HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Time for change » Journal
Page: 1

Time for change

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: United States
Current location: Winter Garden, Florida
Member since: Fri Dec 3, 2004, 12:01 AM
Number of posts: 13,714

Journal Archives

Let’s Not Let Ohio Slip Away this Time, as it Did in 2004

As in 2004, it appears that whoever wins Ohio will win the presidential election in 2012. Without Ohio, if Obama doesn’t win Florida he will probably need only 2 of the remaining largest 5 swing states (VA, WI, CO, NV, IA) to win the Electoral College (as long as one of them is VA, WI, or CO). But without Ohio, if he doesn’t win Florida he will need to win 4 of the remaining 6 swing states (VA, WI, CO, NV, IA, NH), and maybe 5 (if the 4 doesn’t include Virginia and Wisconsin).

It is therefore important to keep in mind what happened in Ohio in 2004, because what happened then could happen again, especially given that Ohio has a Republican governor – as it did in 2004.

Many have criticized John Kerry for conceding the 2004 election too early, as subsequent events cast a very dark cloud over the 2004 election in Ohio (not to mention elsewhere as well). My purpose is not to criticize John Kerry, whom I respect very much. But at the same time we should learn from what happened in 2004, so as not to repeat it. Subsequent investigations showed myriad “irregularities” with the 2004 election in Ohio. Those investigations did not actually overturn the election. But there is much reason to believe that if the election had not been conceded, and if the investigations had been accompanied by substantial oversight, it would have been overturned. So let’s consider what happened in 2004:


“IRREGULARITIES” IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN OHIO

In the official vote count, George W. Bush beat John Kerry by about 118 thousand votes in 2004, a margin of about 2.5%. But according to the final Ohio exit polls, John Kerry should have won Ohio by about 4.2%. The difference between a 2.5% Bush margin and a 4.2% Kerry margin was 6.7%. This is commonly referred to as a “red shift” of 6.7%. This didn’t just happen in Ohio. Nationally, a 2.6% Kerry lead in the final exit polls turned into a 2.8% Bush lead in the national popular vote – a red shift of 5.4%.

Many explanations have been put forth to explain the large differences between the exit polls and the official vote counts. Clearly, either the exit polls were wrong or the official vote count was wrong. The claim by those who wish to disregard election fraud as the primary reason for the discrepancies claim that the exit polls were “biased”. But they put forth very little evidence to substantiate that claim, and there has never been a U.S. Presidential election in which the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official vote count was that large (data is available on this since 1988). On the other hand, much evidence of election “irregularities” was subsequently uncovered.

By early January, 2005, a small portion of those irregularities had come to light – enough to elicit a formal objection by several U.S. Congresspersons. Senator Barbara Boxer, whose official objection forced a public debate in the U.S. Senate, wrote:

I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing… a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election.

This was accompanied by a report by Representative John Conyers, the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Conyers said “We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election” as he released his report, titled "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio ".

Let’s take a look at the evidence of irregularities surrounding the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio:


Evidence of vote switching on electronic machines

An analysis of reports by U.S. voters to the Election Incidence Reporting System (EIRS) showed that reported vote switches that favored George Bush outnumbered those that favored John Kerry by a ratio of 12 to 1. The rate of reported vote switches per voting population was 9 times greater in swing states than in non-swing states. Many of the voters who experienced vote switches from Kerry to Bush tried to vote for Kerry several times before the correct vote finally registered. Some voters said they ended up voting for Bush because they lost patience trying to change their vote. Many of the reports noted that there were additional similar incidents in the same polling place, using such phrases as “happening all day”.

Other investigations were conducted that strongly supported the idea that the EIRS reports represented only the tip of an iceberg with regard to vote switching. For example, a report by Paul Lehto and Jeffrey Hoffman identified 19 reports of electronic vote switching in Snohomish County, Washington – all which favored Bush – from the Washington State auditor’s office and other sources. Only 3 of those cases had been reported to EIRS.

Even more compelling was an investigation undertaken by the Washington Post regarding electronic vote switching in Mahoning County, Ohio. That investigation identified 25 electronic voting machines in Youngstown, Mahoning County, each which transferred an unknown number of votes from Kerry to Bush. The Post report went on to state “Due to lack of cooperation from Secretary of State Blackwell, we have not been able to ascertain the number of votes that were impacted or whether the machines malfunctioned due to intentional manipulation or error.”

Supporting the supposition of election fraud as an explanation for the vote switches described in the EIRS analysis, as well as the exit poll discrepancy nationally and in Ohio, sworn testimony by computer programmer Clint Curtis before the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic staff suggested an intention on the part of Republican functionaries to utilize electronic vote switching software in the 2004 election. Curtis testified that he had been asked by his supervisor, on behalf of Republican Congressman Tom Feeney, to write a computer program that switched votes from one candidate to another. The strange "suicide" death of the Florida investigator who was in the midst of investigating Curtis’ allegations (after telling Curtis that his investigation revealed corruption “all the way to the top”) provides additional reason for suspicion.


Disappearing Kerry votes in Clermont County, Ohio

Several volunteer workers participating in the vote recount in Clermont County shortly after the 2004 presidential election signed affidavits stating that they observed several white oval stickers covering the Kerry/Edwards choice on the optical scan ballots used in that election. Some of these workers noted that beneath the white oval stickers the Kerry/Edwards ovals were filled in. The white sticker would have prevented the optical scan machine from counting those ballots as votes for Kerry. None of these witnesses noted a problem with the Bush/Cheney ovals. Clermont County was one of the three Ohio counties with the largest vote increase for Bush from 2000 to 2004.


Evidence of central tabulator mediated fraud

Cleveland
Heavily Democratic Cleveland was (and is) central to any Democrat’s chance of carrying Ohio. Many anecdotal reports of very long voting lines in Cleveland suggested that voter turnout there was especially heavy in 2004. An excessive number of voter complaints to the national Electronic Incident Reporting System, of long voting lines in Cleveland, confirmed those anecdotal reports of heavy voter turnout in Cleveland. Yet despite the very long voting lines reported all over Cleveland, official voter turnout was recorded as quite low compared to elsewhere in Ohio.

Investigation showed that problems with voting machines were not the cause of this problem (as was the case elsewhere in Ohio). What else would explain a very high real turnout of voters in Cleveland, in the presence of a very low official turnout? That finding alone suggests foul play – specifically the electronic deletion of votes by the Cuyahoga County central tabulator.

Warren County
Warren County, Ohio, was the site of the infamous lockdown, which allowed Republican officials to tally the Warren County vote in private. Their initial excuse for disallowing any observers to watch the vote count was that they didn’t want interference with the counting process. Later, they changed that excuse to say that the FBI warned them of a terrorism alert of grade 10 on a 1 to 10 scale. That claim was later denied by the FBI, and county officials refused to name the FBI agent whom they claimed gave them the warning. Several months later I called Erica Solvig, the reporter who broke the story, in an attempt to find out more about what happened. She told me that she wasn’t at liberty to discuss it.

