[Peace-discuss] FWD: Vote Fraud as Fundraiser

[Walling, Jennifer]

What I hear you saying here is that the Greens shouldn't be protecting
people's "right to vote while black" and people's general right to vote in
the state of Ohio simply because in going through with that protection,
there's a small chance the Greens might be helping the Democrats.

I'd be very disappointed in any Green, and in fact, any person on the left,
if they refused to protect someone's rights because it might in some way aid
an established corporate party.  Oops... Can't go for citizen police review
in Urbana because it will make the Urbana Democratic City Council members
look good.  Oops... we can't fight for electoral reform in the state because
people might like the results and the democrats will look good.  Oops... we
shouldn't be protesting the war because it might make some people so scared
of Bush that they have to vote for a Democratic candidate they hate instead
of our candidate.

(And to preempt an argument some might make, I don't think that this 2004
election was an example of Greens saying, Let's step back and let Kerry win.
I think it was a decision by Greens all over the country that increasing the
likelihood of our 435 candidates in November winning was more important than
garnering a few percentage points in a presidential race THIS YEAR, a race
with enormous amounts of money and fear... 

Four more years of Bush is scary; Forty more years of Bush v. Kerry is
terrifying!!!!).

Also, while I'm sure that this will expose voter fraud in the state of Ohio
(there have already been hearings, analysis of provisional ballots and the
like), I'm sure that voter fraud is not going to be just on one side.  Why
didn't Kerry stand up  to protect the rights of black voters who were forced
to cast, percentage wise, far more provisional ballots than white voters?
Why didn't Kerry do something when some precincts started to report more
votes than voters?  Why doesn't someone do something about the long voting
lines that make it harder for poor working people or people with children or
heck, people with jobs to vote?  


Cobb doesn't have standing in New Hampshire.  Nader does.  Nader doesn't
have standing in Ohio.  Cobb does.  Cobb is also filing for recount in New
Mexico and Nevada.  Those won't affect the presidential race, but he's doing
it because people's right to vote needs to be protected.

IMHO, somebody had to stand up for the rights of the voters of Ohio, even if
they weren't going to win the presidency, even if it doesn't change the
results of this presidential race.  I know that to many, this looks like an
attempt, by the Greens, to change the result of the election.  But, really,
I don't think many Greens see it that way; they see the importance of
protecting people's votes above everything.

The Greens see themselves - often - as the party of the left out.
Somebody's got to work to protect American voters and obviously that
somebody isn't going to be the Dems or GOP.  In my view, this recount is one
of the most important challenge to the established corporate party system in
this entire election.  I know Cobb wasn't much of a challenge (on a national
level) and Nader sure wasn't... AT ALL when it came down to sheer numbers
(some of his supporters were talking about the 10 million votes he might
get... which ended up being less than half a million).  

-Jen Walling


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Reichel [mailto:mattreichel at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 10:44 AM
To: jwalling at law.uiuc.edu; galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FWD: Vote Fraud as Fundraiser


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/