|
of these rightwing corporations to fiddle votes, leaving no trace, is tipping the balance. The 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" is not used evenly, across the board--it would be too detectable if it was. That is an average--a guestimate--generally reflective of the overall disenfranchisement of the majority that is occurring. Sometimes it's a 15% "thumb on the scales," sometimes 3%, depending on circumstances--the importance of the race, the size of the underlying progressive vote, the closeness of the race, the success of dirty tricks, etc.
In 2004, the presidential stats indicate a wave of vote stealing across the country, from east to west, with most of the theft occurring on the east coast, and the highest percentages of vote stealing in the battleground states (TIA's analysis of exit poll vs. Diebold/ES&S secret vote counting formulae). The exit poll discrepancy in that election shows a flip of that vote in the 1% to 6% range. (This does not count the purged voters, who never got to vote--Greg Palast estimated one million purged black voters in 2004. Add those to Kerry's column--along with guestimates of other kinds of vote suppression, such as the excessive challenges of black and other Democratic votes, forcing these voters to use easily tossable provisional ballots--and you're looking at a Kerry landslide.) In Senate races in North Carolina in 2004, and in Georgia in 2002 (first all-Diebold election), the exit poll discrepancies are much bigger (and in NC showed a distinct bias to Bush in e-voting vs. paper voting). Virtually all exit poll discrepancies and all electronic voting machine anomalies favor Republicans. That alone should be a tipoff. In the Ohio by-election on election reform initiatives in 2005, there was a 60/40 flip. (The initiatives were favored by 60% up to election day; on election day, the result flipped over to a 60% loss! --which I take to mean that these corporations were experimenting with much bigger flips, an ominous portent for 2008--if somehow the Democratic Party nominates a true populist/ anti-war candidate).
The 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" is the guestimate of Dr. Ron Baiman and other statisticians. I found that MY guestimate, which had some statistical basis, and some intuitive/anecdotal basis, as well as political analysis, was the same. But the theft by machine is obviously not applied across the board, but rather selectively, mostly to close races, to tip the balance here and there, and in combination with other methods of stealing or influencing elections (both legal/ethical and not legal/ethical--for instance, hiring/firing US Attorneys to get false prosecution of Democrats just before an election, or false prosecution of individual "voter fraud" by poor, black or other Dem voters, with no evidence). TIA's analysis of 2006 points to a 20-seat loss by the Democrats. We gained about 30 seats. We should have gained 50 seats, and many more anti-war seats, giving the Democrats a rock-solid majority in the House, and thus giving the House Democrats more strength in dealing with the dinosaurs in the Senate (only 1/3 of which was up for reelection in 2006).
Consider the overall complex picture of how the progressive majority is suppressed. The most obvious factor is money. It starts in the primaries. Candidates have to have a million dollars to even begin to think of running for Congress. This orients candidates to the richest donors, and begins to exclude populist candidates. (I remember a joke among grass roots activists in California during Gray Davis' tenure--that you couldn't get in the Governor's door without at least a $10,000 check in your hand. And who among us has $10,000 to offer, to get our political opinion heard?) There is plain evidence that Democratic Party money was used to favor "Blue Dog"/pro-war Democrats in 2006. Anti-war, populist Democrats were selected out. And if they won the primary anyway, they were then underfunded. And if that couldn't keep them out of Congress, then Diebold/ES&S vote stealing was applied. When you think of the election in 2006 of Senators like Feinstein and Lieberman--neither of which was dependent on e-voting (that we know of)--you realize that the first factor, in some cases, is money. E-voting is applied when money fails. Feinstein is an interesting case--pro-war, pro-corporate, might as well be a Republican. Elected overwhelmingly in a big anti-war state, with only a moneyless candidate--far, far superior to her on the issues--running against her in the primary, and a dope in the general. Diebold/ES&S techs could take a vacation on that one. Money ruled.
So, you start off with pro-war, pro-corporate candidates being favored in every way--whether Republicans or 'Democrats.' They get all the easy money. The war profiteering corporate news monopolies promote them. The Rovian crime machine backs off on dirty tricks, spying, blackmail, use of US Attorneys, or whatever. (Why bother, when they will always support Bush and the fascist agenda in a crunch? It's even better for the Bushites, P.R.-wise, in some cases, to have D's voting for their dreadful war and other policies.) Local/state party leaders favor them in many cases as well--or are afraid of them. The word comes down from on high. Anti-war, anti-corporate candidates are discouraged from running. The grass roots is told to shut up and raise the hard money (the little peoples' money, in $20 increments). The party leaders completely ignore massive suppression of poor voters (prior to Dean anyway), and unanimously favor "trade secret," proprietary vote counting by rightwing Bushite corporations.