Yet the Warren County results continued to stand, and without any serious investigation. It also may be significant that this event occurred when it still looked very much as if Kerry would win Ohio. Bush picked up thousands of additional votes in Warren County, compared with his performance in the 2000 election against Al Gore, and the number of voters officially increased by 30% compared to the 2000 election. By the time the Warren County votes had been “counted”, victory had all but slipped away from the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Miami County
In Miami County, Ohio, after 100% of precincts had reported, an additional 19,000 ballots were reported, giving Bush an additional vote margin of about 6,000 (in exactly the same percentage of the previous votes). What makes this additionally suspicious is that Miami County reported a 20.9% increase in turnout for 2004, compared to 2000, despite a gain in population of only 1.4%. Miami County reported the second largest vote gain for Bush of Ohio’s 88 counties, compared to his performance in 2000. Furthermore, the final official voter turnout figure for Miami County, after the additional 19,000 ballots were added, was a highly suspect 98.55%.

Michael Connell
Michael Connell was a high level Republican operative and IT consultant. He was the founder of New Media Communications, which provided web site services for the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign, the Republican National Committee, and many other Republican candidates.

Given the exit poll discrepancies, the numerous other “irregularities” in the Ohio 2004 presidential election, Connell’s close connections with Karl Rove and the Bush campaign, and his official computer duties with respect to the presidential election in Ohio, he was sought to provide testimony in connection with a lawsuit that alleged tampering with the 2004 election. On September 22, 2008, Connell was subpoenaed to testify in the case. Connell initially sought to avoid testifying, and even put forth a motion to quash his subpoena.

The testimony of Stephen Spoonamore
About a month later, October 26, Stephen Spoonamore, a computer expert and close associate of Michael Connor, provided an affidavit on how he saw the 2004 Presidential election being stolen:

During the evening and early morning on the 2004 General Election in Ohio, on my own computer I was watching the results of incoming counties and precincts. I believed there was a more than likely chance County Tabulators had been programmed to manipulate votes…. As early results showed Kerry ahead, I noticed a trend in a very few counties (I believe I noted 8 counties on election night) that at about 11 p.m. suddenly began reporting radically different ratios of Kerry to Bush votes. All in favor of Mr. Bush. This sudden rate of change… resembled a fraud technique called an Intelligent Man In the Middle, or KingPin Attack. This type of attack requires a computer to be inserted into the communications flow of an IT system…

Other experts found additional data indicating Bush's increase in votes from these counties, and Kerry's decrease in votes… When information about the SmartTech IT routing switch became public, and recalling that staff of Triad were reported to have removed hard drives from County Tabulators in advance of the recount, I again stated that we now have confirmation of a KingPin, or Intelligent Man in the Middle position had been created… The SmartTech system was set up precisely as a KingPin computer used in criminal acts against banking or credit card processes and had the needed level of access to both county tabulators and Secretary of States computers to allow whoever was running SmartTech's computers to decide the output of the county tabulators under it's
control…The SmartTech computer would as the results of the evening proceeded be able to know how many votes Bush needed to steal from Kerry, and flip enough votes on the desired county tabulators to reverse the outcome of the election…

The only way this could have been detected on election night would be complete monitoring… or by conducting a forensic analysis of the complete county tabulator computer, especially the hard drives of these computers. These hard drives were apparently removed by Triad employees before the Green Party Recount, in what appears to be a concerted effort to destroy evidence…

A couple words of explanation are in order at this point: The SmartTech system that Spoonamore referred to was operated by Michael Connell; the references to the hard drives removed by Triad employees before the recount relate back to the corrupted Ohio recount, which I will describe shortly. The removal of those hard drives constituted destruction of evidence of the true vote count, thus making it impossible to conduct an accurate recount.

The death of Michael Connell
On October 28, attorneys filed a motion to compel testimony of Connell regarding his knowledge of the workings of the GOP computer systems. On October 31 a federal judge ordered Connell to submit to a deposition on possible election manipulation. Connell gave the deposition on November 4, providing as little information as possible, but eventually he was forced to admit that “he brought Triad and SmartTech into the Ohio election game”.

When it became apparent that Connell would testify in the case, according to news reporter Blake Renault, Connell was warned not to fly his plane:

Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged… And twice in the last two months Connell, who is an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane.

Cliff Arnebeck, the Ohio lawyer who brought the suit and subpoenaed Connell, warned the U.S. Justice Department that Connell’s life might be in danger, and requested witness protection. Arnebeck wrote:

I have informed court chambers and am in the process of informing the Ohio Attorney General's and US Attorney's offices in Columbus for the purpose, among other things, of seeking protection for Mr. Connell and his family from this reported attempt to intimidate a witness…

Unfortunately, Connell never did get to testify. On December 19, he died in a plane crash, presumably caused by his plane running out of gas.


Purging of legitimate Ohio voters

A great deal of evidence prior to the election indicated that massive voter registration drives by Democratic organizations paid of handsomely with large increases in registered voters in Ohio. An article in The New York Times by Kate Zernike and Ford Fessendon, titled " As Deadline Hits, Roles of Voters Show Big Surge", showed massive voter registration gains in Democratic areas of Ohio, far greater than in Republican areas, identifying 230,000 new voters registered in heavily Democratic Cuyahoga County in 2004. Norman Robbins, leader of the Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition, identified 160,894 new voter registrations received by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in 2004, compared to 31,903 new voter registrations in 2000. These figures were both far higher than the mere 119,000 thousand increase in registered voters between March and November of 2004 indicated by the official figures posted by the Ohio Secretary of State – suggesting that tens of thousands of Ohio voters were purged in Cuyahoga County.

Confirmation of the probable reasons for these discrepancies came from research by Victoria Lovegren, who posted a report at Ohio Vigilance which indicated the purging, apparently illegal, of 165,224 voters from Cuyahoga County alone, for no other rationale than that they hadn't voted recently. Dr. Lovegren also noted hundreds of long-time voters missing from the voter roles and numerous other issues of great concern, including tricks aimed specifically at disenfranchising Democrats.

Additional confirmation of the purging process comes from Mark Crispin Miller’s book, “Fooled Again – How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why they’ll Steal the Next One Too (Unless we Stop them)”. In that book, Miller recounts his conversations with Denise Shull, a poll checker in Summit County. During the course of her work on Election Day, Shull noted that approximately 10% to 20% of registered Democratic voters on her list were not on the official list of registered voters. Furthermore – and this is very important – these voters were described as ardent Democrats, as long time voters in the area, AND most of them were not allowed to vote. A possible reason for their not voting is suggested by an encounter that Shull had with one of these voters as the voter (or more precisely, non-voter) was leaving the polls. This voter was simply told that she couldn’t vote and was given a phone number to call. And even more disturbing, Shull noted three of her fellow Democratic volunteers who described to her very much the same phenomenon occurring at the polling places where they worked that day.

What Shull describes not only provides confirmation that legally registered voters were purged from the voter rolls prior to the 2004 election, but indicates that most of these voters ended up not voting.

Targeting of Democratic voters in Cleveland could have been done relatively easily, since Cleveland is heavily Democratic (voted 83% for Kerry, 16% for Bush in 2004), and many precincts in Cleveland voted more than 90% for Kerry. In order to target Democratic voters in Cleveland, one would merely have had to pick out those precincts with a history of voting 90% or more for Gore in the last election.

But what about Summit County, the county where Denise Shull and other Democratic volunteers described on-the-ground evidence of voter registration purging, and where only 57% of voters voted for Kerry. Voter purging in Summit County would have been much less efficient than voter purging in Cuyahoga County, because any voter purging that occurred there would have included a large proportion of Republicans as well as Democrats. Unless ….

