Read other letters about this article

• Monday, June 5, 2006 11:19 AM

  A substantive response on Mercury Rising

  I've done a substantive--and balanced-- response to Manjoo on MercuryRising (www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com).

  For those who don't want to take the time, here are the highlights:

  1. There are flaws in both Manjoo's and RFK's articles. In particular, I'll be happy to explain in detail to Manjoo by e-mail what the flaws in the Mitofsky explanation of the deviation in the exit polls are. But there are other significant errors.

  2. There are unsupportable assumptions in Manjoo's reasoning. Raising allegations of electoral fraud for the purpose of urging an investigation does not require the level of proof Manjoo demands. What victim of a crime-- lacking the power of arrest and subpoena-- can prove that a particular suspect committed a crime? Viewed as a call for an investigation, Kennedy's article is fine. It certainly doesn't reach the burden of proof required in a courtroom, where liberty, life, and property are at risk.

  3. Another implicit assumption has to do with how large of an electoral theft has to be proven before we act. It's normal in criminal cases that the criminal is not charged with everything he is guilty of. For example, Scooter Libby is being prosecuted for lying, not for treason. If George Bush, or an agent acting at his behest, stole even one vote, that would disqualify him from holding office. Demanding proof that 118,000 votes were stolen is an artificial and misguided standard. The proper standard-- and this can only be established by a formal investigation-- is to determine who (if anyone) ordered electoral theft.

  Charles of MercuryRising

  http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

  —Charles
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel