Simplify! Simplify! Simplify! (H. D. Thoreau, Walden)
Complication of the election integrity issue works to the advantage of the status quo; which is to say, the increasing use of paperless, unauditable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines. More complications abound as critics of the status quo attempt to prove that past, and presumably future, elections were and will be fraudulent.
1. Can defenders of the status quo prove that the 2004 (and also the 2000 and 2002) elections were fair and accurate?
2. Can defenders of the status quo refute the critics?
The answer to the first question is simple and straightforward: they cannot, because the DREs (and also the central compiling computers) were designed to exclude proof. The software is secret, and thus closed to inspection and validation, and there is no independent record of the votes against which the totals can be verified. (Running the same computations again is not a “recount”). Moreover, computing experts have found, and demonstrated, numerous “holes” in the machines through which voting totals can be finagled, and reports of still more flaws continue to come in.
The response of the private election industry and the Republicans to demands of proof are (1) “trust us,” (2) ad hominem attacks on the critics. (“Sore losers,” “conspiracy theorists,” “get over it!”). And finally (with the collaboration of the mainstream media) (3) no response. There are no substantive proofs of validity because, once again, the machines are designed to exclude them.
Regarding the second question, every now and then an attempt is made to refute the critics. The most recent of note was published last Friday in Salon.com, and was written by Farhad Manjoo, who has made something of a career out of debunking the critics. Whenever an important critique of the electoral status quo is published, by John Conyers’ committee, by Mark Crispin Miller, or most recently by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., we can generally count on a rebuttal by Manjoo. Last week, he did not disappoint us.
Manjoo’s latest was a pathetically weak piece of work which, due to its flaws, only serves to strengthen the case of its target, the RFK article. Or so I shall argue in the remainder of this essay.
At the outset, I should note that with all due respect to Robert Kennedy Jr., I must hope that he is wrong and the Manjoo is right. If so, then the Democrats have an excellent chance of regaining control of at least one house of Congress in the November election, and with it oversight of the Bush Administration. But if Kennedy is right about the ability of the Republicans to “fix” elections, then it may be impossible to budge the GOP from power, whatever might be the will of the voters. False optimism is the enemy of reform.
To begin, let’s address a few minor points, which can be dispatched quite briefly.
Is Kennedy just rehashing old complaints? Manjoo writes: “If you've spent time on Democratic Underground or have read Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again," you're already familiar with everything [sic] Kennedy has to say.” [My emphasis, EP] Because Miller is about to publish a rebuttal of this claim, I would prefer to let him reply in his own behalf. However, having read the books by Conyers, Fitrakis and Wasserman, and Mark Crispin Miller, I am willing to stipulate that most of what Kennedy presents is “old stuff”, however this time with the added advantage of scrupulous documentation.
But so what? Those “old stories” are no less substantial for being “old.” On the contrary, after a year and a half of examination and criticism, they still stand up. For this reason, the “old” possesses an advantage over the “new.”
Were the Ohio (and other) anomalies nothing more than expected “screw-ups’ and coincidences found in all elections? If so, then these anomalies would be expected to work, approximately evenly, to the advantage and disadvantage of both sides. They did not. Almost all of the alleged “screw-ups” and “coincidences” worked to the advantage of Bush. Typical of defenders of the Ohio outcome, Manjoo also points out that individual anomalies were not sufficient to alter the outcome of the Ohio election. But he fails to address obvious rejoinder: the cumulative effect of several anomalies (by no means all of them) were quite enough.
Manjoo has nothing whatever to say about paperless Direct Electronic Recording (DRE) machines. He presumably says nothing because he can say nothing that can advance his case for the validity of the 2004 election. So there is not a word in his article about secret source codes, lack of independent paper record, impossibility of auditing, or the GOP partisanship of the manufacturers and code-writers. Even if DREs in Ohio in 2004 (and elsewhere, and in 2002 and 2000) were 100% honest and accurate, there is no reason whatever to know this and an abundance of evidence (statistical, circumstantial and anecdotal) indicating that they were "fixed." As I noted at the outset, "Trust us," and ad hominem attacks on the critics are not evidence. And the silence of the media (not to mention the Democrats) about this compelling issue is deafening.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
We fall from one ptifall into another. The Y2004 was lost to Bush not because there was a fraud. There is always a fraud, sorry. The Y2004 was lost because Democrats wanted to lose. They wanted it so desperately that only a blind and deaf could not hear and see the Kerry's triumph when he conceded. He was frantic with joy. That was a joy of a slave who played the part in the master's theater. Since that time all noises about fraud are useless because those who are supposed to benefit do not want that. It is a classic case of treason by proxy- when Dems betrayed and Bushits kinda generously covered their betrayal. It is a Clintonian plague. And eveything else is just an agony. We have no Republic.
by
Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 7, 2006 at 7:26:58 AM
Panurg you're a know-it-all idiot. Go away and stop bothering intelligent people who actually have the balls to put it out there. You're a faux-intellectual fraud.
You got Internet Tourette's or something?
Get some therapy.
By the way, I wasn't suggesting creating a Haditha Video Game you sick ignorant dumbass. Read it again !
Suggestion; each time you read an article, stop - and read it again. Then actually think about it. Read it again if necessary. Then switch your computer off and go for a walk to the library and do some research.
Come back, switch your computer on, and post a comment if you think you have found something to add to the debate, or at least something original and not just the latest Playboy article you're reading that you've created some tenuous connection with.
It'll still be crap, but at least this procedure will give us some volume relief from your sluicegate of kneejerk righteousness.
Anytime dude. You're welcome.
by
Mark Lloyd (12 articles, 50 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Thursday, Jun 8, 2006 at 7:00:04 PM
This comment has nothing to do with Dr. Partridge's article here and I am sorry that I have to use the space for this.
Sir,
If that's how the British tend to address people they never saw or knew than no wonder that British Empire does not exist anymore:) ( no offense to the British history and glory). Not only your profanity is out of line; it is out of place because this article above is not yours and your references to the article of yours are confusing here. I would also add that you refer here to your article about the Haditha Videogame where you happen to use a metaphore and I in my comment to it also used the same metaphore. You do not have to like my style but comments are comments and those are for personal revelations provided there is no rant and no profanity. Unfortunately, the above comment of yours is full of exactly those things. As such I consider the matter closed and hope that the editor of our site will pay attention to the way you abuse it.
by
Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 9, 2006 at 8:38:38 AM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