Diebold/ES&S vote counting is the coup de grace, in a situation which is already very corrupt. Completely unverifiable vote counting, by highly insecure and insider riggable voting machines and central tabulators, run on secret code concerning which rightwing corporations assert PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, which they wrote into our law.
How could they get away with this? How could they even THINK of doing this?!
But there you are. It is done. With the complete agreement and complicity of the Democratic Party leadership.
Why would rightwing billionaire CEOs and the "military-industrial" war profiteers play this "shell game"--of (s)electing now Republicans ('04), now Democrats ('06), with little or no difference of policy between them? I think the answer is obvious. They wanted to perpetrate a completely unjust war--in a democracy with the Vietnam War in living memory--and wanted further to drag U.S. policy way, way over to the fascist right, and they had to factor in the overwhelming progressive bent of the American people, and their potential rebellion (i.e., Seattle '99). Thus we get this cartoon dictator president, Bush, and his lethal cabal, not only starting this completely unnecessary war, but pushing outrages like torture and the "unitary executive," to make CORPORATE Democrats look mild by comparison. Note the SECRET "free trade" deal that our Democratic leaders recently made with Bush. Jobs BLEEDING out of the country. Labor rights in the worst condition they have been in, in a century. The planet DYING from Corporate-inflicted CO2 pollution. One South American country after another electing leftist (majorityist) governments and REJECTING U.S. corporate predator "free trade" (along with its military component, the murderous U.S. "war on drugs"). And what do we get from our 'Democrats'? ANOTHER secret "free trade" deal! --with the FEW remaining compliant Latin American countries--quick, before anyone notices!
The methods of stealing elections have escalated in proportion to the NEED to steal elections. The outrageousness of those methods has increased in proportion to the outrages being committed by global corporate predators and the "military-industrial complex." The worse they get--and the more resistance they are getting from the rest of the world--the more imperative it is that they control our election outcomes.
My conclusions about the voting system are NOT just based on what I consider to be an overwhelming statistical case for massive fraud. When you have 75% of the American people opposed to the Iraq War, and the Iraq War their first issue in Congressional elections, and you end up with a 50/50 Congress, SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. And you don't have to look far to see what it is: "TRADE SECRET" vote counting, fast-tracked across the country right alongside 24/7 warmongering lies--all stations, all the time--in the build-up to the war.
The stat that alerted me to the Diebold/ES&S scam (for more investigation) was way back in Feb. '03: 56% of the American people opposed the war, before the invasion, before all the lies were exposed. 56%! That would be a landslide in a presidential election. That is WHY the Dieboldization of our elections was perpetrated ALONG WITH THE WAR. To defeat that big 56% anti-war majority.
You ask the question, "In that order?", with regard to electronic vote stealing vs. the war. My point is that they were simultaneous. If you look at one--the war--by itself, you can see how Democratic politicians could be trapped into it. Some pro-war, some not, some well-meaning, some not, most tainted by the "military-industrial complex" to some extent, almost all ambitious, some presidentially ambitious, and others scared (by anthrax, by Paul Wellstone's death), some spied upon and blackmailed, some trying to do the right thing despite all--a mixed bag. You can UNDERSTAND many of the pro-war (and other pro-fascist) votes in those circumstances.
But the Democratic leadership's support of these election theft machines indicates BAD FAITH of a higher order of magnitude. It is something that did not have to be, and that could be easily undone--and they HAVEN'T UNDONE IT.
And now we find them sneakily supporting the ESCALATION of this war--in defiance of 75% of the American people--and furthermore perpetrating ANOTHER secret "free trade" deal!
Strike One: The Democratic leadership's past support for this heinous war, and their current support of the ESCALATION.
Strike Two: The Democratic leadership's simultaneous support of corporate-controlled secret vote counting, and their failure to undo it, or even to mitigate it with substantial reform.
Strike Three: The Democratic leadership's support for Clinton "free trade" (global corporate piracy)--with no labor and environmental protections--for 8 years, and their support of it AGAIN, recently, in a SECRET deal with Bush.
Three strikes and you're out, as they say in our Bushified, so-called justice system. Especially if your first two crimes are BIG ONES. Enough is enough!
