|
Edited on Mon Aug-01-05 12:13 PM by karynnj
no proof - only stories and reports of odd things happening. With a 3 million nationwide loss and over 100,000 votes in Ohio, Kerry would have looked like a seriously unstable, deluded man to the vast majority of this country if he questioned it. Especially when he would have had to admit that he couldn't prove it.
This report, if anything, shows what Kerry was up against. The length of lines is a far better measure of the fairness of the machine placements. Obviously, if the machines could handle only n voters per hour - looking at votes/(number of machines) will show similar results. Also, the ballots in cities have more positions to vote for - so the average time spent per person is larger. This obviously doesn't address the people who left after waiting for some period of time and realizing how long they would have to stay. (a simulation study might be able to suggest the arrival rate needed to get lines of that magnitude - but I don't have a clue how anyone after the fact could estimate the number of people who walked away because they couldn't spend the day in line (in the rain). )
He was derided when he made his comments about fixing this in the future so no one would have to wait in 10 hr lines or have any other voter suppression techniques cause people to lose their votes. His comments have been VERY non-partisan, basic American values - and parts of the press still look for the weakest statement to dismiss his concerns. (They even had the chutzpah to criticize him for being so self absorbed as to talk about voting issues in Boston to a black audience on MLK day - as if MLK had anything to do with voting rights. (I think the audience (and MLK if he looked down from heaven) would have been upset if he DIDN'T mention it.)
This is a really hard lesson for the Democratic party. It is likely that 2 elections were "stolen". Even though the local governments are responsible for insuring the voting process works, the Democrats need to push that the system be fixed. Given demographics, it's probably true that minorities (and poor whites) have probably always had a higher % of their votes lost. In close elections, it may make the difference.
Some DU people's insistence that the blame for this belongs to Kerry is absurd. The DNC itself is far more to blame - Kerry in 2002-2004 was developing his agenda and positioning himself to run - just like Dean, Edwards et al - that was his job as the candidate. To my eyes, he had well thought out positions on all important issues and was well prepared to discuss them. That was the candidate's job and he did it. No one now is saying that the primary losers should have been working on voting machines and insuring that each precinct was setting up for a fair election. If anything, Kerry was a good candidate whose party's crumbling, argumentative infrastructure let down.
I really hope the LWV will be able to be used in a non partisan effort to clean up our elections. I just got a fund raiser letter from them and intend to contribute and mention the Ohio voting action. Like Kerry's comments that this needs to be addressed locally by activists - this seems to be a constructive action. Although I probably regret that Kerry is not President at least as much as those hating him for losing, I think he quickly made the only reasonable decision.
I think the party was incredibly lucky to have a candidate like Kerry last year. He nearly won in spite of the Democratic vote being suppressed, the MSM favoring Bush - even as much of print media endorsed Kerry, Kerry's own church in some parts of the country equating a vote for him to a sin, and the country being emotionally abused by the administration's terror warnings that occurred every time Kerry's numbers increased. Then after seeing victory turn to defeat, he gracefully conceded and simultaneously reached out to supporters to continue the fight.
It amazes me that DU can not see the strength of character that his actions show. He is fighting for our values, exposing the administration's hypocrisies in his Senate speeches. I wonder if any Bush supporters notice that Kerry, after losing and returning to a Senate where even small victories are few, still projects a more distinguished, Presidential image than Bush. He also seems to be able to enjoy the other parts of his life - and it is great to hear that he got to follow Armstrong on the last day of Tour de France, or that he was cheered at the Boston Marathon and at the Springsteen concert. He obviously still wants to be President, but somehow, it seems that if that doesn't happen he won't let it ruin his life.
It is interesting that Gore (who now says he's not interested in being a politician) is suddenly a DU favorite. Historically, he was way less liberal than Kerry. They like that he fought in 2000, while Kerry didn't. (So there were about 356 votes different at one point rather than 118,000+ - what do numbers mean?) They ignore that Gore then disappeared - for 18 months, while Kerry immediately returned to fight. I realize Gore had no position to return to - but he could have been a very powerful voice as a shadow President. So, maybe in a few years they'll see that Kerry did what he could.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