Miller’s book also describes a break-in at Democratic Party headquarters in Akron (143), Summit County, in the summer of 2004. The only things stolen were two computers with Democratic campaign-related information on them. A similar break-in occurred three months later in Lucas County, and was described by the Toledo Blade. This could easily explain Richard Hayes Phillips’ finding of especially low official voter turnout in the most heavily Democratic areas of Lucas County.


Other dirty tricks

Abundant evidence of dirty tricks is noted in Rep. Conyers’ report: Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio – Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff. Other evidence was provided from numerous public hearings.

The types of voter suppression that were documented in Conyers’ report included: failing to provide provisional ballots to tens or hundreds of thousands of eligible voters according to law; targeting minority voters for thousands of legal challenges, demanding that voters provide ID at the polls (contrary to Ohio law), thereby causing many voters to leave without voting; going door-to-door prior to the election, telling voters that they were not registered to vote; failing to provide absentee ballots upon request, and then refusing to let those voters vote on Election Day; and myriad dirty tricks involving misinformation on such essential topics as where or when voters were supposed to vote. There was even an organized effort to call Democratic voters to tell them that they would go to jail if they showed up at the polls to vote.

In Franklin County, Ohio, which has disproportionate numbers of poor and minority voters, 74% of voters waited to vote for more than twenty minutes. The problem was far worse in Kerry voting precincts that in Bush voting precincts. A study that looked at voting machine allocation per voter by precinct partisanship showed that machine allocation was far less adequate in precincts that voted for Kerry. An extensive statistical analysis of the situation by Elizabeth Liddle found that approximately 18,500 voters were disenfranchised in Franklin County because of overcrowding and consequent long waits at the polls. Furthermore, as Bob Fitrakis revealed, all this happened while 68 voting machines were available in Franklin County but held back by county election officials.


A corrupted Ohio recount

A valid recount of the Ohio vote would have identified many (but not all) of the problems discussed above. If county central tabulator computers had indeed manipulated the vote count, as discussed above, a recount would have revealed the discrepancies.

Money was raised for such a recount. The law required that 3% of randomly selected precincts from each county be selected for an initial recount, and then if the recounted vote totals from those randomly selected precincts did not match the initial count of the respective precincts, the whole county would be recounted by hand.

Yet from start to finish, every effort was made to prevent full county recounts, as described in a review by Georgia10, so that when it all ended, only one county in the whole state had been recounted. In order to accomplish this, numerous violations of Ohio law were perpetrated, including: At least 17 counties where the recount was chosen by Ohio election officials rather than randomly; at least 6 counties where tampering with the tabulating machines by voting machine company technicians was confirmed, including a case in Hocking County where the technician actually gave the election officials a "cheat sheet" with instructions on how to make the counts match (The whistle blower of this felony, Sherole Eaton, was subsequently fired from her job), and; at least 6 counties for which, even when it turned out that the vote totals from the preliminary recount didn’t match the official count, election officials still refused to do the required full recount.

And to top it all off, when workers attempted to examine records during the recount in order to identify discrepancies, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell issued a surprise order stating that the public voting records were now private rather than public, and disallowed access to them – contrary to Ohio law. Then, when Congressman John Conyers’ U.S. House Judiciary Democratic Staff attempted to question Blackwell about this and numerous other violations of Ohio law, Blackwell repeatedly refused to answer any questions of the Committee.

In Cuyahoga County, three elections workers faced criminal charges for their failure to follow Ohio election law, and at least two of them were convicted. As reported by The Free Press:

Three criminal prosecutions in Ohio's biggest county have opened with strong indications that the cover-up of the theft of the 2004 presidential election is starting to unravel… According to the AP, County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter opened the Cuyahoga trial by charging that "the evidence will show that this recount was rigged…”

Similar allegations have been made in other counties. Indeed, such illegal non-random recounting procedures appear to have been common throughout the state, carried out by board of election employees with the tacit consent of Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell was officially charged with administering the election that gave Bush a second term while simultaneously serving as the Ohio co-chair of his Bush's re-election campaign.

Additional evidence of a corrupted recount comes from the observations of an election observer representing the Green Party of Ohio at the recount, who noted:

Anomalies were found. Almost all of the witnesses that I spoke with felt that the ballots were not in random order, that they had been previously sorted. There would be long runs of votes for only one candidate and then long runs for another, which seemed statistically improbable to most. From what they were able to get through, witnesses found that signature counts were very much different from the official recorded number of ballots.


WHAT TO DO?

Time is running short, and most of what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence of what happened in 2004 should have already been done. I’m very glad to see that most of the Republican efforts to suppress voter turnout through such things as draconian Photo ID laws have been successfully challenged in courts and ruled illegal. That includes the foiled efforts of Republican controlled Ohio to limit early voting hours for Democrats while expanding them for Republicans.

Electronic direct recording voting machines produce results that cannot be verified in any way unless they are accompanied by a voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT). Otherwise the results produced by those machines cannot even be recounted because they don’t produce anything to recount. Unfortunately, 25% of U.S. voters who vote this Election Day will vote on those electronic machines without a VVPAT. Another 13% will vote on electronic voting machines with a VVPAT. That is what most of the counties in Ohio will use in 2012. But even with the VVPAT there are many problems. There are many different VVPAT systems, and it is difficult to know whether the paper trail will accurately reflect the voter intent. Some electronic voting machines with VVPAT systems do not actually give the voter a chance to correct paper trails that may be inaccurate. And even when the voter does have a chance to correct it, some voters have been shown to cast their vote without making the necessary effort to verify that the paper ballot accurately reflects who they voted for.

Statistical analyses can be performed following the election, in order to identify highly unusual patterns. For example, if we again see large discrepancies between the exit polls and the official vote count, analyses could be performed to see if a disproportionate amount of the discrepancy occurred in counties using electronic direct recording voting machines. If so, that would be highly suggestive of electronic vote switching. If the election was not conceded by then, and if a paper trail is available, a hand recount should be demanded, and it should be vigorously monitored for accuracy. If a paper trail is not available, maybe our courts would allow state examination of the machines in an effort to look for fraud. This was widely requested and denied in 2004. Would the result be different if the “losing” candidate hadn’t yet conceded the election? Time will tell. Why we tolerate such machines in a democracy is beyond my comprehension.

If county central tabulators are used to commit fraud in counties that use voting machines that produce paper trails, then the existence of the paper evidence could potentially be used to overturn the election – if the “losing” candidate hasn’t conceded (Theoretically it could be overturned even if the candidate has conceded, but as we saw in 2004, once a candidate concedes, public attention is withdrawn from the issue, and it seems that no amount of evidence is capable of overturning the election). If a paper trail exists then the vote can be recounted by hand, and/or evidence of vote counts from individual precincts can be used to show discrepancies between actual results and those spit out by the central tabulators. That would require an intensive effort on the part of the “losing” candidate – more intensive even than that seen in Florida in 2000 – to ensure that every effort is made to reconcile the vote counts.

If we again see evidence of massive voter purging that appears to be illegal, we’re in for a big fight if we don’t want to concede the election, but I think it would be a fight worth fighting.

