Laying the groundwork for electoral reform in Ohio

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:17:15 PM EST

The work that FreePress.org has been doing in Columbus, Ohio is remarkable. Richard Hayes Phillips doesn't seem to take a break from researching the vote tabulation of Ohio votes. I'm agnostic as to whether Kerry really won Ohio, but that's missing the point that the deeper one looks the more irregularities one finds.

In terms of the raw ongoings of the election in Ohio, was the burglary of computers with sensitive voter information from Lucas County Democratic headquarters in Toledo partisan politics? In terms of the votes cast on election day, is it fathomable that Concord South West precinct in Miami County showed a 98.55% (679 of 689 RV's casting votes) turnout in a precinct that favored Bush over Kerry by a 520-157 margin; or that 19.27% (90 of 557), in the Cleveland 6-M precinct didn't vote for a Presidential candidate, in a precinct that favored Kerry over Bush by 367-9 votes?

At the least, the last few months have proven that Ohio (and don't forget New Mexico) needs electoral reform. The "strategic machine shortages in largely Democratic precincts" is the 'biggest deal since Selma', especially given Blackwell's continued stonewalling of the recount (and look, he's the GOP frontrunner for Governor in '06). Upcoming, OHIO'S STOLEN ELECTION: VOICES OF THE DISENFRANCHISED, in January of 2005, is sure to shine the light under more than a few stones that have been turned over.

I'm convinced that vote-by-mail is the most legit and democratic means of holding an election. Currently, only Oregon holds their entire election in this manner; but it works. Vote-by-mail yields a high turnout, avoids electronic voting, leaves a paper trail, accomodates voters, and it saves the taxpayer money. Hopefully, the Democratic trifecta in Washington State sees the sense in adopting this practice; and eventually, Ohio follows.




Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment


Why no outrage when there is obvious fraud - (none / 0)

Given that;

"Miami County showed a 98.55% (679 of 689 RV's casting votes) turnout in a precinct that favored Bush over Kerry by a 520-157 margin; or that 19.27% (90 of 557), in the Cleveland 6-M precinct didn't vote for a Presidential candidate, in a precinct that favored Kerry over Bush by 367-9 votes?"

you should be outraged. But I have not heard that sort of response from you and I am dissapointed becuase that is the case.

So should the Democratic leadership be outraged and they should be figthing these obviously fraudulent results with every means they have, and they had about 50 million set aside at one point to work on these issues.

But they caved, and they are complacent because it simply does not affect them personally in the same drastic way a Bush administration affects their consituency.

by leschwartz on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:36:50 PM EST

Re: Why no outrage when there is obvious fraud - (none / 0)

At what, the numbers?  The bigger outrage is the "strategic machine shortages in largely Democratic precincts".
by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why no outrage when there is obvious fraud - (none / 0)

Why doesn't someone like George Soros put his money into buying better voting machines for minority areas?  That would have been productive, as opposed to what he did this last year, blow his money on ads so useless and lame that they did nothing.  The SwiftBoat ads got bang for the buck.  MoveOn ads were lame, lame, lame.  Remember the one with the little kids working?  Useless and lame.
by Frances on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 10:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why no outrage when there is obvious fraud - (none / 0)

I believe this is one of the many reasons reform Democrats are backing Dean and/or Rosenberg. I haven't managed to sort out the inside politics differences between Dean and Rosenberg, but they are both opposed to and opposed by the DLC and callous Dem power brokers.

I felt betrayed when Kerry conceeded and am still amazed that the Democratic party has not responded forcefully to the growing case for Ohio vote fraud. The media shares plenty of blame for not recognzing and covering an issue of vital importance to the democratic process. At the same time, it's hard to explain why the media should be more outraged than the Democratic party.

As long as the Democratic party sits on the sidelines, we can expect the media to do the same. Sumner Redstone made it very clear that media power brokers prefer Bush and Michael Powell to a Democratic alternative. Why should the media upset an applecart that continues to hold out the promise of a media oligopoly?