You question my statement about holding off this post for a long time. I have criticized our leadership on both grounds before--the election theft machines and the war--and I have connected the two. (And I've also had a few things to say about "free trade," particularly with regard to jobs here, and impacts on third world countries.) But I have NEVER said that I think we should split the Democratic Party, or that I think that our Democratic Party leadership has split from US. In fact, I have cautioned against this. I have said that we need to stick together, and patiently work toward restoring democracy--including, for instance, even supporting a Hillary Clinton presidency, no matter what she does (say, a military Draft), in order to restore transparent vote counting, which MUST be our FIRST PRIORITY. I have said, think long term! Think beyond the next (s)election. Do not foster a fracturing, a la Germany 1932! I fear that. I do!
And I think I understand the several handicaps that even the best of our Democratic leaders are working under. They are gravely serious ones, including fear and probable spying/blackmail. What I am saying here is that their WORST handicap is SELF-INFLICTED, and DELIBERATE. Support for non-transparent vote counting. And the RESULT is now displayed for all to see. With 75% of the American people opposed to the war and wanting it ended, they are permitting Bush to ESCALATE it, without opposition! Because, they claim, they DON'T HAVE THE VOTES! Why don't they have the votes? Because they killed some antiwar candidacies, and let Diebold/ES&S do the rest.
You say "we" won all but one of the seats "we hoped to win." You are using that "we" in a special way, to mean the Democratic Party leadership. But I do not count "Blue Dog" Democrats in those "wins." They might as well be Bushites. They do NOT reflect the interests or wishes of the American people, and they control Congress. This is a carefully crafted Congress, designed to give the ILLUSION of democracy without the substance. And this is the answer to your question about this "shell game": It is being used to prevent rebellion! It is being used to let a little steam out of our political system--and give it a 'Democratic' coloration, without depth--to forestall civil disorder, in the face of INCREASINGLY outrageous theft by the rich, INCREASINGLY CRIMINAL violations of our Constitution and other laws, in favor of the Corporate Rulers, and an ESCALATED war in the Middle East.
I think this Congress is SLIGHTLY more Democratic than was intended. I think the voters outvoted the machines, in some cases--in furious anger at the Bush Junta. But few realized that, when they pushed that Democratic button, they were voting for more war, for endless war, for a permanent US military foothold in the Middle East, and for continued Congressional tolerance of outrageous White House crimes and the shredding of our Constitution. They wanted a big change. And they have gotten virtually no change--a lot of rhetoric and bluster, and...plop...another $100 billion into Iraq for an escalation of the war with no controls. Why?
Last summer, a poll was posted here at DU showing EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American people opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war. 84%! Another poll was posted--a Zogby poll--showing NINETY-TWO PERCENT of the American people wanting transparent vote counting. Americans are slightly less sure what to do about the disaster in Iraq--at 75% opposition to this continued war/occupation. But they are admamant about all three. Overwhelmingly so.
And what do they get? The exact opposite in all cases.
I am saying it is time to realize that our Democratic Party leadership has broken from us, the people, in such a definitive way that we cannot go along with it any more. If they were--DESPITE their collusion on Diebold/ES&S vote counting--FIGHTING Bush and laying this horrible escalation out for what it is, EVEN IF they couldn't stop it, that would be different. But they are not. If they were demanding a 100% handcount of ballots as a check on machine fraud, even though it TOO LATE for this Congress--if they were recognizing their mistake and correcting it--that would be different. But they are not. And the SECRET "free trade" deal with Bush is just black icing on this poisonous cake. They've betrayed us on THAT, TOO? Surprise, surprise.
And I don't know what to do about it. Some of the South Americans are rejecting party politics, and trying to create a more representative system, that breaks up the old corrupt political machines, and favors more direct plebiscites, grass roots organization, and participatory democracy. This movement is most notable in Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia. But the USA is a much more difficult nation to reform--even looking at the brutal history of South American (and US-abetted) fascism. They certainly have had a lot to overcome. And it should be noted that one of the chief ways they are overcoming it is with long hard work on TRANSPARENT vote counting!* The control mechanisms in the USA, however--and our position as the vortex of global corporate predator evil in the world--make this corrupt system more difficult to analyze and far more difficult to change. Our size and complexity are factors in that difficulty.
I would say--and have often said--start with the most obvious problem: secret, corporate-controlled vote counting. That has got to go! It is the ultimate democracy-killer. It makes even incremental change IMPOSSIBLE. As for the vast reforms that are needed, we will NEVER see them, as long as Diebold/ES&S control our election results. We can't even begin to reform this system until we have restored vote counting that everyone can see and understand.
