Read other letters about this article

• Saturday, June 3, 2006 11:19 AM

  Citing Plausible reasons for irregularities does NOTHING to resolve the issue

  It's easy to describe my attitude toward Farhad Manjoo's response to RFK Jr.'s Rolling Stone opening-of-the-public-debate on election protection: "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it." That should be part of the response of any freedom-loving person, for without the freedom to be wrong there's no freedom at all. Totalitarians highly value their intense commitment to "truth" and commitment to stamping out "falsity." Sadly, we are hugely behind in this public education area, and the consequences are apparent all over the place.

  Manjoo continues in the tradition of one "school's" de facto rule regarding election protection: If there's any plausible reason for it, ignore the arguments, facts or inferences that it's fraud. (or even that it's just an inaccurate result, though no one wanted it to be inaccurate specifically).

  The enormous problem with this is that if someone IS going to attack the election process (and there's enormous motive and stakes to do so) then they are highly likely to choose a method for which there's a plausible innocent explanation. They would do this of course in order to avoid getting caught and make the election seem legitimate.

  An election rigger or hacker wants, probably more than anybody, to create an impression that the false is the true. Given that lies must appear as truth, riggers or hackers MUST cover their tracks with plausibility and secrecy or some combination thereof. They are going to steal votes in ways that appear, to Manjoo and election officials in this particular school of thinking, to be innocent "glitches" or random glitches were both sides got hit about "equally" or, in any event, they would rationalize that "there's not enough evidence to change the result."

  Under the Manjoo school of government-thinking, there's a sort of enforced naivete centered around denying that anybody would want to control a county or even the world's sole military superpower and wealthiest country simply by moving some voting machine electrons around.

  This naivete is like having a gorgeous wife and denying that anyone would ever cheat "regarding" that wife. It suggests that this enforced naivete is strong enough to overcome both good sense and knowledge of human nature. One could suggest, although I in reality do not with regard to Mr. Manjoo, be more aggressive and question Manjoo's love for his country, just as one might question the love for one's spouse if one was indifferent about the threat of the spouse cheating AS WELL AS NAIVE about the signs of an affair, all of which are readily denied and rationalized as being innocent. (oh honey, just some smeared lipstick, hot weather today...)

  Given all of world history and its sagas and hijinks bids for control, the only rational response is to call for a full investigation, and not just by the government, but by a funded group of outside activists, academics and attorneys. The government, in administering elections, has a profound conflict of interest in presiding over the determination of ITS OWN legitimacy, and to then, on top of that, have the goverment INVESTIGATE the bona fides of its own legitimacy via election is just too much insanity to bear, once one is clear about the precise context here.

  The key is that all of the plausible explanations Manjoo offers don't add up to anything, because the (most likely) multiple fraud attempts will almost surely attempt to pass themselves off as legit. Used car dealers don't rip you off by trying to sell you something that looks and feels like a bad car! it looks good and there's EVIDENCE that it's just fine!

  So, throughout this article, Manjoo establishes a profound misunderstanding of elections when he repeatedly cites what he thinks are plausible explanations for various election irregularity, and then MOVES ON, as if the plausibility of the explanation proves that the event is not fraud. It most decidedly proves nothing of the sort.

  Since Manjoo cited Democratic Underground and linked to it, here's a more specific inside link to a discussion regarding this article that I started:

  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=431251&mesg_id=431251

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

  Cancel