...with a link to Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606030001

His/their bottom line seems to be that whatever their faults, politicians in the Democratic Party face an impossible task just trying to get "fair" coverage, forget about anything favorable.

This is in reponse to the comments about what miserable candidates we've had. It simply isn't true. That's just what the media wants you/us to believe. And so far, it's been working...

All of the people who I know who support paperless computerized voting answer some variation of "Hell no!" when I ask them if they'd use an ATM that doesn't give a receipt. Voters should have the same "receipt" that bank customers get, with the difference that the "receipt" would be deposited at the polling place to be available for audit (recount) to confirm the numbers generated by the machine.

R. Rowland

Farhod's exit poll explanation is ridiculous. In 80% Republican disctrict if Reps responded only 53% of the time then Dems would have to respond 68% of the time to arrive at a 56% response rate. Conversely in 80% Dem district a Rep response of only 50% requires a Dem response of 54% to arrive at an overall rate of 53%. This would mean that Dems in a heavily Dem district would have to be a whopping 14% less likely to answer polsters than Dems in a hostile Republican district. This makes absolutely no sense. You would expect the opposite. Also that fact that Farhod can't do simple math blows his credibility. Shame on Salon Editors for not catching this. So will you fire Farhod and appologize now?

Antojr FL

Farhad Manjoo,

While I admire your tenacious fairmindedness (it gives me hope)and agree, generally, with your conclusions regarding the RFK Jr Rolling Stone article, I must point out the absolutism to which you, and indeed RFK Jr., succumb and warn you not to let such things cloud your judgement.

The game, in Ohio and elsewhere, isn't baseball, where deliberate actions result in scores which cannot be ambiguous. The game is poker played at the margins and where a precious few percentage points either way can move large amounts very quickly. It's about the margins.

Intriguing as demonstrated disenfranchisements are, they provide only half the story. The other half, I'll warrant, lies in the far subtler ways in which GOP voter efforts were greased and smoothed. Democrats were disenfranchised indeed, while Republican voters had a veritable red carpet to the polls. It is only necessary that small amounts need be disqualified if some amount of empowerment occurs in the other direction. Your argument, as I understand it, seems predicated on the notion that, indeed, some amount of disenfranchisement did occur, but not enough to sway the outcome. I agree with this assessment, but think that it is incomplete. This is a subject worthy of your acuity and interest and I would ask you to look into it.

Also, you buttress your arguments with reference to the 2002 and 2000 federal elections. This you cannot do without skepticism. Surely you cannot think that Blackwell and other GOP operatives learned whatever skills they employ in a vacuum? If you admit to the fact that some underhanded play occurred then you must see the logical fallacy in your reference to previous, shady elections. The system did suddenly break in 2004.

Surprisingly little efforts can yield decidedly big rewards in competitions where the margins are so very slim. Again, it is not neccessary to engage in wholesale denial of your foe if you provide an enabling hand to your friends.

What ever credibility you had left is now to be finally flushed down the drain. This person is an Idiot. I was a big Salon supporter until the time during the 2004 election when I read one of this A.H.'s works of mental deification. That was when I decided to not pay for a membership. You lost me then, but I still came back occasionally because of Sidney Blumenthal and Joe Conason. I shall not do that any longer as long as this idiot remains in your employ.

Reasoned thoughtful writing which supports a point of view which is in disagreement is fine, but your resident idiot is little more than a articulate bomb thrower. The stakes are too high to tolerate or support that.

...is that it reeks of the bowing to the right that NPR's All Things Considered has engaged in for the past five and half years. But in NPR's case they have good reason. The Bush administration has their nuts in a financial vise. I, like many other readers, expected more from Salon. Although I have to admit that I was disappointed enough by Mr. Manjoo's past treatment of the '04 election controversy to let my subscription lapse.

Many of us Democrats are frustrated by patronizing sentiments, such as Manjoo's, that scold us to "get over it." Even our own party has written us off as "conspiracy nuts" and "sore losers." Remember that John Kerry himself fled to a ski resort while thousands of his supporters were fighting for a recount in Ohio. Even Al Franken and Arianna Huffington have scoffed at us disgruntled voters. It seems that anyone who has earned enough status or success to have something to lose shuns the election fraud issue. I would feel differently if the Democratic Party and "liberal" pundits at least heard us out and engaged in a serious dialog on the questionable election results in 2000, 2002 (Cleland in GA), and 2004.

I had already the entire Rolling Stone story before reading Mr. Manjoo's article. I knew there wasn't anything new in Kennedy's story, but I thought the clear encapsulation of the issues and the name of a high profile Democrat attached to the charges might cause Manjoo to reconsider. It's obvious that when Manjoo "scoured" Kennedy's piece, he did so with the intent to find points to rebutt rather than attempting to at least understand why many Americans are so concerned about the state of U.S. elections. And why we dread continued abuses from the Republicans in future elections.

Petr's letter is spot-on, as are several others.

I'd like to add that there's an important point of context that's been overlooked (I apologize if an earlier letter writer has brought it up already): The Republican New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal in 2002. Interested parties can get lots of good information at

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/new_hampshire_phone_jamming/

There's a timeline a http://talkingpointsmemo.com/phonejamming.php

and an overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_New_Hampshire_Senate_election_phone_jamming_scandal

Three Republicans--including an operative, James Tobin, who was important enough that the RNC spent *three million dollars* on his legal bills--have been sentenced to prison for breaking election laws; two have already served time. Thanks to their work, Democratic turnout was suppressed. However, the "winner" of the 2002 Senate race, Republican John E. Sununu, is still in office.

Republicans break laws to win elections. This is documented fact. They almost certainly broke several laws in Ohio in 2004 and successfully suppressed votes. While Manjoo does make the case that it can't be proven they suppressed 118,000 votes, this is kind of a technicality--it's like Charles Manson's attorney saying "Your honor, my client didn't kill *one hundred* people--he only killed 26!" The number of votes suppressed has got to be in the tens of thousands.

Manjoo's a good writer, but his article would be better served by context and a look at the bigger picture, including the various frauds which were committed in 2000 (Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" is a good starting point.)

Greg M.