[Peace-discuss] FWD: Vote Fraud as Fundraiser

[Matt Reichel]

I'd apopreciate the idea of counting ballots more if not done in a way which 
tries to help the Democrats. Nader's re-count in select counties in New 
Hampshire (which Kerry carried) is a prime example. The Greens, as an 
opposition party, should not be doing anything which might benefit one of 
the establishment parties, unless they want to go the way of the German 
Greens in joining with the morally bankrupt SD's of Schroeder.

What many on the Left are irrationally doing is telling themselves that they 
are "certain" that this election was stolen. Take a microscope to Ukraine 
and you have something that mirrors the United States: the party in power 
wasn't the only one cheating.

It would be much more beneficial to the Greens to unveil the cheating on 
both sides than to help elect Kerry (who is only a threat to the 85% of the 
world that isn't the U.S. and Western Europe).

>From: "Walling, Jennifer" <jwalling at law.uiuc.edu>
>To: "'C. G. Estabrook'" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
>CC: peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com
>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FWD: Vote Fraud as Fundraiser
>Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:56:08 -0600
>
> >>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.
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/