If the votes actually cast were miscounted, there had to be a mechanism to do that. Without such a mechanism, the accusation is simply a Paranoid Conspiracy Theory. Advocating such theories makes everyone involved look like a fool.

I voted in a mostly Black precinct in Cincinnati, OH. There were plenty of problems, but my vote was on a Punch Card ballot, which Diebold never touched. Even where electronic machines -were- used, systematic falsification of the vote would require an extraordinary effort by many people. Sampling bias in the polling is much more probable than such a vast conspiracy.

Voter purges and long lines are entirely different. Having ferried voters around Cincinnati on in the cold rain of that dreary day, I have little doubt that Kerry would have won if voting were fair.

It is unacceptable to put the control of elections in the hands of -any- partisan official. Ken Blackwell is slime, and if we can stick him with the blame, GO FOR IT.

But stay away from the Nutball Conspiracy Theories.

I found in interesting that although I normally vote in the front office of my aparatment complex, like the rest of the complex's mostly OSU Student population, on Nov. 2, 2004, I had to go to a different location. I also found it interesting that in that location, Republican voters actually got to vote a little quicker becuase the lists of voters were split on party lines. There were few enough GOP voters at the location that I recall several people who were registered Republicans got called ahead because the poll worker who had to confirm their identity was not busy. Add to this fact that there were 8 machines for a line that I waited in for 3 hours, even though I got there at 7:30 in the morning, and it is quite easy to suspect that something fishy was going on. When I heard that the Franklin County board of elections had extra machines that they hadn't deployed, then I seriously doubted that this election was going to be a good one. Both parties needed an election where the results were hard to contest to wipe the smear of the 2000 election from people's memories and to deflect calls for more election reform. As far as I'm concerned, they didn't get a clean election, but it seems to have pacified the media, who reply on people like that sleeze, Ken Blackwell, to ascertain whether or not the election was fair. I'l be interested to see how our crooked Secretary of State handles the 2006 election, where he's running for governor. Will he recuse himself of his duties, or will he keep this pretense that having an obviously biased official in charge of an election is ethically acceptable?

Here is a sentence from RFK Jr.'s article:

"The exit polls even showed Kerry breathing down Bush's neck in supposed GOP strongholds Virginia and North Carolina."

Excuse me, but that means that the exit polls were wrong. Pre-election polls indicated that Kerry was not competitive in either state, and he wound up losing Virginia by eight points and North Carolina by twelve.

Dick Morris and Michael Barone feel that Kerry's enormous leads in the early exits that were leaked to the media (roughly twenty points in close battleground states such as Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Minnesota) reflect "slamming" by Democratic operatives (guess who leaked those polls?).

If the issue is election reform, not who won the election, then this pair of articles is conclusive. The U.S. has no business presenting itself as a model of democracy. I am sure that people living in democracies around the world are scratching their heads, or even snickering at the way we elected our president. The analysis of an election should not read like a description of a hockey game. That is what we play here, pole hockey. Each side has a goalie, and the other side tries to shoot a ballet into the net.

Thankyou Salon for getting Mr. Kennedy to contribute to your mangazine.

I have thought for a long time now that Farhad Manjoo was stubbornly off base, and always believed that Salon should investigate further. At the end of the day, I believe Kennedy makes the stronger argument, and I congratulate him on his effort in Rolling Stone and here on Salon.

A special place in Hell is waiting for Manjoo. I hear that the fire there is started with eighty-pound paper weight combustibles.

Republicans will always use any and all dirty tricks to gain an advantage. The Democrats can't. If they could, they wouldn't be the true party of values and voice of decency for the common people. The question to ask is why are these elections even close enough for the "marginalizations" to work? Until the Dims can figure out that one, we'll continue to be fuming on the sidelines while the Repugnicans rub their hands all the way to the bank.

A running theme here among Manjoo defenders is that vote rigging by today's very ugly GOP is so totally outlandish that nothing short of a smoking gun, in someone's hand, with a Bugs Bunny sign pointing to it will do.

