Log in

View Full Version : Why Kerry Conceded Though He Had The Most Votes



Skeptic
20th November 2004, 19:52
Why Kerry Conceded
Though He Had the Most Votes
Salon.com
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
E-Mail Article
Printer Friendly Version


by Greg Palast

Sean Hannity called me a putz. Oh, my! And soft-porn-site scribe Frank
Salvato put me in with the "black helicopter" conspiracy league. Golly!

I can live with that. But when Salon disses my report of vote suppression in
Ohio ( "Was the Election Stolen?" by Farhad Manjoo), I have to respond.
Manjoo went after my article, "Kerry Won," the latest in my series of
investigations of our manipulated election system first published in America
by ... Salon: "Florida's Flawed 'Voter-Cleansing' Program."

Now, the facts. Most voters in Ohio cast their ballots for John Kerry, which
should, in accordance with Mrs. Gordon's civics lessons from sixth grade,
have given Kerry the Electoral College majority and the White House. Trouble
is, those votes won't be counted.

So where are these uncounted, but winning, votes? When I went to sleep the
night of Nov. 2, Kerry was down in Ohio by 136,000 votes. But over a quarter
million ballots had yet to be counted. Those abandoned ballots,
overwhelmingly Democratic, sit in two piles, one called "spoiled" and the
other "provisional."

The ugly, secret shame of American democracy is that 2 million votes are
"spoiled" in presidential elections -- tossed away untallied as
"unreadable." And the nasty part is that roughly half are cast by
African-Americans. To learn of this astonishing Jim Crow thumb on the U.S.
electoral scales, you have to hunt through the appendixes of the U.S. Civil
Rights Commission report on the Florida 2000 race. The government's
demographers concluded that of the 179,855 votes "spoiled" in Florida that
year, 54 percent were cast by blacks. All other credible studies tell us
that Florida is horribly typical of the nation.

On November 2, in Ohio, Republicans played the spoilage game for all it was
worth. Over 93,000 ballots were chucked on the spoilage pile, almost all of
them generated by those infernal chad-making punch-card machines.

Whose votes were lost in the chad blizzard? According to a recent ACLU
analysis of Ohio's system, votes stolen away by punch-card machine error are
"overwhelmingly" found in African-American -- read "Democratic" --
precincts.

After the swindle of 2000, who would have the nerve to keep these machines
in operation? Answer: the co-chair of Ohio's Bush-Cheney reelection
campaign, J. Kenneth Blackwell, who also happens to have the convenient post
of Ohio secretary of state. Blackwell, who makes Katherine Harris look like
Thomas Jefferson, concedes the racially bent effects of punch-card voting;
but in spite of this -- or because of this -- he refused to replace or fix
these machines for the 2004 election.

The result: 93,000 votes spoiled, uncounted. Salon's Manjoo, ignorant of the
ACLU's precinct-by-precinct studies, simply dismisses out of hand the
assertion that most of those were Kerry votes. But given that Ohio's spoiled
ballots are concentrated in black and poor communities, it is hardly a wild
leap to discern which candidate got punched out by the punch cards.

Now, on to the second pile of no-count ballots, the provisionals. And guess
who got these second-class, back-of-the-bus ballots? Once again, Ohio's
African-American voters.

The Republican Party declared the hunting season open for dark-skinned
voters in October, announcing a plan to challenge "fraudulent" voters on a
mass basis, the first such programmatic attack on the franchise since the
days of the Night Riders.

And the tactic was very much the same as that used by the allies of the
White Citizens Councils and Bull Conners in the early '60s: targeted and
unequal application of picayune registration and voting requirements. The
Ohio courts were not amused, slapping down the Republican Party's challenge
lists before Election Day.

However, the party kept secret lists and a secret program in its back pocket
to ambush black voters on Election Day, a scheme outed by BBC television the
week before the election.

Majoo has an answer for that, too. On Oct. 27, Manjoo wrote an entire column
defending the po' widdle Republicans from BBC's mean and unfounded attack,
subtitled, "Investigative reporter Greg Palast discovers a 'secret' voting
list, but the document doesn't necessarily prove Republican wrongdoing." Ace
reporter Manjoo's entire investigation of the matter comes down to three
quotations from a Republican Party flack, Mindy Tucker Fletcher, who --
surprise! -- denied the BBC's findings. I was never contacted nor was a
single one of our experts.

Here's what we discovered at the BBC: several lists of voters, every one of
them in an African-American precinct. Fletcher's official explanation (her
third variant, by the way) was that these were returned undeliverable
fundraising solicitations. Odd, that: Many of the addresses were those of
homeless men's shelters, not where I'd expect a lot of Bush-Cheney donors.
And why were the Republicans sending solicitations only to black voters? Is
that their normal funding group?

More suspicious is that these lists of "undeliverable addresses" were sent,
not to some clerk at a direct-mail house, but to the chief of research for
the Republican National Committee in Washington as well as the executive
director of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Florida. I guess they handle the
clerical overflow work.

Or maybe, as every expert told us, these were hit lists meant to stop,
impede, intimidate and slow down voters in African-American precincts. The
Republicans have more than embarrassment to motivate them to mislead us
about the true purpose of these lists: Profiling citizens of one race to
block their voting, even if each challenge itself has merit, is a criminal
violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Whatever their ultimate use of these lists, whatever the Republican game
plan, we have the result: In Ohio, an astonishing 155,000 voters were
shunted to provisional ballots, where their votes would be vulnerable to the
partisan predation of GOP Secretary of State Blackwell. And once again, the
provisionals were concentrated in the minority -- that is, Democratic --
areas.

