powers to pardon them? I mean, isn’t Bush just throwing a temper tantrum to get Congress to do his dirty work?

Yeah…maybe there has never been a pardon granted to a corporate “person” (I don’t really know), but Bush has played so fast and lose with the constitution that extending the presidential pardon powers to corporate “persons” is no biggie.

Really, what Bush is doing is dodging his own responsibility, and that of his administration, for sweet-talking (or, perhaps, threatening) the telcos into breaking the law. By getting Congress to pardon the telcos, he avoids the scrutiny and scorn that would accompany a presidential pardon.

Lets hope the House stands firm on this and the Senate gets a clue.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of electoral politics under the influence. We officially meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Many of us will show up earlier than that and enjoy the excellent cuisine while watching returns from the Potomac Primary.

Tonight’s theme song is inspired by Republican State Chair L. Esser: Lesser Things by Jars of Clay. Thanks for all the giggles, snickers, ROTFLs, and guffaws, Luke!

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally (I heard a rumor that George Feairng, now officially a 4th CD candidate, may attend). Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

SurveyUSA has released a new Washington state primary and caucus poll. The poll was conducted Thursday and Friday, and after Mitt Romney’s surrender.

I take a more detailed look at the poll here, but the take home message is pretty simple. Barak Obama should win big over Hillary Clinton in the caucus today, and probably in Tuesday’s (February 19) beauty contest as well.

Likewise, John McCain should easily win in the caucus as well as in Tuesday’s primary. The more interesting race today will be for second place—Ron Paul doesn’t trail Mike Huckabee by much among those who plan to caucus.

Those recurring charges:

(This and some sixty other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

A few weeks ago I got a water bill from the City of Redmond. The bill listed the “Previous” meter reading at 191,800, the “Current Read” as 192,000, and “Consumption” as 1,000. Hmmm…. A calculator verified my hunch that the math was somewhat fuzzy. And an examination of earlier bills showed that, previously, the computer had always done the math correctly.

Last year, during the same two-month billing period, we had used about 1,000 cubic feet of water, but we had had a houseful of guests for an extended stay over the holidays. This year our normal two-person household had been reduced to a one-person household for the billing period and was even reduced to a zero person household for about 1/3 of that time while I was visiting the second person on the east coast.

When I called the water company they had a very simple explanation for their fuzzy math. The reading just seemed too low to them. So they figured the meter was stuck and “estimated” I used 1,000 cubic feet based on last year’s consumption.

“What! The! Fuck?” I was thinking as I politely explained the largely empty house during the billing period. I felt like I had just been pick-pocketed by my friendly city government and water provider. I suggested to the person on the phone that they should at least denote on the bill whenever they’ve entered an “estimated” amount. I mean, who the hell sits down and does the math from the raw meter readings every bill? “But…but…but” they had sent a meter reader out twice, she protested, as if that could somehow differentiate between a stuck water meter and an empty house.

In any case, I got the extra 800 cubic feet knocked off of my bill—all $11.68 of it. (Hey…it was the principle.)

A week later…a maintenance crew shows up and replaced the meter in front of my house. Uggggh!

The whole episode seemed like a big waste of time and resources—if they had simply called to ask about water usage in that billing period they’d have saved the expense of the second meter reading, the costs of sending a two-man crew to replace the meter, and the cost of the replacement meter.

I suppose one could use this as an example of the government being both inefficient and incompetent—you know…the way certain uninformed and hypocritical Wingnuts do in the comment threads all the time. In the big scheme of things my Redmond Water Utility experience is a drop of water in an ocean of government inefficiency and incompetence. Here’s the big picture version of my little story….

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an extraordinary evening of electoral politics under the influence. We officially meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Many of us will show up at 5:00 pm (when the place opens), and enjoy the excellent cuisine while watching the election returns.

Tonight’s theme song? Alice Cooper’s Elected, of course:

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

SurveyUSA just published results of a primary and caucus poll in Washington state.

On the Republican side McCain leads with 40% support, and Romney is a distant second at 26%. Huckabee gets 17% and Paul shares 9% with the undecideds. (Yeah…there is probably an anti-Paul conspiracy involved in these results. Right.)

Obama leads the Democratic field with 53% to Clinton’s 40%.

Given (1) the fluidity of the Democratic race, (2) the fact that Super Tuesday comes before next Saturday’s Washington Caucus, (3) that polls–which assume statistical independence among respondents–don’t represent social processes like caucuses very well, and (4) that the poll excluded independents, I won’t be placing (or taking) any bets on the outcome. Even so, Sen. Obama must be happy with Washington state right now.

Personally, I don’t really care what the outcome is. I see great, if different, strengths in either of the Democratic front-runners.

Who plans on participating? About 26% of those questioned said they would participate in their party caucuses. But when subdivided by party, 28% of Democrats said they will participate in their caucus versus 22% of Republicans.

Overall, 88% said they would participate in the primary election, including 91% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats. The Democratic primary counts for almost nothing (except bragging rights for the winner, I suppose), whereas the Republican primary will determine about half the delegates.

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but the higher planned participation by Democrats in the caucuses and the surprisingly high planned participation by Democrats in a meaningless primary election sure makes it look like the Democrats have the edge in enthusiasm.

(The more detailed poll cross-tabs are given here.)

Rick Santorum and Pat Buchanan aren’t the only right-wing wack-jobs that really, really hate John McCain….

(This is an open thread)

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Some of us will be there early to watch coverage of the Florida primary election. The early results show it too close to call between Sen. John McCain and Gov. Willard Mitt Romney. Either way, tonight’s theme song will be War Pigs by Deep Purple.

Perhaps we will make a drinking game out of Mayor 9iu11iani’s concession speech.

Not in Seattle? Check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Dino Rossi’s State of the State Denial:

(Some 70 other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)