As for other solutions--right now--in regard to our party leadership, the war and all the rest--I don't know what to do. I think a lot of people are struggling with these questions. And there has been PHENOMENAL effort by grass roots Democrats to reform the party. But we put the House gavel in Nancy Pelosi's hands, and she can't wait a day to betray us. Coming right out of the election, she says, "Impeachment is off the table" (--the "table" we were not invited to sit at!). And, within a MONTH, Bush is ESCALATING the war, and within five months our leaders are helping him to do it.
I was patient with "Impeachment is off the table" figuring that a secret deal with Bush on Iran was better than war on Iran, and/or, hoping for some foxy plan to corner these criminals. But the escalation of the war, and the Democratic leadership's collusion with it, shreds any last hopes I had that this leadership is on the side of the American people.
I have always supported the Democrats--and been a Democrat--because of the all the smaller benefits that help "the little guy." 25 cents more on his/her paycheck. Good infrastructure. Good schools. Parks. Safe food. Help in emergencies. And opposition to unnecessary war, since Vietnam. I have known all along--especially when we hit the Reagan Era of Greed (and slaughter in Latin America) that I was compromising, that our party was becoming more and more corrupt, and more and more distant from "the little guy." I voted Democratic because they had some sense of fairness and lawfulness. I voted Democratic out of hope. And I often voted Democratic because there were no other viable choices. And now I know that my vote means nothing. They can flip it away, invisibly, if they don't like it. And our party leadership is permitting that.
And that is the last straw. Our party leadership is permitting Bushites to control the vote count with 'trade secret,' proprietary code.
They have taken me for granted all these years, and taken my contributions--including $100 on election night, Nov. 2, 2004, to insure that "all the votes will be counted." Ha! They got me, there. I was only half-cognizant of Diebold/ES&S and its secret power: There were no ballots TO count! I got suckered. That money was probably used to kill some poor antiwar Democrat's campaign in '06, or to make copies of that lying, deceitful DNC report on the 2004 (s)election, that Terry McAuliffe put out. Well, that doesn't matter either. They have other places to get a lot more money than I can give them. I'm just one vote, one citizen, one small contributor. If they can kiss off 75% of the American people, then clearly they don't need me. And if they threw the 2004 presidential election--which I believe they did--what is the point of being a member of this political party?
We vote. And nothing changes. That's where we're at.
We vote. And things go backwards. Truly. One of these machines actually started counting backwards, deducting thousands of votes, in '04. Another 'disappeared' 18,000 Democratic votes in '06.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Not a whisper of objection from our leadership. Not a hint that something's wrong.
56% of the American people opposed to this war, way back at the beginning--and Bush/Cheney get reelected?
75% opposed to this war now, and our leaders are making deals with Bush to ESCALATE it?
And I don't know what to do about it. I really don't. I just know that something's going to snap, in this country, if this continues.
This post is a plea to DU members and visitors to look to the most obvious culprit: the voting machines. And it is a plea for solutions. What do we do? How can we unlock the dreadful grip that the "military-industrial complex" has on our government?
----------------------------------------
*(In Venezuela, they vote electronically, but with an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are counted. And they ADDITIONALLY hand-count FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the ballots, as a check on machine fraud. No fools they. Know how much WE hand-count? You'd better find out--cuz that's the whole ballgame, as Josef Stalin is reported to have said. (And they didn't even have baseball in Soviet Russia!))
Some other notes:
Lieberman was elected in CT, where they still have the old-fashioned, virtually unriggable lever voting machines; however, I believe that Diebold/ES&S central tabulators were installed just before that election. But money was probably the main factor.
(We also had so-called leftists like Boxer endorsing Lieberman. Go figure.)
Footnote to the OP: I promised a footnote in the main OP on the Senate vote for Diebold/ES&S vote counting (the vote for the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" of 2002--in the same month as the IWR). Here it is: Only two U.S. Senators voted against it. And I was amazed at who they were: Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of NY. But before we start thinking that they have more belief in democracy than other Democratic Senators, bear in mind that New Yorkers are very attached to their old lever machines. That may well account for Clinton/Schumer's votes against HAVA. Diebold/ES&S are now trying very hard to add New York to their non-transparent vote counting corporate fold. Also, Sen. Diane "corporate ruler" Feinstein HEADS the Senate committee on election reform. God help us all!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
