Only hardliners will make ‘oath’

Thursday’s article “17,000 ballots rejected in county” stated there were about 25,000 votes turned in with the party box not checked.

About 8,500 will be counted on local issues only, with 17,000 flatly rejected (as of that date). A protest, or forgetfulness? I’d say both, but the main protesters probably just threw their ballots away. What does this say? How can anyone expect people to make an “oath” to a party if they aren’t a hardliner? When its purpose is for a party to have a count to use only for rhetoric and to disregard those with an independent voice. What got me the most was the arrogant and condescending comments made. First by Snohomish County GOP chairwoman Geri Modrell, “I’m very disappointed that people don’t get it,” she said. “They don’t understand that the purpose of the primary is for the Democrats to identify their candidates and Republicans to identify theirs.” Hmmm, don’t the candidates declare what party they represent? Even I know what the “D” and “R” stand for.

Then County Democratic Party Chairman Mark Hintz, “If people aren’t going to take the party oath, then how do we know who’s voting?” he said. “I find it despicable whenever we throw out a vote, but I also want them to be accurate and true votes.” Another hmmm. I believe our names are on the ballot, which is bounced against the list of registered voters. Is this to say that before this process was put into play, they weren’t accurate or true?

Now the count is being brought under scrutiny and challenged. And the reply was “… there were some inconsistencies, but it won’t change the outcome.” On the contrary, throwing away votes because of the party oath requirement and people refusing to vote because of it, does change the outcome.

Who doesn’t get it?

Howard M. Burpee

Tulalip