The media, and apparently the Democratic party as well, is going to have to be dragged into the Ohio voting fraud mess against their will. The media has demonstrated they can ignore the liberal base of the Democratic party because we have no public voice, no media megaphone. O'Reilly and Scarborough are the voice of the media establishment. Only irrefutable facts that prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that fraud was committed will suffice ... maybe.

The DLC spokesholes have complained that "We must leave no doubt that Michael Moore neither represents nor defines our party". Michael Moore was simply filling a vacuum left vacant by the DLC. Michael Moore's movie resonanted with a very large audience because it spoke a basic truth the Democratic leadership had turned its back on.

There is plenty of outrage. The question is how can we harness the outrage on the left and who will speak for us? The silence of Kerry, the DLC and the Democratic party is deafening.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why no outrage when there is obvious fraud - (none / 0)

NO ROSENBERG!

He's an Iraq war supporter; why the hell would anyone who wants the Democratic Party to stand for something support this S.O.B.?

by Frances on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 10:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Possible Ohio Reform (3.00 / 0)

What Ohio Dems need to do is push for a constitutional amendment that would guarantee every voter the right to vote by mail using the absentee voter process. This amendment would pass, would make us look like the party of reform, and would be better than what we have.
by mrgavel on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:15:29 PM EST

Re: Possible Ohio Reform (none / 0)

I am beginning to think that this would pass as well in Ohio. Let's see if Washington follows that lead.
by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Possible Ohio Reform (none / 0)

Also has the advantage of just using the absentee voter process, that is the mechanism is still in place, so it could be sold as an extension of what Ohioans already do.
by mrgavel on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 07:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not so sure about mail-in balloting. (none / 0)

The reason this has never been a preferred option is that it's too vulnerable to outside manipulation by, say, your employer.

Five years ago I might have been less nervous about this sort of thing, but we've already seen people be fired for having a Kerry bumper sticker, we know some employers pressure employees to donate to the candidate of the employer's choice.  Just how far-fetched is it, really, to think certain employers might insist on actually seeing your ballot before you send it in?

I'm not sure what to do about this problem, but I do worry about the integrity of our vote being destroyed by this supposed plan to make voting more accessible for more people.  I'm virtually certain that if it comes to be taken for granted that people will be filling out their own ballots at the lieisure in unmonitored environments, employers who are on-sides with the royalists will begin to incorporate vote-fixing into their regular office routines.

And after the last four years, I think you'd have to be an idiot to find that prediction paranoid.

by Avedon on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 03:05:03 PM EST

Re: I'm not so sure about mail-in balloting. (none / 0)

That's not far-fetched at all, but it is illegal. I can't imagine the practice becoming too widespread before a lot of people started blowing the whistle on their employers.

Besides, it would be easy enough for an employee to cheat, say by marking his/her ballot the employer's way, showing it to collect the "reward," then either applying for a replacement ballot or simply correcting the original with white-out.

I suppose an employer could go so far as to require the employee to show a video showing the ballot, then showing the employee putting the ballot into the envelope, sealing it, and mailing it. But this would make compliance so difficult such an employer would be ratted out in no time.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!
by Mathwiz on Mon Dec 27, 2004 at 05:02:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oregon voting (none / 0)

I had my doubts about the integriy of vote-by-mail, but after using it a few times, and hearing of no serious problems with it, I'm a whole-hearted supporter of the method.

It's not all by mail, btw. Many cities also offer secure dropbox locations, saving even the cost of the stamp to mail it.

About the only way I can imagine how it could be defrauded is if a partisan mail clerk risked federal prosecution by dumping a batch of ballots from a heavily partisan precinct. Not knowing the internal controls the postal service uses to avoid mail tampering, I can only guess it requires considerable risk with a small chance of success.

by Kevin Hayden on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 10:21:56 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: