[Peace-discuss] FWD: Vote Fraud as Fundraiser

[Walling, Jennifer]

>>The problem, Jen, is that a central question that Frank raises remains
unanswered: Why is Cobb raising and spending money for a recount in a state
where the Greens weren't on the ballot and collected a total of 186 votes?
--CGE

To answer that, I'm going to direct you to the answer given on the
votecobb.org website (following what I've written).
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/whyitmatters/
And also to this article
http://www.votecobb.org/online_opinion/2004/dec/op2004-12-05.php

While I know that Cobb - and many Greens.... and many many other people in
this country would like to see the results of the election reversed (as
David Cobb would say, "John Kerry is a corporatist and a militarist, but
George Bush is a danger to the world."), the importance of this recount is
coming up with a witnessed vote count - to actually make sure that people's
votes are counted *correctly* and *fairly* and to expose any voter fraud
perpetuated in the state. Counting votes accurately is certainly a procedure
that we need to eventually reach a real democracy.

And frankly, from my very partisan Green point of view, I think it's been an
excellent thing for the Greens.  Our presidential candidate is standing up
to make sure that the corruption that I'm *certain* occurred is exposed.
While I know that many individual dems and republicans want to make sure and
are working to see that elections are fair, I don't see either party
standing up to make sure the laws are really truly fair; both parties use
various parts of election code to their advantage.  I quote the GP
fundraising director  - "Not only are Greens trying to ensure that votes are
counted, but we are fighting for electoral reform, living wages, access to
healthcare and a safe and clean environment in which to live."

While I know many would disagree with me, I would say that neither
established party has made significant challenges to established election
law and voting procedure on a national level - perhaps since the 1965 voting
rights act (I might argue that the 1982 VRA was almost a step backward).
The latest act - the Help America Vote Act of 2002 - worked to replace
voting machines... which just seems like an attempt to replace paper ballots
with unaccountable voting machines.  I hope that this recount  - while I
realize it may be an overly idealistic hope - would lead to pressuring
elected officials to do something substantial about voting fraud.... or lead
the public to elect some Greens that will actually work to do something
about it ;)

Also, I would mention that Ohio law does allow Cobb to ask for a recount in
Ohio even though he wasn't on the ballot and only garnered 186 votes whereas
in a state like Illinois only one of the top vote getters in an election can
call for a recount and only in the event of a close election.


-Jen

http://www.votecobb.org/recount/whyitmatters/
The Recount: Why It Matters
You may be surprised to see a picture on this website of the voting rights
march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in March, 1965. Both that historic
march in Alabama and this current recount in Ohio, however, represent
actions by patriotic Americans to help this county live up to its highest
ideals of one-person-one-vote democracy.

The Recount: Civil Rights Issues
Almost forty years after that watershed event, it is a national tragedy that
so many Americans, and particularly minorities and people of lesser means,
were disproportionately denied their chance to vote and have their vote
counted fairly in the 2004 election. Why are there proportionately less
voting machines in poorer precincts? Why are the oldest voting machines,
with the greatest chance of breaking down, more frequently in precincts
where people with less means are living? Why do so many of us sit by
silently when we hear about voter lines that last up to ten hours in some
places, effectively denying the right to vote to people who must get to
work, take care of children, or go to classes?

When civil rights advocates first tried to march from Selma to the state
capital in Montgomery to highlight the plight of African Americans in
Alabama, they were brutally attacked and forced to return to Selma. Two
weeks later, after national attention had brought the systematic civil
rights deprivations into the open, a broad coalition of community groups,
church groups, labor groups, student groups, and supporters from across the
nation successfully completed the march to Montgomery. Five months later,
President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, helping to safeguard
the vote for African Americans and all Americans.

The Recount: Bearing Witness
Here in Ohio, there are some people who are saying that the votes have been
counted and that it is time to move on. Others are saying that the cost of a
recount is too high, and that dollars should be saved by not performing a
recount.

Unfortunately, to move on without making sure that every vote was counted
and every failure of the system was documented would be a crime against the
spirit of democracy. No price is too high to safeguard a process that is at
the heart of the freedoms we all cherish.

Just like the brave Americans who marched to Montgomery in 1965 and the
thousands of others who fought to guarantee the right to vote in other ways
over the years, we must bear witness and raise our voices when the vote of
even one of us is not given its full measure of respect and meaning. To do
otherwise is to breach our contract with those who spilled their blood
watering the tree of liberty.

This recount may or may not change the outcome of the presidential election.
It is certain, however, to help us document the ways the system failed, and
to help us to plan for future votes that will be better organized and better
implemented. Once we have had an honest and open reckoning of the ways we
can do better next time, each of us, no matter which candidate we supported
in 2004, will have renewed faith in the system. And that faith in the
fairness of the vote is a necessity precondition for the future of a robust,
healthy democracy.