- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
You are allowing the argument to be framed around whether there was a conspiracy and whether Kerry actually won.
But we know the election was at the very least poorly run, laws were broken, people couldn't vote.
We have to look at what happened in 2000 and 2004 in order to make sure the next election runs more smoothly, and people aren't disenfranchised.
We need to know the votes will be counted properly next time. We need to know people won't be unfairly excluded next time.
There is no trade off between making elections fair, transparent and above board on the one hand and fielding good candidates with better campaigns on the other.
We need both.
As long as we erroneously concede this is about proving John Kerry won in Ohio rather than what it actually is - a call for election reform - we will continue to lose.
Something's amiss.
And bottom line is we need to have elections we can feel comfortable with. We need to be able to recount votes if need be. If exit polls were faulty (I disagree, but . . .) then let's make better polls, or find another way to verify elections.
Whether I think the election was "stolen" is irrelevant. No one can argue nothing went wrong.
To say it has to change the outcome to be a problem is just inane. It's like saying we can just negate all votes that didn't go for the winner, or if it looks like a guy's gonna win before the polls close, we can just lock up the polls and make everyone go home. Their votes don't matter.