We do have a precedent. The Presidential election of 1876 was rightly thought to involve severe suppression of the Black vote in three Southern states (Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina). Based on the official vote counts in those states, the Democratic candidate, Samuel Tilden, was initially awarded their electoral votes. A bitter fight ensued, which some thought might lead to another Civil War. The stalemate lasted nearly a hundred days, as the matter was deferred to a commission to make the final decision. The initial results were finally overturned on the last day of January, 1877, with the electoral votes of the disputed states given to the Republican candidate (the Republican Party in those days actually was the Party of Lincoln, the anti-racist Party), Rutheford B. Hayes. It was actually more complicated than that, with much politics and deal making, but my point is that if fraud is involved it doesn’t have to be accepted without a vigorous fight.

At this point I think the bottom line is this: Be very suspicious, investigate early, and don’t concede if there is evidence of fraud until it’s been thoroughly investigated.
Posted by Time for change | Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:50 PM (33 replies)

How our “Mainstream” Media Is Tilting the Election towards Romney

It is highly unfortunate that today most of our communications media are owned and controlled by very wealthy people who have far more interest in maintaining the status quo than in informing the American people on the important issues of our time.

That is not the way that democracy is supposed to work. Though national news in our country has always been slanted in favor of the privileged over the vulnerable, it has nevertheless long been rightly recognized in our country that the use of the public airways is a privilege rather than a right. That is why, as early as 1927 our government began requiring licenses for use of the public airways, in the Radio Act of 1927, which was expanded in the Communications Act of 1934. Since then, the underlying standard for radio and television licensing has been the "public interest, convenience and necessity clause", which is explained here by Sharon Zechowski:

The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting – the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license…

But with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we began to see a rapid decline in the quality of the news we receive. By relaxing rules that prohibited monopoly control of telecommunications, that Act led to the concentration of the national news media of the United States largely into the hands of a very few wealthy corporations, to an extent never before seen in our country. This, more than any other event, has allowed the content of the news received by American citizens to be determined by a small number of very wealthy and powerful interests. Hence the pervasive blackout of meaningful news.

The implications for national politics have been quite unfortunate, as Democrats feel the need to move further and further to the right, lest they risk being ignored, mocked, or attacked by our corporate news media.

This situation is intolerable. A free and independent press, which provides unbiased accurate information to the people, is crucial to a healthy functioning democracy. When most of the press is under the control of corporate interests, which strive to tilt elections in their favor, democracy becomes nothing but a fig leaf. The result is not only a playing field tilted heavily towards the conservative (Republican) Party, but also that the more progressive (Democratic) Party is intimidated into moving to the right. The American people suffer for that because the corporate interests are served at the expense of the vast majority of people.


Campaign Trivia and Post-Truth Politics

A recent article by Eric Alterman, titled “Media at Work – Campaign Trivia and Post-Truth Politics” (See page 11), provides great explanations and examples as to how slanted media coverage of the current Presidential campaign is threatening the future of our country. It is doing this in two ways: 1) It provides cover for the myriad lies and distortions of Mitt Romney and other Republicans, thus giving them a much better chance to win elections than they (or the American people) deserve; and 2) it drives our national dialogue on all issues way to the right, while ignoring issues of central importance to the American people. I think it is useful to illustrate these points with some excerpts from Alterman’s most recent article on the subject:

On the abject failure of our corporate owned “mainstream media” to provide meaningful substance to their campaign coverage:

It’s been all but substanceless – when it hasn’t been deliberately deceptive. For despite the participation of tens of thousands of journalists spending tens of millions of dollars… devoted to covering the campaign, the system ultimately fails to justify itself in its most essential purpose: to ensure accountability for citizens and their leaders and to offer the kind of information necessary to help voters make an educated choice for the future of their country. The problems are myriad… First is the role that the relentless focus on campaign trivia plays in the coverage…

On the failure to address the far right wing radicalization of the Republican Party:

The second, and related, dynamic involves the inability of mainstream reporters to admit to, and account for, the radicalization of the Republican Party – whether it involves the candidates’ commitment to extremist ideology, or their refusal to allow observable reality to compete with their economic theories, their scientific ignorance, or their loyalty to billionaire funders like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. So intense is journalists’ belief that they must find a way to blame “both sides” for whatever one candidate happens to say or do – whether it’s telling an outright lie, making a 180-degree change in position, or refusing to accept a simple economic or scientific fact – that the Republicans have largely been given a pass for the consequences of their Tea Party takeover…

This tendency not only creates a false “center” between the two parties – one in which ideologically driven, reality-denying… together with outright, deliberate lies, are treated as perfectly legitimate positions from which members of the punditocracy feel compelled
to demand “bipartisan” compromise from Obama and the Democrats. It also pretends that the ultimate contest will be fought out between two relatively moderate individuals, one
who governs from center-left and one who can be expected to do so from center-right, as if President Romney will somehow not be answerable to the radicalized party he represents.

On widespread abuse of the truth and failure to make the slightest effort to get to the truth:

During this campaign season, “news” outlets such as Fox, the Wall Street Journal editorial page… and other sources of conservative misinformation and propaganda ramped up their efforts to abuse the truth in support of their political and economic interests – in Fox News’s case, by booking guests who regularly lie about the president, and by hiring Republican operatives and fundraisers like Karl Rove and Dick Morris as “analysts” without disclosing their true professional identities…

On Meet the Press, NBC’s David Gregory failed, during pretty much his entire interview, to pin the candidate down on a single issue of substance, instead peppering him with questions like: “As a candidate now, when was the last time you really got to spend some – some quality time with somebody who is out of work….?

On the free pass given to Romney’s many lies and distortions:

Indeed, it was just this kind of superficial focus on the horse race/personality-driven aspect of Romney’s candidacy, together with a willingness to ignore almost every other relevant factor, that created the opening for Romney to pivot from liberal Republican to far-right Tea Party wannabe and (finally) at least part of the way back again during his first debate with Obama, without any sense of accountability for anything he has said or done previously…

At no point did the moderator challenge Romney on any of the specifics in his answers, regardless of whether they proved consistent with the public record of Romney’s career, the plans put forth by his campaign or the famous economic plan of his vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, or reality as generally understood outside the confines
of Republican ideology…

When asking Ryan about Romney’s criticism of alleged “apologies” for US foreign policy, Raddatz allowed him to insist “that we should not be apologizing for standing up for our values,” without bothering to ask when, in fact, anyone in the Obama
Administration – much less the president himself – had ever done so.

On the acquiescing to Republican talking points, no matter how foundationless, in particular regarding the Vice Presidential debate:

Raddatz didn’t try to correct any of the fantastical statements Ryan made to support his and Romney’s economic assumptions. But she did adopt a rightwing Republican talking point (and a demonstrably false one, at that) when, in raising the issue of entitlements, she asserted that “both Medicare and Social Security are going broke.”

On the failure to introduce issues of grave importance to the American people at the debates:

How can it be that neither moderator thought it worthwhile to ask about housing in the midst of a horrific foreclosure crisis? And what, for goodness’ sake, about the future of the American judiciary, especially when… as many as four new justices may be appointed by the next president…

Or what about climate change? Virtually the only time this issue has inspired any debate was when pundits argued over the effectiveness of Romney’s foolish and nonsensical convention speech quip: “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.” As Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm observed… “It would be great if a member of the media actually asked even one question on what most of us think is the story of the century, which is that we are in the process of ruining this livable climate of ours. And we can
still solve the problem if we act now. But, obviously, if no one talks about it, it’s very hard to solve the problem.”

Try to find any decent discussion of the federal government’s role in reducing poverty during the next four years. And this at a moment when fully 16.4 percent of American
families are experiencing “low food security,” according to the Agriculture Department, and 46 million are officially poor.

On Republican hysteria over the slightest attempt to introduce truth into the debates:

The most controversial moment of the evening came when moderator Candy Crowley corrected Romney on a matter of undeniable fact: that Barack Obama had used the term “act of terror” in his Rose Garden address on the day following the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi. Conservatives squealed like a pen full of stuck pigs over this allegedly unfair intervention. Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson compared Crowley, somehow, to Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth, adding that what she had done was “fundamentally dishonest” and “exactly what moderators are not supposed to do.” On Fox Business News, contributor Doug Schoen, allegedly an “influential Democratic campaign consultant,” called it “the single most outrageous thing I’ve seen in thirty-odd years of watching presidential debates.” … Hysteria aside, the whiners had a point. Given all the shameful reporting in the 2012 election, the last thing any Republican thought Romney would have to worry about was being faced with the truth when making one of his countless false and fantastical statements during a presidential debate….

And most important of all, on the potential effect on the election of not holding Republicans accountable for their lies and distortions:

A vigorous, serious and unstinting focus on Romney and the Republicans’ plans for the country, coupled with sharp and sustained analysis of the disjunction between their actual views and the ones they profess for the purpose of winning elections, would demonstrate that they are well outside the consensus of American voters. Yet because the mainstream media cannot be depended on to provide even the rudiments of an accurate portrayal of the two parties’ positions on the major questions facing the nation, the United States now stands on the brink of four years of catastrophic misrule.

Amen.
Posted by Time for change | Sun Oct 28, 2012, 07:07 PM (17 replies)

A Federal Judge Speaks up about the Tragedy and Shame of our Penal System

I was very glad to see this editorial by a federal judge, Mark Bennett. As he notes at the end of his article, “If we don’t speak up, who will?”:

Growing up… I dreamed only of becoming a civil rights lawyer. My passion for justice was hard-wired into my DNA. Never could I have imagined that… I would have sent 1,092 of my fellow citizens to federal prison for mandatory minimum sentences ranging from sixty months to life without the possibility of release. The majority of these women, men and young adults are nonviolent drug addicts… Drug kingpins? Oh yes, I’ve sentenced them, too… But I can count them on one hand… I am greatly conflicted about my role in the “war on drugs.”

Crack defendants are almost always poor African-Americans… Other than their crippling meth addiction, they are very much like the folks I grew up with. Virtually all are charged with federal drug trafficking conspiracies – which sounds ominous but is based on something as simple as two people agreeing to purchase pseudoephedrine and cook it into meth…

I recently sentenced a group of more than twenty defendants on meth trafficking conspiracy charges… Most were unemployed or underemployed. Several were single mothers. They did not sell or directly distribute meth… Yet all of them faced mandatory minimum sentences of sixty or 120 months… In the federal system, there is no parole…

On the consequences and lack of value of mandatory minimum sentences:

Several years ago, I started visiting inmates I had sentenced in prison…These men and women need intensive drug treatment, and most of the inmates I visit are working hard to turn their lives around… If lengthy mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug addicts actually worked, one might be able to rationalize them. But there is no evidence that they do. I have seen how they leave hundreds of thousands of young children parentless and thousands of aging, infirm and dying parents childless. They destroy families and mightily fuel the cycle of poverty and addiction…

On the unpopularity of mandatory minimum sentences:

For years I have debriefed jurors after their verdicts… and these are people who, for the most part, think judges are too soft on crime. Yet, for all the times I’ve asked jurors after a drug conviction what they think a fair sentence would be, never has one given a figure even close to the mandatory minimum. It is always far lower… These jurors think the criminal justice system coddles criminals in the abstract – but when confronted by a real live defendant… they never find a mandatory minimum sentence to be a just sentence.


Thank you very much, Judge Bennett.

With that said, I’ll add some of my own opinions about locking people up for years for victimless crimes.


Reasons why we should abolish the criminalization of victimless acts

The destruction of lives

The clearest and most obvious reason for taking victimless crimes off the books is the hundreds of thousands of lives they destroy directly. Glen Greenwald puts it succinctly:

For us to collectively decide that the consensual, adult use or sale of intoxicants will be criminalized, means we are agreeing that hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans will experience life-destroying calamity. These POWs will be ripped from their communities – and frequently from their children – for years, decades and for life, pursuant to mandatory sentencing schemes as Draconian as those in any dictatorship…

Instead of being with their families, these citizens will be confined among a population teeming with violent predators, under harsh and terrifying conditions. Conditions in which, especially for the disabled, their health often cannot be maintained…

Then there’s the rape and assault of these non-violent “criminals”. Tom Cahill, President of Stop Prisoner Rape, explains:

I credit the war on drugs with the tremendous increase in prisoner rape. Most prison rape victims are in for minor nonviolent offenses. The victim profile is a young adult… confined for the first time for a minor victimless crime such as possession of a little too much marijuana – and too poor to buy his freedom. . .

These men and boys who are raped in prison will usually return to the community far more violent and antisocial than before they were raped. Some of them will perpetuate the vicious cycle by becoming rapists themselves…

Adding to the damage done to individuals is the damage that these laws do to families. Perhaps the major reason for single parent households in our country today is the huge number of imprisoned men. This perpetuates a cycle of crime and incarceration over the generations.

Wrecking the lives of the people of other countries
The United States has pressured many countries to collaborate in its “War on drugs”, particularly with respect to preventing the production and export of drugs from those countries. This often involves aerial spraying of farmland (especially in Colombia) suspected of growing drugs, and the consequent destruction of the livelihood of farmers.

The promotion of real crime
We should have learned our lesson from our experiment with prohibition, which spurred the rise of organized crime. Whenever a widely desired something is criminalized, its value will rise exponentially, while the desire for it will remain high, thus creating a need for an organization to fulfill that desire. Peter McWilliams explains how this contributes to the rise of organized crime, including narco-trafficking:

If fulfilling that desire is a crime, that organization will be organized crime. Operating outside the law as organized criminals do, they don't differentiate much between crimes with victims and crimes without victims. Further, the enormous amount of money at their disposal allows them to obtain volume discounts when buying police, prosecutors, witnesses, judges, juries, journalists, and politicians…. Once consensual crimes are no longer crimes, organized crime is out of business.

Especially when the forbidden something is an addictive drug, its excessive cost will incite some people to commit crimes they would otherwise not have committed, such as robbery. Crimes committed for this reason can then become habit forming, leading to more crimes.

The time and money that goes into pursuing and punishing victimless crimes drains money away from crime prevention and rehabilitation programs which could otherwise contribute to reducing real crime. It drains money from the criminal justice system which could otherwise be used to pursue real crime. And it even sometimes leads to letting real criminals out of prison to make room for the victimless “criminals”. McWilliams describes the problem:

Real criminals walk free every day to rape, rob, and murder again because the courts are so busy finding consensual criminals guilty of hurting no one but themselves. And even if the courts could process them, the prisons are already full; most are operating at more than 100% capacity. To free cells for consensual criminals, real criminals are put on the street every day.

