Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
And about Ohio
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clear evidence of fraud was on display -- no one disputes machine allocation or the rural precincts that went 100 percent for Bush.
The excuse from Manjoo and other is that even if you add up the known fraud, it's not enough votes to make up the margin, so forget about it (!?!)
Again, why in a democracy must we prove that fraud swayed an election before we can ask to have votes counted in a public and verifiable way?
This isn't American Idol. It's OUR government, supposedly elected by US.
-
The Burden of Proof
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It should be provable in every election that there was no fraud -- not the other way around. It's amazing how Americans are willing to settle for total shit.
The private sector companies that run our elections have a vested interest in the outcome of elections -- you don't need Clinton to do it. Who wins decides what kind of voting reform we get, which could vastly impact bottom line. Competitive elections mean higher turnout in big states, which mean more machines. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that hinge on the outcome of a company's election results -- and no real oversight of the code, machines, memory cards, etc.
The more recounts the better. Every election should have paper ballots that are counted by hand.
-
doc5467 and Sol Invictus
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]doc5467:
This isn't about Clinton. Your logic is no different than what was used against those who said the GOP disenfranchised voters in 00 and 04. "You just don't like that my candidate won!" Bullshit. I just want to know -- KNOW -- that the person who gets the votes/delegates actually had the support of the voters. Period.
Sol Invictus:
First off, citing media conclusions about the outcome of '00 -- even if you believe these papers to be "liberal" -- is not proof that the election was fair -- and the burden of proof has to be on the system to prove it's fair, not individuals to prove it isn't in the face of irregularities. Also, as I said earlier, just because the corruption on the surface isn't enough to PROVE the election would have gone the other way, that in no way makes the election legitimate. Imagine any other area of public life where such shoddy accountability was in place. No one would watch sports if the outcome was as uncertain as our elections -- the public wouldn't stand for it.
"The Tribune says the Bears probably would have lost, even though no one was allowed to watch the game and Vegas was running the score board." Who would follow sports in that arena? Or, "we won't show you how the lottery balls were picked and there is no oversight, but, again, no one's number came up." Who would ever play that lottery again? "You lost this hand of poker, but you can't even see your own cards after the hand, let alone the dealer's." Who would play at that casino again? "We refunded your money to your credit card, but you can't have a receipt and it won't show up on your statement." Who would shop there again?
Americans are so dumb. We wouldn't stand for hidden voting on American Idol, but we tell those who call for a transparent election to shut up and fuck off.
No wonder our country is in the shithole and hated around the globe -- it's not like we pay attention to what our government does once "elected" either.
We DESERVE George Bush. He is the price of ignorance.
-
@ doc5467
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we agree. I'd support a hand count every time.
To the Clinton supporters: I supported Edwards and haven't made up my mind between Clinton and Obama. Clinton has a better record and plan on the environment, but she did vote to give GWB the ability to wage a war that anyone paying attention knew he'd wage. I have no clue where Obama stands on a number of issues, and he's done some odious things in the Senate. Rhetorically, they offer indistinguishable agendas elsewhere and side with industry a little too often for Democrats. I may still vote for her in my primary unless Edwards mounts some crazy comeback (and for the record, I don't think the recount will do his delegate count any good.)
I really want everyone to know their vote counted. We can't hold together if people don't trust their vote.
-
And if there is a recount...
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and if it comes out the same as the machines, I don't think it will make people less likely to ask for one in the future. It will make us all happy. Clinton voters will feel their surge is genuine and Obama supporters will know they lost it fair and square -- and voters in New Hampshire will feel a lot better.
I think we'll be all the more comfortable asking for one in the future. We could say to ourselves: "see, it didn't hurt."
We should get used to recounts. We deserve recounts on demand as long as initial counts are done by private corporations. You'd expect the same when any other thing of value is handled by the private sector.
-
doc5467
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are right. South Carolina is totally fucked up. It's a black hole. You prove my point. This is not acceptable.