Posted by axxxr
Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Drawing on what happened in Florida and studies of elections past, Palast argues that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. So far there's no indication that Palast's hypothesis will be tested because only the provisional ballots are being counted.
Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller,The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, has been released this month on DVD .
Kerry won. Here's the facts.
I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.
Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.
So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.
Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]
Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.
The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.
Whose Votes Are Discarded?
And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)
We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)
And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.
So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the "overvotes" where voter intent may be discerned.
Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”
But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.
Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.
The Impact Of Challenges
First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.
In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.
Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote
Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."
How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.
CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.
New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.
Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'
Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.
I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.
Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.
"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?
Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.
Your Kerry Victory Party
So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.
But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.
What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.
I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-11-04 21:02 ]
Posted by amagab
I've never seen such a long post. There should be some restrictions on post length here at Esato.
Ohio or not. Bush is a very popular man. He got more votes than any other candidate in US history.
Let the numbers speak for itself:
Bush: 59,277,438
Kerry: 55,745,477
That is a pretty wide margin...even if it doesn't really matter in our electorate system.
Posted by Lynx69
Yeah but i dont think it can be changed now
Posted by Yaesu
Bush maybe popular in America but he's not in other countries around the world
Posted by BobaFett
Thats a great argument :-)
Posted by amagab
| Quote: |
|
This is true...but I would like to ask if that is becaus of his actions or his attitude. I believe it's the latter. A lot of people don't like him because of his arrogance and cowboy attitude. This however, is just his personality. Looking at his actions he is not much different from other US presidents or other countries leaders for that matter.
Posted by riflogic
@axxxr
Kerry won... what's new. Al Gore won in 2000. Welcome to the American democracy!
Posted by sOny00
| Quote: |
|
Pop votes is just an illusion for us... so we think democracy really work here....
Posted by Yaesu
Democrocy where the American electorial system is so corrupt
Posted by baseballfanz
The only thing Kerry won is second place. Even if he did win, he loses cause he's married to that dude Teresa Heinz. Another thing about Bush not being popular in other countries, who gives a $hit, we live in America that's what counts.
Posted by amagab
The electorial system has been getting a lot of criticism as not being democratic. However, this system does provide a stable government. It's a protection by giving each state power determined by population size. Just like in the EU.
EU - larger countries have more power.
USA - larger states have more power.
Posted by freakyfreak
@baseballfanz- We need allies that will support the US. If everyone hates us, they won't come to our aid if we get attacked and stuff.
That was very interesting. In my English class we have to make a test in groups, and we were voting on the criteria for the tests, and one of the things won by a lot...one girl screamed out "what?! My vote doesn't even count!". My English teacher says "Welcome to Democracy."
I think they need to count those provisional votes. I do not quite understand the spoilage thing...they just throw the votes away? But, why?
Posted by Gigs
| Quote: |
|
That was the point of the post, let voting numbers actually count.
Kerry and Gore must be pretty pleased, they're the only presidents who've served by proxy.
No matter what voting system is used someone is always going to cry foul, hopefully later biometrics will solve these issues and all you'll need is your retina and fingerprint to vote.. granted I'm sure people will say "but they cut off other peoples hands and stole their eyes to get spare votes" ..
| Quote: |
|
And yet threads ask why theres angst towards the US..
Posted by slattery69
i am sure if bush had lost we would have seen the same stuff from the first thread with the words democrate replaced with republician and kerry replaced with bush.
i think if we looked objectivly both partys played dirty during the election. i aint no bush fan but if you believe the democrats fought a fair campaign and did nt try to stop repulicians voting or any of the other dirty tricks the republicans are accused of doing your as big a fool as bush.
Posted by Vlammetje
I agree. If Kerry had won there would still be argument. Does anybody really think Bush would've given up just like that?
Think back four years though, did the long argument help the feeling of unity? Did it help the position of the 'president-to-be' in any way?
It did not.
And this year the division between the americans themselves is bigger than ever.
What good would it do to stretch out the count for weeks again? It would certainly increase tension, wouldn't it?
| Quote: |
|
yes... and??? Other countires around the world do not vote the american president... or any other president but their own. So that argument really is quite useless.
Posted by SCORPIONKING1982
| Quote: |
|
yes... and??? Other countires around the world do not vote the american president... or any other president but their own. So that argument really is quite useless.
[/quote]
I'm sure itll matter though when people start getting bombed due to bush's attitude and actions towards other nations.
Posted by THOMASPERFECTO
| Quote: |
|
You should try coming here and telling that to the families of the British soldiers that where murdered to appease your "president" and loot Iraq’s oil to fuel your environment killing 8ltr Hummers!
