- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
That's why when accusations are made, the charges have to stick. Not to do so is like prosecuting a criminal on weak circumstantial evidence. No matter how guilty the defendent, he will be acquitted.
One of the best things voting activists have done is put under a microscope a flawed process that has been given little attention. But the way to present the argument is by detailing the facts and only going as far as the evidence permits.
If you go public with a mixture of valid and invalid arguments, a skilled debater will use the invalid arguments to tear your position to shreds. Didn't anyone see "Thank You for Smoking"?
The exit poll discrepancy, for example, does not prove fraud. This section of the Manjoo article is perfectly correct. He also points out other questionable parts of the Kennedy article -- enough to disguise the disturbing things that remain after the smoke has cleared.
The result is that Manjoo can tear apart the Kennedy article even while conceding Republican malfeasance. And he can even slip in what may be an important inaccuracy (removal of registration is illegal without voter notification).
The most productive activistm has been in the area of electronic voting, where it's been proceeding on the basis of provable vulnerabilities and known problems, and has not needed proof of election theft.
Most proponents of vote fraud know they are on to something -- the question is what and how it is known. Arguments in the public arena have to be pursued a certain way to be successful. Contributors like Mebane and Mitofsky know how to do this. Most activists seem to think that what's required is arguing more passionately and end up frustrating their own cause.
