Was the 2004 Election fair? A lingering question.

[ck4829]

This question isn't about election machines and electronic voting v. paper ballots.

This question is about moral panics.

In 2004, we saw numerous "Marriage Amendments", including one in my state, Ohio.

WHY did Ohio need a marriage amendment?

Ohio already banned Gay marriage long before this amendment was even proposed?

Why?

The issue of Gay marriage created a "moral panic". Otherwise sane people had become confused, scared, and ignorant thinking that a social institution was "under attack".

We've all seen these Moral Panics.

One is a stain on American Culture, it was during the 80's when people believed that Satanism was everywhere in daycare centers and such. Take the McMartin Preschool Fiasco for example, children were coerced into saying the most bizarre things. People were asked if they believed this, and over 90% believed that the McMartin Family was guilty of child abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial#Media_coverage

Sanity disappears whenever there is a Moral Panic.

I don't we think we can count on an Electorate whose sanity is momentarily gone, swept away in the fervor of a moral panic.

And that is why I think the 2004 Election was compromised, because of this Moral Panic.

Conservative

[On the Road]

1. I've Never Heard That Term, but It's Very Apt

It's not a popular point of view here, but just like desegregation was the unspoken issue behind behind Nixon's victories, I believe gay marriage was a deciding issue for 2004. Addressing discrimination against gays is long overdue. Unfortunately, it cost the party another election.

[the other one]

2. Moral issues are to cover for the vote fraud.

Its a setup to explain why the conservatives did so well in spite of being so unpopular. One wedge issue which pundits can point to as the cause for all the repuke votes. Thats why they are doing it again in 06. After the pugs squeak out another narrow victory the explanation will be that in the end people did not vote economics or politics, but "morals". Polls don't matter, because at the last minute a horde of fundies will come out of the woodwork to vote against gay marriage.

And believe me the pugs are going to win in 06. The day after the election the pundits will say that once again liberals don't vote, and that conservatives came out in force to support moral values. And the exit polls are wrong again.

[mdmc]

5. half of the people don't vote. people vote for strange reasons

I don't know that they need a cover for their election victories. It is already known that poor areas don't have the same access to voting machines, and that voter rolls are purged (required by HAVA), resulting in the harassment of poor, minority voters.

The Dems (I think, not sure) feel that eventually enough regular people will make it to the polls and that a revolution of sorts will sweep them in to power. They think that voter numbers will balance the money and organization that the GOP has a hold of.

I think that Gore thought that he would SWEEP w. in 2004. I think that Dems want to "stay the course" (lol) and sweep in 2006. I don't think that it will happen.

[wakeme2008]

3. I do not know about states other than Va

because I am working there now. BUT the Repugs in the State Leg are trying to forcing a marriage amendment to be on the 2006 Nov election.... They plan to rerun 2004 in 2006 :grr:

[mdmc]

4. gay bashing is good neo-con politics

The sooner that Dems wake up and see the neo-con movement for what it is, the sooner our progressive movement can take hold. In this example, the GOP basically said, "Fags should not have equal rights." Progressive said, "neo-cons are wrong". (imho) the Dems argued, "we have more important worries to address. This is not a major issue for Americans."

Look at a couple issues:

Death penalty
GOP + Neo-Cons = tough on crime, support the death penalty.
DLC + Dems = might personally oppose the death penalty, but publicly support it.
Progressives = oppose the death penalty.

Drug war
GOP + Neo-cons = tough on crime, support the drug war.
DLC + Dems = might oppose the drug war privately, but publicly support the drug war.
Progressives = oppose the drug war.

War on Iraq
GOP + Neo-cons = IrAQ = War on Terror
DLC + Dems = Iraq = War on Terror
Progressives = Oppose Iraq War

Bankruptcy
GOP + Neo Cons = relief needed for corporations (hurts only lazy poor)
DLC + Neo Cons = relief needed for corporations
Progressives = THIS IS INSANE and simply hurtful to the poor.

THE SOONER THAT DEMS realize THAT THEY MUST EMBRACE An ANTI-NEO-CON agenda, the BETTER for us. This is the path to victory.

[bryant69]

6. Tish Tosh!

I mean yeah, that was a dirty trick, and in the grand scheme of things reprehensible. But does that compromise the election? No more than decietful campaign commercials, speeches full of misleading nonsense, unregulated groups like the Swift Boat Vets spewing out lie after lie, and so on and so forth.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ck4829]

7. I disagree

Our elections work when the people voting are calm, cool, and collected, but NOT when people believe ridiculous propaganda and believe that their way of life is under attack from Liberals and GLBT people.

There are some things that are just politics. Campaign commercials, misleading speeches, and even the Swift Vets (to a degree anyway).

But, the Marriage Amendment Debacle was too much, it was simply an effort to induce hysteria into the masses by making them believe that they were being attacked or something.

If you believe that elections work even when hysteria is present, fine, maybe they do.

But, I refuse to believe that Moral Panics and Free Elections are compatible with each other.

Conservative

[bryant69]

8. I don't see the difference

I mean, the difference seems to be that this one worked.

If they had whipped up terror fears to such an extent that that had tipped the election, and people voted in a sort of "terror panic" would that be any better for our Democracy?

The truth is purely free elections of any sort are dependent on a certain rhetorical restraint by those involved - both sides should calmly present their point of view and than the people should vote on which platform/program they want to see enacted. This is certainly what I would prefer, and probably what many would prefer.

But we've never really done it that way. Because emotional attacks and deciets work.

Bryant

[ck4829]

9. It's all very different to me

This isn't about emotional attacks and deceits, that's all political, what I'm trying to talk about are Moral Panics. Moral Panics aren't good for the Republic, and these Moral Panics aren't simply emotional attacks and deceits, it makes sane and rational people believe bizarre things.

Here are some examples of moral panics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization_of_Christmas

If the Marriage Amendment fiasco was a "Moral Panic", I don't think I can say that the 2004 Election was a fair one, because we didn't have the rule of law preside over that election, we had the rule of hysteria do that.

Conservative

[bryant69]

10. What is the Rule of Law to you?

You say "we didn't have the rule of law preside over that election, we had the rule of hysteria do that." I'm having a hard time processing that. I, of course, understand that many believe that the 2004 election was fraudulent, but I haven't seen it connected back to this Moral Panic Theory. I guess one can imagine Diebold technicians saying "Look, under normal circumstances it would be wrong to tamper with the votes, but come on. Gays might be able to get married!"

Alternatively, you might believe the ballot initiative to be illegal in itself. I have heard that argument before - never put much stock in it. They have both their pros and cons, but they clearly are legal.

I'm not going to argue that Moral Panics are good for our Democracy; they clearly aren't. I'm just not sure what one can legitimatally do to stop people from trying to create them.

Bryant