Anyway I hope you'll feel just as pleased and proud when he reinstates the draft. Then you might get to go out there and kill a few Aye-rakis yourself. Wont that be fun?!?!
Posted by friscosjoke
how dare you use the deaths of your fellow countrymen to propagate this assinnine anti amerirican sentiment. Dont forget that most nations belonging to the U.N decided not to "appease" president bush, Britain got into bed with a madman for their own reasons.
Posted by *Jojo*
@axxxr - C'mon mate . . . you really don't want me to LEAVE esato now, do you
As it is all over now, assuming that your report was 100% accurate, why would Kerry 'concede' to Bush in the 1st place As Gore did NOT to him (Bush) back then, and it took some weeks before finally proclaiming Bush as the winner in 2000 ! I WON . . . let's just keep it that way . . . OK, for the LOVE of the game, I will still be LEAVING Esato "had" Bush been 'IMPEACHED' from the White House in the next 4 years mate . . . taken out by Supreme Court's decision/rallies/ or by FORCE !
Posted by Yildiz
I am SO disappointed that the Americans voted for Bush once again... I'm really shocked. How can they do this? Me, as a german woman can't understand that. Everything I heard about Bush in the news, newspapers, internet, films (9"11) and books was unbelievably shocking.
How can a person who had not been elected for 4 years ago rule a country? And why do the Americans want to have a president who is responsable for so many dead people and victims? He started an unnecessary war and everybody knew that he just wanted the oil from Iraq... (because the culprits from the 11th September did NOT came from Iraq!!!!!!!!!)
Posted by *Jojo*
@yildiz - You're a German shepherd . . . Ohh I mean woman
, maybe you are PRETTY, show some pics my friend As with the OIL issue, there is really NO truth to that 
Had the US been after some OIL, they should have siphoned KUWAIT's from it's COFFERs back in 1990 when they helped it from the Iraqi invasion !
Posted by Oco
Bush is a shit, and as in my country happens: Every nation has what they are... Here we have a Mr. Toledo, they have a Bush
Posted by Grimslade
Sorry, axxxr. Was laughing so hard I made myself cry.
Posted by Johnex
:D i think bush has actually done well in iraq. We can say that the iraqies are better of with bush than with saddam.
Posted by *Jojo*
| Quote: |
|
Many Iraqis are as STUPID as hell ! They still want Saddam to rule their country, than having been invaded and ruled (for the meantime) by the US ! I guess they'll be BETTER off without Saddam Insane . . .
Posted by BOOYAR
Bush is a joke and if americas dumb enough to re-elect him them they're bloody stupid. I just can't believe how far the wool is pulled over your eyes. I think the fixing claims have only arisen since bush was reelected because the rest of the world and half of america cannot believe its happened
Posted by Lynx69
| Quote: |
|
They dont like their country being torn to pieces which the US did.
Maybe they will be better without So-dam Insane but i dont think they will like the US to control them. They want to go back to how it was before because there was less anarchy as there is now.
Thats my opinion anyway
_________________
This message was posted from a Desktop PC
>>*Trader's Guild*<<
Wow 1700+ Posts [ This Message was edited by: Lynx69 on 2004-11-07 23:32 ]
Posted by kimcheeboi
| Quote: |
|
That's such a bigoted, racist, and sterotypical comment it's not even funny. I'd rather have a choice as to who rules over me, and if some foreign country invaded my country i'd be fighting for my soverignity.
Posted by crowing
| Quote: |
|
i agree, an iraqui or for anybody, its better to be lead by your own kind than having a sock shoved down your throat and call that democracy...
altough our president (ph) sucks bigtime my alternate candidate is still filipino...
pardon JN coz from where we come from, richer countries are always favorable for us coz we're such a poor country, so that's why he must have said what he did.
anyway as some of the statistic say that moral issues made bush the winner.... but the argument is that kerry is pro abortion.. (am i right?) that does not make any difference with sending troops to some war that would lead to deaths too right?
[ This Message was edited by: crowing on 2004-11-08 19:36 ]
Posted by slattery69
| Quote: | |||
| |||
i agree with you kim 100% however would like to add that the people of iraq never had a chose over saddam nor a chance to get rid of him.
while i dont agree with invading iraq un sanctions were only hurting the innocent people not saddam whos palaces still looked spectacular and his fleet of cars would be the envy of david beckham.his army were also well looked after.
i stil aint sure what the best course of action was for iraq as the people had no means to fight.
i just hope that what ever happens its comes to a close soon so the casualtys from both sides are kept as low as possible and that the people of iraq can decide for themselves from then on who does what
Posted by ADT0079
Still crying get over it AXXXR bush is in plain and simple Kerry didnt Bitch so why are you?
Posted by kimcheeboi
i guess adt never learned to shut up...