Contributions to racism and classism
The racial and class disparity in the United States for imprisonment for drug offenses is well known. Though the Federal Household Survey (See item # 6) indicated that 72% of illicit drug users are white, compared to 15% who are black, blacks constitute a highly disproportionate percent of the population arrested for (37%) or serving time for (42% of those in federal prisons and 58% of those in state prisons) drug violations.

Whenever and wherever victimless crimes are prosecuted and punished, the opportunity for arbitrary enforcement of the law based on racism or other nefarious factors is magnified tremendously.

Victimless crimes are unconstitutional
Victimless crimes are not specifically mentioned in our Constitution. Yet, they are intimately related to abuses of our Fourth Amendment. For one thing, warrantless searches and seizures have often been used to obtain evidence of victimless crimes. Secondly, warrantless searches and seizures and victimless crime laws are often pursued for the same reasons: as a means of wielding political power over selected portions of our population. Furthermore, a victimless crime law seems inconsistent with the idea of “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…” Privacilla elaborates on this:

Victimless crime laws do threaten the privacy of innocents because of the monitoring and investigation they require for enforcement… To enforce this kind of crime law, officials must engage in extensive monitoring, wiretapping, and surveillance of suspects and the public. The existence of victimless crimes tends to erode Fourth Amendment protections that are there to protect the privacy of innocents….

In fact, a US Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, was argued partially on this basis. The case involved a Texas law that made consensual sex between homosexuals, even within the privacy of their own homes, a crime. The Supreme Court ruled against the state, striking down that law. It is not clear to me whether the Fourth amendment was part of that decision, but the plaintiff did pursue the case based in part upon Fourth Amendment issues, introducing arguments against victimless crimes:

Liberty cannot survive if the legislature demands that people behave in certain ways in their private lives based on majority opinions about what is good or moral…And of course, the Founders believed wholeheartedly that majorities had no right to impose their beliefs on minorities. In Federalist 10, Madison articulated his concern…

It could also be argued that victimless crimes violate our First Amendment restriction against laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, since religious values often provide the foundation for these laws. And certainly the due process clause of our Fifth Amendment is routinely violated by victimless crime laws, especially given the fact that they are so unequally enforced against the poor and minorities.

Cost
Nobody can say that we are winning our “War on Drugs”, despite the 40 billion or so dollars that we spend on it annually. Drug use in the United States is little different today than it was when the “War on Drugs” began.

McWilliams elaborates further on the cost:

We're losing at least an additional $150 billion in potential tax revenues… moving the underground economy of consensual crimes aboveground would create 6,000,000 tax-paying jobs.

The withholding of medical treatment
Many illicit drugs have important medical uses, but because of the “War on Drugs” their use for medical purposes is either completely outlawed or severely curtailed. Marijuana provides exceptionally good symptomatic relief or treatment for a wide range of medical conditions, for which there is no better or even comparable alternative treatment. Yet the pharmaceutical industry and the prison industry (among others) have lobbied extensively against the legalization of medical marijuana, and the federal government has complied by over-ruling state enacted medical marijuana laws. This adds to the huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry while denying millions of Americans symptomatic relief from serious diseases such as cancer or AIDS.

Especially important is the fact that many illicit drugs are highly effective against pain. Because of taboos against potentially addicting drugs, many people are needlessly denied
the pain relief that they need to make their lives bearable, even as they are dying.


Highest incarceration rate in the world

The end result of all this is that the United States has for many years had the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. A 2008 article in The New York Times notes that with only 5% of the world’s population, one quarter of all the world’s prisoners are U.S. prisoners. The prevalence of incarceration in our country was 751 people per 100,000 population – which means that one percent of all our adults were incarcerated. Russia was a distant second, with 627 people incarcerated per 100,000 population:



Judge Bennett ended the editorial with which I started this post by calling for more judges to speak out about this issue:

Many people across the political spectrum have spoken out against the insanity of mandatory minimums… In a 2010 survey of federal district court judges, 62 percent said mandatory minimums were too harsh. Federal judges have a longstanding culture of not speaking out on issues of public concern. I am breaking with this tradition not because I am eager to but because the daily grist of what I do compels me to… I hope more of my colleagues will speak up… This is an issue of grave national consequence. Might there be a problem when the United States of America incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other nation in the world.

Posted by Time for change | Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:54 PM (13 replies)

Remembering George McGovern

George McGovern, who died this Saturday at the age of 90, was the first presidential candidate who I campaigned or voted for. He has ever since been one of my greatest sources of inspiration. In my opinion he was one of the most honest, courageous, and compassionate politicians our country has ever known. The 1972 Democratic nominee for President, I believe he would have been a great President had he been elected. But either our country wasn’t ready for him then, or probably more accurately, our “mainstream” corporate media did such a hatchet job on him that he never had a chance of getting elected against an incumbent president (Richard Nixon).


A brief background on George McGovern

McGovern, a long-time and consistent critic of unnecessary U.S. wars, was a bomber pilot and war hero during World War II. Following two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, he was elected to the U.S. Senate from South Dakota in 1962. By the late 1960s, he was one of three or four U.S. Senators to publicly speak out against our involvement in the Vietnam war, for reasons very similar to his later opposition to the Iraq War, including: the awful toll in American and Vietnamese lives; the belief that the Vietnamese people should have the right to determine their own fate; and, the fact that we could not ‘win’ that war. He later said that it took more courage for him to speak out against that war as a junior Senator than it did for him to fly combat missions during World War II.

In 1972 he was chosen as the Democratic nominee for President, with his number one campaign issue being the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. Unfortunately, he was excoriated not only by his opponents but by much of the U.S. national news media, which dubbed his candidacy as standing for the “Three A’s”: abortion, acid, and amnesty: Abortion, because he believed in a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion (one year before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land); acid, because he believed that people should not be imprisoned for the possession of marijuana (marijuana isn’t acid, but hey, what’s a little inaccuracy when the Presidency of the United States is at stake?); and amnesty, because he believed that following the termination of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war, draft evaders and deserters from that illegal war should receive amnesty.

His campaign for president in 1972 was derailed by a barrage of lies and dirty tricks, reminiscent of the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004, and more recently President Obama. Most of all, his courageous opposition to the Vietnam War allowed his opponents to peg him as a pacifist.

McGovern lost the Presidential election of 1972 to Richard Nixon in a landslide, carrying only one state (Massachusetts). But not before Nixon, in an effort to neutralize McGovern’s most important campaign issue, reached an agreement with North Vietnam just a couple of weeks before the election, allowing Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to claim “Peace is at hand” just a few days before the election. This led directly to the Paris Peace Accords, signed by Nixon just a few days after the start of his second Presidential administration, which officially ended direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. And that is a major reason why I say that George McGovern is more responsible than any other single person for ending our involvement in the Vietnam War.


Some lessons we could learn from George McGovern on war

George McGovern during the Vietnam War was the Dennis Kucinich of our day. Though his detractors never lost an opportunity to call him a pacifist, McGovern was never a pacifist. As a bomber pilot in WW II, he advocated the bombing of Nazi concentration camps in order to more directly combat the genocide taking place in those camps. As a U.S. Senator in 1978, he was one of the very few U.S. politicians who advocated intervention in Cambodia in order to stop the genocide taking place there. McGovern asked in response to that genocide, “Do we sit on the sidelines and watch a population slaughtered or do we marshal military force and put an end to it?” And he also supported our involvement to stop genocide in Kosovo in 1998 and in Darfur.

