Black voters: 16% Bush, 84% Kerry.
If most of the long lines (precincts that were shorted on voting machines) were in black precincts, then how could the number of people who were unable to remain in those long lines, and were thus denied the right to vote, be 50/50 Bush/Kerry?
I'm willing to believe that black voters were tougher than other voters, and stuck it out to the end in greater numbers. Black citizens struggled through many bloody decades, and were beaten, and blown up by bombs, and lynched for seeking their right to vote--not to mention being repeatedly lied to and tricked, segregated, impoverished, being required to recite the Constitution by heart in order to register to vote, and being charged a poll tax. And it took a decade of strenuous organization and highly risky protests, and a whole lot of jail time, to overcome all those obstacles. A long line is nothing compared to what they, and their parents and grandparents suffered to obtain the right to vote.
So, yeah, they STAYED IN LINE, and they VOTED--to remove that lot of thieves and mass murderers from the White House. I can believe it! But what I can't believe is 16% vs. 84% (Bush/Kerry) coming out as 50/50, in denial of the right to vote due to long lines. Black voters are also among the most oppressed of the poor--and have huge responsibilities for children, the elderly and the sick, and are the most likely to have several low-paying jobs, unsympathetic bosses, transportation problems, poor health and all sorts of other barriers to staying in line for four to ten hours.
Black precincts were of course specifically targeted on the shortage of voting machines BECAUSE they oppose Bush in such great numbers (16% vs. 84%)--as were other minority, poor and student precincts. Bush precincts (white, wealthy) did NOT suffer this crime. How could it come out 50/50? I simply don't believe it.
A total of 2% to 3% of the overall Ohio vote was suppressed in this way--and most of that suppression HAD TO HAVE BEEN Kerry votes. Has anyone heard of a SINGLE BUSH PRECINCT that suffered a long line? There are no such reports, as far as I know. Not one.
So there is something very wrong with that 50/50 stat. Like so many of the numbers in this election, it just doesn't add up.
Re: the student precincts. New voter registration was 60/40 Democratic, nationally, in 2004. I presume many of the new voters were students, and that a similar Dem blowout in new voter reg occurred in Ohio. New voters/young voters voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Student precincts were ALSO targeted for a shortage of voting machines. And the combined black and student vote suppression had NO EFFECT on the vote? That is not believable.
Note: Kerry had a 70/30 edge in the exit polls, above, in low income; 55/45 among new voters; 60/40 among the youngest voters, and 85/15 among black voters. So, all of the precincts that were targeted for suppression by long lines voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.
As with the issue of how Bushite-controlled electronic voting machines got purchased and installed, with no objection from the Democratic Party, and often with the enthusiastic support of Democrats, the failure, malfeasance and/or corruption of Democratic election officials, party operatives and elected representatives must be looked at--with regard to individual items like the 50/50 stat, and the shortages themselves. THIS may be the key to the DNC report--and all its omissions and disinformation and wrong emphasis, and slapdash lack of care. The key to understanding it may be that it is a COVER-UP of Democratic Party malfeasance and corruption, in Ohio and nationwide--and, in specific places in the report, it may be hiding specific kinds of malfeasance and corruption, and protecting specific people.
It certainly has that smell to it.
I have to tell you, I've been blown away by what happened to Kevin Shelley in California--and the part played in his demise by Democrats, and particularly by Connie McCormack, a Democrat, head of elections in Los Angeles, and an advocate of paperless voting, with personal ties to Diebold (which, in addition to corrupting our elections, has OTHER government db contracts). McCormack was instrumental in getting rid of Shelley--who was riding herd on Diebold and had sued them and decertified their DREs, and who also, and not incidentally, was riding herd on "revolving door" employment between election officials and these private electronic voting machine companies. And this hogfest at the Beverly Hilton, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, with McCormack as a featured speaker, this coming August, has really gotten under my skin.
See Amaryllis' post at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340 I am certainly aware of the grass roots criticisms of the Democratic Party, which some consider to be hopelessly corrupt, especially on issues of military spending/war, corporate campaign contributions and tie in's, and global 'free trade' policy (i.e., piracy). I agree with these criticisms. The question is, where do you start cleaning house? Where do you aim your broom?
In 2004, we compromised, and agreed to support a pro-war candidate (Kerry), despite huge, nationwide opposition (60% at the time, 80% now) to the Iraq war. I understand that compromise. It resulted in a huge vote to oust the Bush Cartel--a landslide (that they had to really scramble around to overcome). (I have a friend who says that, if Kerry had been a populist and antiwar--in other words, if he had been Dean--he would have won by 20% instead of 10%, and they could not have stolen that many votes; however, I think their backup plan--"Plan C" (the "terrorist alert" plan)--would have been implemented, at that point; they were not about to give up the White House; but it certainly would have exposed them as the fascists that they are, for all to see.)
I digress. What I am getting at is, where do we aim the broom? We can't seem to dislodge pro-war Democrats--the whole thing is so entrenched and so corrupt (the military-corporate complex). And the players are so far above us--millionaire Senators and so on--who despise their constituents as peons and peasants. But what if we were to aim the broom lower--say, at the corrupt Democrats who are purchasing Bushite-controlled voting machines, and who pose a direct threat to our ability to vote for change.
It's kind of happening anyway. Election reform activists are coming up against these corrupt Democrats all over the country, in the local/state venues where election systems are being decided. But I'm thinking of a specific campaign to drive them from office--county registrars and so on. Electronic voting has made these people very powerful; and Dem office holders are beholden to them in ways that they never have been before (for instance, in merely understanding these systems, the new technological gobble-de-gook of voting). It's a much more doable campaign than, say, trying to get the Dem Party to stop colluding on the Iraq war. And if we succeed, and just sort of deconstruct the whole corrupt electronic voting system establishment, and get elections back into the public domain, then we will have achieved real power, as a citizenry. Honest elections are a terrifying prospect to the corrupt.
As for DEMOCRATS shorting BLACK PRECINCTS on voting machines, and going along with the plague of election crimes committed in Ohio, I don't know the answer. But I think that that malfeasance is related to the overall corruption at the DNC over the last four years, which INCLUDES corruption associated with the new electronic voting systems (lavish lobbying, bribery, job offers, et al). And if we knock out one pillar of that corruption, we can knock out all of them.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
