How does one escape the circular argument? By supplying independent evidence of "the over-sampled Kerry voter." And as we have seen, there is none.
For the theologically inclined, here is another ad hoc explanation of the exit polling error. As the faithful assure us, The Lord God anointed George Bush to be our President. This we know from George Bush himself. In fact, Bush won Ohio handily. However, The Prince of Darkness, determined as ever to undo The Lord's work, distorted the exit poll to cast doubt on the legitimacy of God's Chosen President. So why did Mitofsky's polls fail? "The Devil made him do it."
I submit that this "explanation" has about as much independent support as "the over-sampled Kerry voters" theory. I..e., none.
What else? The election was fraudulent.
Do articles like Kennedy's, and rebuttals like Manjoo's, illegitimately "frame" the controversy in favor of the status quo and against the critics? Have the critics been "suckered" into "playing the game" according to their opponents ground rules? Unfortunately, it appears that they have. Why must it be the task of the critics, private citizens all, to "prove" that the past three elections were fraudulent? Why have these critics conceded this burden of proof? Do not the citizens have a right to secure and accurate elections? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the government to provide verifiable procedures? Should it not suffice that the critics demonstrate that the procedures fall short? Even if Farhad Manjoo and others succeed in showing that Robert Kennedy and other critics fail to make a convincing case for fraud (and I submit that Manjoo has done no such thing), shouldn't it be enough that the critics have raised reasonable and unanswerable doubts, and that the election officials and the defenders of the status quo can not supply the citizens convincing evidence and proof that the elections are honest and accurate? This much at least, the defenders have accomplished. Nothing else should be required. So why does the controversy continue?
Robert Kennedy Jr.'s argument that the 2004 election was stolen emerges essentially undiminished, and arguably strengthened by the weakness of Manjoo's "rebuttal." That's the logic of it.
But the practical effects are another matter. Will this controversy finally break into open public debate? And will it do so in time for the public will to overcome the formidable barrier of "black box" voting machines with their hidden secret codes and unlocked "back doors" open to real time manipulation and fraud?
Emerging from the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked: "What do we have, Dr. Franklin?" He replied, "A republic if you can keep it."
Today it is uncertain whether we still have a republic, much less whether we can keep it.
Today, as in 1787, the answer to that question is up to We the People of the United States.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
