More Voting Thoughts

I've mentioned this before, but I want to revisit why I think it is critical to investigate the US elections.

After the 2000 election which was effectively decided (unconstitutionally) by the Supreme Court, and in which the state at the center of the controversy (Florida) had engaged in what was clearly voter disenfranchisement on a variety of levels, it was absolutely essential that the credibility of this election be assured. In innumerable ways, that is not the case. Just to name a few, we have, what appears to be deliberate interventions such as what voters were challenged by Republicans and where. We have inadequate numbers of voting machines (meaning not even delivering the number the states had and required) to select precincts. This created hours of waiting to vote. The large discrepancies between exit polls, and vote tallies - not everywhere, but in specific precincts. We have suspicious vote reversals - areas registered 85% Democrat with histories of voting the ticket suddenly going 80% Republican. All of these issues become magnified in light of the 2000 elections.

For me, the main issue is not who one the presidential election. It is the integrity of the voting system itself. If people do not have faith in the integrity of the vote, then the democratic process is essentially dead in the US.

If there was voting fraud - whether pervasive or selective - it must be addressed. The corporate media slipping it under the rug, or calling folks "conspiracy theorists," or "sore losers," does nothing but further degrade the credibility of the corporate media. This is particularly true when the same media covers the free election questions of other nations, and argues as viable concerns which mirror the issues raised here. This is not appropriate and the corporate media fails the honesty and accountability standard by such actions. In this case, it is clear that the approach of such reports is propaganda, not informative reporting.

The focus of the public sponsored push for investigating the irregularities of the 2004 elections has been focused on the Presidential race. While important, I believe this is extremely short sighted. It was the congressional races that gave the Republics control of every branch of government. Do you really believe that if the "fix was in" for the Presidential race, that the other races would not be fixes to guarantee a hegemony of power? That seems highly unlikely, but I hear (and see)) not questioning beyond the presidential race.

If there proves to be significant irregularities which actually change that race, then who would Kerry face in the Congress? He would face both a House and a Senate where Republicans firmly coerced to the party line hold dominance, and where Democrat and Independent representatives are completely hog tied.

As it now stands, Bush and (some of) the Republicans flout a supposed mandate. They engage in blatant payback - such as the abortion provider training funding issue in the omnibus budget package; such as changing the rules to keep DeLay as Republican Whip; such the plan to move "covert activities" (currently under the CIA) under the control of the Pentagon. Do you truly think that Kerry (if elected) could really do anything at all in that environment?

These are serious issues and serious times. The clock is ticking and the delaying (pun intended) tactics are in play. If the voting issue is not resolved within the next week then everything will be ex post facto. Perhaps it would be grounds for impeachment, but Bush would not (and will not) face that with the current composition of the House.

This also means that if the voting issues are not resolved soon, that the people will have to fight for at least the next four years at both the state and federal level to try and address these issues. We will have to do that anyway in order to rebuild people's trust in the system. When you take away the vote, it leaves very few options for the public to address their needs.