12/20 NYTIimes Editorial: "Count Every Vote" "recount empty gesture"

[EMunster]

For the record, the phrase "conspiracy theorist" isn't even hinted at; and no "no one expects it to change the outcome" line either.

EDITORIAL

Count Every Vote

Published: December 20, 2004

(snip)

In Ohio, where a recount of the presidential election is under way, it is becoming clear that as important as recounts are, they are not enough to ensure the integrity of our elections. Representative John Conyers Jr., a Democrat from Michigan, has charged that an employee of a company that makes vote-counting software used across the state may have tampered with one county's vote tabulator after the election to make the recount come out right. If people other than election officials have free access to the tabulation software, it can make a recount an empty gesture.

Clearly the American election system needs significant improvement, starting with voter-verified paper trails for every vote cast electronically. In the current flawed system, the best chance we have of producing accurate results is to be on guard for manipulation of electronic voting machines and tabulation software, and to conduct conscientious recounts when the outcome is at all in doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/20/opinion/20mon1.html

[tommcintyre]

1. Considering this, and the NYT article a few days ago...

this could be the turning point where MSM starts taking this more seriously?

Lets hope so, and encourage them in every possible way.

------------------------------------------------------



Quickly - Tell the top 52 national media contacts to cover the 2004 Presidential election irregularities fairly! two clicks and your done!
http://www.independentmediasource.com/voteintegrity_express.htm

More info:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x178970

[tandem5]

2. good stuff nt

[me b zola]

3. Great to see this being discussed

even if it is just an editorial piece.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Most hopeful thing I've read today.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

7. Gee, Maybe our NYT email campaign yesterday had an impact! :) -nt

[tngledwebb]

5. Lip service.

NYT has to pay the issue SOME lip-service, they know it's out there. But no real issues will ever be broached or furthered by MSM, unless to spin it all quietly off the front page.

[Quakerfriend]

6. Probably true

However, it people were in the streets with a little civil disobedience this would make all the difference.

[tngledwebb]

8. It will have to come to that, and in great numbers

to protest and undo both the MSM and this evil and illegal regime, either one at a time or together.

[s-cubed]

9. But it did give some real FACTS, and it did say the

OH recount is compromised. Good start.

[tngledwebb]

10. Hope so.

Every bit helps.

[goclark]

11. Press Conference has not mentioned voting issues at all

It's not over yet but unless someone says it soon, the fix is way in.


There is no way that the voter fraud issue should not have been front and center.

[zimba]

12. Excellent. At the end of the day

even if we have to tolerate Bush for four more years, if this movement has taken control of the voting process away from republican thugs like diebold and ES&S it will still have been a major victory. That is, if there is anything left of democracy by then.

Im making a new bumper sticker
"Is There Life After Bush"

[intheflow]

13. I needed to read this today.

Thanks for posting.

[planetc]

14. AT LAST!!!--this is very significant, I think

The Times has at last taken the issue seriously, and the content of the editorial makes it clear that someone on their staff *understands the issue*--this is an enormous step forward for the benighted Times.

They can't come out and say..."Oops, we missed that, and we're sorry, and we let the ocunry down." The Times never admits it could have been wrong--this is as close as they ever get to admitting error. But they have gotten this far.

This is cause for celebration.

[Eye_on_prize]

15. I agree this is significant. read something just day or 2 ago that Conyers

and/or Arnebeck were meeting with NYTimes editorial folks. This together with Conyers saying on AARadio *today* that "absolutely! there are a number of US Senators expected to come forward on this" , strike me as very auspicious and hopeful.

[Hey Nineteen]

16. Actually, they admitted errors on pre-war Iraq reporting

months later, once the war was in full shitstorm phase. But they do seem to have an ability to occasionally admit mistakes and turn the direction of their reporting around.

Now what can we do to prod them into such a repentance? If they got the full resources of their organization behind this story, think of the possibilities! I think I'll fire off a little LTE now...

[planetc]

21. Yes, they did, but...

What they admitted was that Judith Miller had been hoodwinked by Chalabi. That they had been unfairly tricked. And they probably promised to keep a closer eye on "official" sources. But have they? Did they or did they not have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the biggest story of the next 50 years of this century? They did. Still, perhaps they really did learn something.

You write that letter, Hey--if you didn't spend four years of the 1990s berating them about the Clinton/Starr fiasco, they may read it, and they may publish it.

Go for it!

[McCamy Taylor]

17. good editorial in light of Gore's win in Florida 2000

[Dancing_Dave]

18. Sounds like this writer really gets it!

Since the 9/11 Propaganda Coup, the New York Times has been an often unreliable source. The problem is not so much what they say, but what they DON'T say.

But there are some really intelligent people still working for the Times, and this one really seems to have gotten a handle on the fraud issue!:yourock:

[meganmonkey]

19. This is good

Thanks for posting this!

:bounce:

[lonestarnot]

20. COUNT EM OHIO!