Blackwell wasted no time in jiggering the rules to make sure as few
provisional ballots as possible would be counted. He began by announcing
that, for the first time in Ohio history, provisional ballots would not be
counted if cast by a legal voter in the "wrong" precinct, even though the
president remains the same for voters of all precincts. Furthermore, to
increase the number of provisional ballots subject to challenge, Blackwell
and other Republican office holders in Ohio went on a voter-roll-purging
frenzy prior to the election. A favorite, first practiced in Florida in
2000, is to tag them ineligible "felon" voters. If a voter is wrongly
purged, the registration is restored, yet the ballot will still be binned.

Add it up and the demographics of the spoiled and provisional ballots -- if
they were all counted -- would overtake George Bush's teeny lead.

Why Kerry Had to Concede

Lacking evidence to refute the hard stats and demographics that the
uncounted votes are mostly Kerry's, Manjoo ducks behind this tautological
rock: He can "prove that Kerry couldn't have won in Ohio: He conceded."

Kerry did not concede because he did not have the votes. He conceded because
he could not get them counted. Kerry would have to demand a hand count of
the spoiled punch cards. But the hard fact is that, just as Katherine Harris
stopped the hand count of the punch cards in Florida, Blackwell would
undoubtedly do the same in Ohio. And face it: In a legal showdown, Blackwell
could count on the help of that pus-hole of partisanship, the U.S. Supreme
Court. Been there, done that. Add in the ballot-by-ballot litigation
required to force a count of all the provisional ballots under rules à la
Blackwell, and Kerry, realistically, didn't stand a chance.

Unfortunately, neither did democracy.

Wiesty
20th November 2004, 20:29
he was losing by 2 million.............

LSD
20th November 2004, 21:02
Sorry, but Kerry lost the popular vote by four million, from any trully democratic perspective you'd have to give the election to Bush.

Ohio or no Ohio, MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GOERGE W. BUSH THAN JOHN KERRY.

Now you can debate the reasons for this, but denying it is lunatic.

redstar2000
21st November 2004, 02:16
I think the point of Greg Palast's article is that Kerry "should" have "won" a majority in Ohio and in the Electoral College...and thus the presidency even though his national total was lower than Bush's -- just as Gore had more votes than Bush on the national level but lost in the Electoral College due to "losing" Florida.

The only "disagreement" I would have with Palast is one of tone -- I'm neither shocked nor outraged nor sorrowful about the outcome.

Where is it written that capitalists are "obligated" to conduct "honest elections"?

Why shouldn't they cheat?

American "democracy" has always been a fraud.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Skeptic
21st November 2004, 03:34
Of course it's not just a matter of corruption Redstar. The very nature of Bourgeois election are illegitimate.

November 7, 2004 was National Pick Your Oppressor Day. The whole election circus is owned and operated by wealthy,
powerful and sinister interests. Lots of people sense this. Elections are not
the time when people influence the politics of the system. It is the opposite:
it is a time when the masses of people get indoctrinated in the policies this
system intends to adopt.

The electoral system is a horrible trap. Its parties and campaigns--are a
terrible place to try to organize and struggle for change. Real change comes
from mass action. The civil rights movement was not won by voting. When people
get fooled and drawn into the electoral system their struggle gets tamed. It is
an arena where people get trained to accept the limits and framework of the
system. They are schooled in the political methods most useful and (and least
challenging) to their oppressors.

Lots of people listen to John Kerry rant about "I will fight for you," and mutter
"Yeah, right." They laugh at Bush's talk of "compassionate conservatism" and
see it as obvious bullshit. But is Nader's vision of a compassionate, reformed
capitalism any more realistic? The whole strategy of the Nader campaign is
based on an elaborate electoral fantasy.

Some time ago why was Ross Perot allowed into the process when this time Nader is
not allowed? Perot was allowed to "inject new ideas" because the ruling class
needed someone to argue for major social cuts, in a campaign where neither
major candidate dared to be the first to bring it up. But with Nader in 2000
his ideas about universal health care or pro-unionization laws or opposition to
NAFTA are not even allowed to be voiced in debates or the media. Nader's big
effect for the system is to sucker voters to think their votes count.

Such a public statement of faith in the system legitimizes the future
government and power structures of this system.

There is a saying among political movement people: "Climbing into a voting
booth doesn't make you powerful--any more than climbing into the back of a
squad car makes you a cop."

And Yes, of course, this is an indictment of the entire system.

Funky Monk
22nd November 2004, 14:49
What i dont understand is why you seem to think that corruption was the only way Bush could have won the election. The fact is that there is a large amount of the American public who support capitalism and Bush's fundamentalism and everything this brings with it.

Skeptic
22nd November 2004, 22:35
Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 22 2004, 02:49 PM
What i dont understand is why you seem to think that corruption was the only way Bush could have won the election. The fact is that there is a large amount of the American public who support capitalism and Bush's fundamentalism and everything this brings with it.
I think you make a good point Funky M. It has to be conceeded that Bush got close to 55 million votes. Many buy into what he stands for, no doubt about it. Some of this has to do with how reactionary and fucked up a candidate like John Kerry was too. About 50% of the population didn't vote. There were no choices. I want to look into what happened with the election. The State is losing a lot of crediblity with people who buy into elections in the first place. There is a lot of dissatisfaction and skepticism of the whole process by more and more people. This is a good starting point, but it not where good politcal activists want to end.