How is Blackwell more honest than Boss Tweed? How is today's GOP more honest than - well, any party at any time in US history? Fraud happens. It's not crazy. It's commonplace. And with so much money and power on the line, we should all be on the lookout.

But as long as even raising the question gets treated like loony toons, well then it's open season for anyone with the motive, opportunity and will to steal. Motive and opportunity, of course, are available to Rove, Cheney, Blackwell, and their friends who build and maintain the machines on which America votes. That leaves only trust in their characters for our protection. Don't forget that. American democracy rests on their good will - at least so long as doubters are shot down by the likes of Manjoo.

I'm rapidly losing faith in the ability of people to debate fairly. Sad to say, I'm going to be putting RFK, Jr., into this category.

First of all, his response to Farhad Manjoo on this issue did nothing to rebut what Manjoo said. In fact, it proves that Kennedy himself played fast and loose with the facts.

The perfect example can be found in the very beginning of the piece when Kennedy attempts to slam-dunk Manjoo but ends up getting slam-dunked himself. In his article in Rolling Stone, Kennedy flatly asserted that 174,000 voters "who showed up to vote on Election Day were forced to leave without casting a ballot."

Now we find out that that is not exactly true. By Kennedy's own admission, we find out that 48,000 of those 174,000, "were also suppressed because of the lines and other factors."

Other factors? Excuse me? Kennedy categorically stated that 174,000 people showed up to vote and were turned away. But this assertion is just plain false. As Manjoo points out, and according to the DNC report, almost 48,000 of those 174,000 never went to the polls. Say what you will about why they didn't go to vote, but the fact remains that Kennedy flat-out got the numbers wrong.

And I'm sorry, but that's just either shoddy work, or a poor attempt to twist some numbers. And Kennedy's bid to make up for this mistake by adding in the 'other factors' phrase is pretty transparent.

As to the issue with the judges, Kennedy blithely explains away Manjoo's 2000 election contrast by referring to Alice Resnick as “wildly popular.” I'm sorry, but Kennedy stating that a judge is quite popular does not wipe away the fact that the same type of anomaly occurred in 2000 as it did in 2004. In fact, maybe it's not an anomaly at all. So one has to ask, why was this rather pertinent fact left out of Kennedy's piece in the first place? One can only guess, but Kennedy calling a judge wildly popular as the be all and end of all to explain getting caught in the sin of omission is not particularly valid in my line of thinking.

Furthermore, Kennedy's line about Manjoo creating a "cottage industry" to debunk supposed problems in Ohio is disingenuous on two fronts. First, Manjoo has done nothing of the sort. He's consistently argued a position that Kennedy doesn't agree with. How is that a cottage industry? I mean really, can I accuse Kennedy of creating his own cottage industry after he's argued his side for a while, which I'm sure he'll do? It's simply ridiculous and it smacks of the kind of trite dismissal we've come to expect from Republican debate tactics.

Second, that phrase might give some people the impression that Manjoo has never really addressed Republican voter chicanery. He has -- on many occasions. Here are just three:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/21/sproul/index.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/15/florida_voters/index.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/21/intimidation/index.html

So cottage industry? I think not. And for Kennedy to say that is pretty unfair to Manjoo.

Finally, Kennedy accuses Manjoo of "outrage" over this issue. That's pretty funny. I found Manjoo's piece to be rather clinical. As was his reply to Kennedy. Accusing Manjoo of "outrage" is just another example of Kennedy's shoddy work. It's another cheap rhetorical ploy worthy of the Republican Party, not the son of RFK.

In the end, Manjoo has made some pretty valid arguments to rebut Kennedy. That's all that's happened. And to all the folks who are going apoplectic here on the letters page, stop all the vitriol. I, for one, am tired of reading it. If you want to debate, debate substantively, and not like a pack of Limbaughs and Hannitys.