But when it came to immoral imperialist wars his opposition was fierce. He was one of three or four U.S. Senators who opposed U.S. involvement in the early years of the Vietnam War, as manifested by the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment (defeated by 55-39), which required the complete withdrawal of American forces over a period of several months. In pushing for his amendment to end the war, McGovern was not afraid to point fingers at his Senate colleagues (Democratic as well as Republican): Rick Perlstein, in his book “Nixonland”, describes following the scene:

Opposing senators had spoken of the necessity of resolve in the face of adversity, of national honor, of staying the course, of glory, of courage. McGovern responded:

“Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending fifty thousand young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood.” (Senators averted their eyes or stared at there desks or drew their faces taut with fury; this was not senatorial decorum.) “Every senator here is partly responsible for that human wreckage… young men without legs, or arms, or genitals, or face, or hopes… Do not talk about national honor, or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible…”

McGovern succinctly summed up the lesson that we should have learned from Vietnam (and Iraq) when he said "We seem bent on saving the Vietnamese from Ho Chi Minh even if we have to kill them and demolish their country to do it". And he said about his opposition to the Vietnam War, while alluding to the Iraq War:

I frankly don't understand the interpretation that once you get into a war you can't ever pull out until you've won it. We need more politicians in this country who are willing to say, "I made a mistake. Let's correct it as soon as possible."

In April 2003 he wrote in response to knee jerk Republican claims that Democrats “don’t support our troops” every time Democrats criticize a war:

I believed then as I do now that the best way to support our troops is to avoid sending them on mistaken military campaigns that needlessly endanger their lives and limbs. That is what went on in Vietnam for nearly thirty years….During the long years of my opposition to that war, including a Presidential campaign dedicated to ending the American involvement, I said in a moment of disgust: “I’m sick and tired of old men dreaming up wars in which young men do the dying.” That terrible American blunder, in which 58,000 of our bravest young men died, and many times that number were crippled physically or psychologically, also cost the lives of some 2 million Vietnamese as well as a similar number of Cambodians and Laotians…I had thought after that horrible tragedy – sold to the American people by our policy-makers as a mission of freedom and mercy – that we never again would carry out a needless, ill-conceived invasion of another country that has done us no harm and posed no threat to our security. I was wrong in that assumption.


Dedication to our most vulnerable fellow citizens

A recent editorial in The Nation summarized George McGovern’s life:

McGovern stood with the underdogs, the hungry and the poor. He led the effort for a school meals program that has provided food for millions of children globally since 2000. In 2002, he asked:

Instead of adding $48 billion to the Pentagon budget, as the President has proposed, wouldn’t we make the world a more stable, secure place if we invested half that sum in reducing poverty, ignorance, hunger and disease in the world? …

McGovern understood that our great nation was born of revolution – dedicated to human rights and dignity for all. He understood that the United States should rightfully be a champion for the vulnerable and a leader in ending hunger, illiteracy and poverty. And he was delightfully scathing in his astute observations about how too many politicians invoke faith and moral values when they violate them on a daily basis.

As we near the end of an election season that has (almost entirely) failed to speak to the poor and the vulnerable among us and has too often presented our role in the world in militarized terms, may we honor McGovern’s commitments by ensuring that what is missing is raised, and what matters is pursued in the critical times ahead.

Posted by Time for change | Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:27 PM (24 replies)

Red State Mortality Rates and Voters Who Vote against their own Economic Interests

I’ve been a public health official and epidemiologist for 32 years. As such, much of my work involves looking at and evaluating factors that influence human health, disease, and mortality. Recently I came across a map of age adjusted death rates by state (See page 4), and I was immediately struck by the fact that there appeared to be a very strong correlation between mortality rates and the political redness of the states. The correlation wasn’t by any means perfect, but it looked very strong. As a matter of fact, the 11 states with the highest mortality rates are all deep red states (AL, AR, GA, IN, KY, LA, MS, OK, SC, TN, WV). According to Nate Silver’s latest analysis, among those states, the most likely to vote for Obama this November is Indiana, and he rates the probability of that happening at exactly one half of one percent.

So I entered the numbers into my computer, using Nate Silver's October 17 probabilities of voting for Romney as an indication of the state’s redness, and used a standard statistical test (linear regression analysis) to evaluate the strength of the association between the state’s redness and age-adjusted mortality in 2009. The strength of the association was very strong indeed. The probability of seeing an association that strong by chance is less than one in ten thousand. The predictive value is so strong that of all the factors that could predict the mortality rate in a state, the state’s redness accounts for more than a quarter of the predictive power.

I thought that was phenomenal, so I assessed other potential variables in an attempt to find an explanation. The variable that I found that appeared to offer the best explanation was median family income of the state. Median family income was a substantially better predictor of state mortality rate than was the state’s redness. The association was strongly negative – the lower the median family income the higher the mortality rate (median family income held almost 40% of the power to predict a state’s mortality rate). This is a very well known relationship in the field of public health. A low median family income for a state means that a relatively large percent of families will be living in poverty. Poverty and near poverty is associated with poor nutrition, homelessness, relative lack of access to health care, and many other factors that predict high mortality. So it was no surprise to see a state’s median income strongly negatively associated with the state’s mortality rate.

But how would that explain the positive association between the state’s redness and its mortality rate? Well, it turns out that a state’s redness is also strongly and negatively associated with median family income. The more likely a state is to vote for Romney over Obama, the less is its median family income. And the state mortality rates vary a great deal. At one extreme is Hawaii, with an age-adjusted annual mortality rate of 620 deaths per 100,000 population. Hawaii is rated a 0.0% chance of voting for Romney. At the other extreme is West Virginia, with an age-adjusted mortality rate of 950 deaths per 100,000 population. West Virginia is rated a 99.8% chance of voting for Romney.

This all begs the question: Why are states with the lowest median family income, in general, the most likely to vote for Romney? Romney wants to reduce taxes on the rich even beyond the rates imposed by the George W. Bush administration. Romney wants to cut Social Security, which would have devastating effects on tens of millions of Americans. Romney was infamously quoted as showing contempt for 47% of the U.S. population, by implying that they are leeches who should not be entitled to the government benefits that they receive – which in many cases allow them to feed their families while they continue to look for a job. Shouldn’t all this cause low income voters to vote against Romney? Let’s take an in-depth look at the explanations behind the associations I’ve discussed in this post:


The association between a state’s redness and its mortality

I noted above that the causal explanation for the association between a state’s redness and its mortality rate is median family income. Low median family income is a very strong predictor of both a state’s mortality rate and its redness. It is primarily because of this that a state’s mortality rate and its redness are strongly correlated.

But there is also a more direct reason – that is, a direct relationship between a state’s redness and its mortality rate. A primary characteristic of a red state (or individual) is that these states and individuals have fallen for the Republican line that “big government” is intrinsically bad. Romney uses this simple-minded and fraudulent line all the time. He wants us to take it without question that anything government does can be better done by the private sector. They want us to forget that government is the elected representative of the people – i.e. government IS the people.

