Did Bush Steal the Election?
Posts: 2462
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 2:19am
I admit, I don't want to swallow it either. The idea of the GOP successfully stealing two elections in a row is a disheartening thouht, to say the least. But this makes for an interesting read, and while I don't share quite the confidence the author does, he does raise a VERY interesting point about the exit poles...

Read on.


Kerry Won
by Greg Palast

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.

And not all vote 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).

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.

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 .
Posts: 2462
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 2:19am
Posts: 4291
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 3:01am
Great, just great.

Another freaking stolen election. Its interesting to see a one-party system. Republicans control every federal government thingy, apparently with at least a little bit of fraud on their side, and the odds of this changing any time soon are small.

Thank gawds I don't live there.
Posts: 2462
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 3:13am
You might soon, Dolash...
Posts: 21
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 3:31am
Yeah its hard to hold your breathe until you sink to the bottom if things happen that you cant deny.
Posts: 162
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 3:53am
Has anyone considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, the fact that the voters who 'turned out in droves' weren't all Democrats? It is reported that this last election had a rather record turnout; 60% of the voting population from what I've read came out and voted. It seems like your thinking this 'record turnout' means automatically more votes for Kerry.

And that is true to a degree. A large portion of the 18-24 demographic are/were for Kerry, but you see, those kids weren't the only ones showing up to cast their vote. As was said in another thread, the senior voter turnout was very strong as well. The amount of people was increased significantly, and it is my belief that many moderates came out of the woodwork, weighed their options, and as I said before chose the lesser of two evils.

As an aside - In my opinion, there are many more moderates than people think there are; they just simply choose to remain under the radar, so to speak. And frankly, I'm usually one of them. I don't like to be associated with insane nutjob right-wingers - those lot are just far too radical for me. And I'm pretty sure that the same goes for others as well; Democrat and Republican moderates alike. Nobody likes to be prejudged, or to have their actions misconstrued and thought of as something done simply because they have chosen to register with one party or another. They registered with the party of their choice because they felt that that certain party held some of the same ideals they do. That being said though, why don't they just register as indepentants? Well, it's really their choice to register how they want to.
Posts: 2462
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 4:13am
Of course it's been considered. But you didn't refute any of the author's points - you just asked a question.

Certainly, it's possible Bush won legitimately. With gay marriage bans on 11 ballots, GOP supporters would be encouraged to show up. And a lot of work went into getting the religious right to come out and vote.

I for one believe that if 100% of the country turned out to vote and 100% of the votes counted, Kerry would win. I believe that Bush's victory, assuming it was legitimate, was based on more GOP supporters turning up to vote, not on the will of the majority of the American people.

And I believe that within two years a bad case of buyer's remorse will set in for the American people who did vote for Bush. Bush's actions effect everyone - not just Democrats.

One of my friends is 100% pleased that Bush won, because he feels it means that there will never be another Republican in the White House. And with Bush knowing he'll never face another election, and with a majority in the House and the Senate, who knows what the next four years will hold?
Posts: 896
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 4:16am
Did the thought ever occur to you that people LIED about who they voted for when they where asked?

Exit polls are unreliable, that's why many people don't trust them.
Posts: 455
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 4:22am
Drayson, not to be a jerk or anything, but this guy is easily identifiable as a hard-core Democrat. He's just a bitter, sore loser, in my opinon.

Bush is here for four more years, guys.


I know most of you don't like it, but you know what?


THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. STOP WHINING, GET OVER IT, GO HOME.


Okay, now you guys can go ahead and rant and yell at me strictly because I'm a Republican, I'm ready...
Posts: 162
  • Posted On: Nov 5 2004 4:25am
Oh not to worry, I'm not so naive as to think Bush's actions affect only Democrats. As for refuting the article, my personal opinion is that it's a reactionary piece of literature in the same vein as being a sore loser. But see, that's just my own initial thought and first impression after reading it. Give me eight hours to think on it and I could very well have a more thought-out answer for you.

edit ~ To clarify, I say sore loser because I know I've done similar things in the past, and I've seen people around me do it as well.