But the private sector in NOT intrinsically better than government. The private sector is here to make a profit. If in the course of making a profit, people benefit from their services, then fine. But benefiting the people is not their purpose. And without a representative government to exert some controls on the private sector, they will run all over the nation’s people in their quest for profit. This is exactly what has happened over the last several years. The American oligarchy (a term I use to describe the ultra-wealthy individuals, corporations, and interest groups who have gained control over much of our government) has used its massive amounts of money to buy the communications media by which so many Americans receive their political information. They’ve used their money to buy politicians to get elected to serve their own interests at our expense. When they can’t buy a politician they use their money to throw them out of government, as they did to Alan Grayson in 2010. They play us off against each other. More specifically, they have convinced millions of people to be against government programs that could greatly benefit them, on the premise that some undeserving people will benefit from those programs.

So it is that a preponderance of voters in red states regularly elect to local and state offices politicians who are dedicated to serving the desires of the American oligarchy at the expense of everyone else. They have fallen hook line and sinker for the idea that government is intrinsically bad. They believe that it is bad to elect government officials who want to regulate wealthy corporations in the public interest. They see “Obamacare” as bad simply because it represents government “interference” with the private sector – no other explanation needed. They believe that the private sector must take over Social Security in order to get it out of the hands of government. Corporations are let loose to pollute our air, water, and soil without government “interference”, and to manipulate our economy. These red state voters acquiesce too much to the idea that our social safety net programs are bad because they represent “big government”. They (along with their fellow citizens who aren’t fooled so easily but live amongst those who are) are now reaping the consequences for their naivety, in falling economic status, poor health and ultimately death.


The association between a state’s redness and its poor economic status

Now let’s come back to the question of why poor economic status of a state predicts a state’s redness. I think it’s very important to understand this – yet the explanation is far from obvious.

One important point is that we know from exit polls in 2000 and 2004 (and probably 2008 as well, but I haven’t looked at this issue for 2008) that lack of a college education is strongly associated with a tendency to vote red. That shouldn’t be surprising. The Republican Party often seems to hold education and educated people in contempt. Their contempt for education is reflected in their policies, which deny or scorn science-based findings such as climate change and evolution, and seek to make a college based education unattainable for ordinary people. Lack of a college education has to be one reason for the association between low family income and a state’s redness.

Most important, voters in these states have been convinced to vote against their own economic self-interests. The American oligarchy has led these people to believe that government has no right to interfere with their ability to do whatever they please. To do so would be “socialism”, they tell us, which everyone should know is bad. Worse yet, they’ve arranged for massive government subsidies and tax breaks that ordinary people don’t have access to. They even arranged for a multi-trillion dollar bailout of the fraudulent financial industry that got us into the economic mess that we’ve been in since 2008 – with very few strings attached. The bottom line is that voting red enables the wealthy to become even wealthier, at the expense of everyone else.

Thus voting red hurts people economically. An excellent example of the relationship between economic status and voting tendency is provided by events in Wisconsin in the past couple of years. Wisconsin is just a little to the blue side of purple. In the Republican tidal wave of 2010, Wisconsin tilted to the red side and voted in a far right wing governor and legislature. The newly elected right wing governor, Scott Walker, immediately set about the task of trying to destroy the presence of organized labor in the state – a move that gave Wisconsin the worst job loss in the nation compared to other states. At that point, the blue tendency in Wisconsin reasserted itself as voters put tremendous pressure on its governor and some of its most conservative legislators with recall movements. These efforts were successful enough to replace enough conservative Republican legislators with Democrats to block Governor Walker’s worst excesses – though the effort to recall Walker himself was prevented by the infusion of tons of money from Walker’s wealthy supporters.


Influencing people to vote in their own interest

If we are to be successful in reversing the constant drift to the right in our country, among other things (such as diminishing the influence of money in our political process, taking back our communications media from the wealthy corporations that now control it, and fixing our broken election system) we liberals/progressives need to be able to talk to people with conservative tendencies, to help them to better understand how political issues affect their own economic well being. A recent article by Josh Eidelson, a former labor organizer, addresses this point. In the article Eidelson discusses “Working America”, an organization that attempts to organize non-union working people to work and vote for their own economic self-interests. He describes the organization like this:

Working America staff say a few advantages set their {organization} apart: their work happens on your doorstep, not your TV screen; they’re independent of parties and candidates; and they establish a year-round presence in communities. Self-identified conservatives open the door because they’ve signed up as members. Working America steers clear of foreign policy and “social issues”.

How can an organization that has obvious political purposes be “independent of parties…”? The point is that we who seek to influence voters to support our political causes need to recognize that many people, liberals and conservatives alike, have legitimate grievances against both major political parties. When we try to exaggerate the virtues of our own party and whitewash its faults, many people pick up on what we are doing, and it turns them off. We thereby lose the opportunity for meaningful communication with them. Discussing the widespread voter disaffection with politicians and the whole political process in our country, Eidelson says:

I watched canvassers get even solidly Republican voters to engage with them because of the overwhelming appeal of their anti-outsourcing message and their eagerness to listen… Across the spectrum, people nodded in agreement. These canvassers were also modest in their defense of Obama. They often noted that they too had hoped to see more change…. A Working America field manager told voters that he saw Obama as the lesser of two evils. You won’t find that in any canvassing script. But it resonated.

I like the idea. Americans have been fooled into working and voting against their own interests for far too long. We the 99 percenters need to find more common ground for talking with each other about the issues of importance to us that unite us in our efforts to curb the power of those who have gained so much control over our country and our lives.
Posted by Time for change | Thu Oct 18, 2012, 06:01 PM (17 replies)

My Book about the Myriad Problems and Potential for Fraud with our Election System

My book on the myriad problems and potential for fraud with our election system was recently published by Biting Duck Press. It is titled “Democracy Undone – Unequal Representation, the Threat to our Election System, and the Impending Demise of American Democracy. It can be found at http://bitingduckpress.com/democracy_undone/ . Here is a brief description of each of the book’s chapters:


Chapter 1 – Consequences of a failing democracy

When elections of our public officials are for sale to the highest bidder… when our public officials are so addicted to the “campaign contributions” of their wealthiest constituents that they develop a symbiotic relationship with them… when our communications media are owned and controlled by an oligarchy of wealthy elites… when our citizenry lack the ability to differentiate propaganda from reality… when we allow machines provided by private corporations to count our votes using secret electronic software… then we should expect that the consequences will not be pretty or comfortable for the vast majority of our citizens. This chapter briefly discusses some of the major consequences of all that, including:

 Election to public office of people who have no desire to represent our interests
 Routine abrogation of international law
 Gross, record breaking income inequality
 Rampant militarism
 The highest rate of imprisonment of its citizens, by far, of any nation in the world
 The impending destruction of the human life-sustaining capabilities of our planet


Chapter 2 – How the 2000 Presidential election was stolen

The American people were widely aware that on Election Day 2000 the TV networks made two calls on the winner of the Presidential election in Florida that were reversed shortly afterwards. Within an hour of poll closing, Florida was called for Al Gore. A little more than two hours later, the networks reversed that call, calling the race in Florida “too close to call”. Four hours after that, at 2:16 a.m. Wednesday morning, they began calling Florida, and with that the U.S. Presidential election, for George W. Bush. About an hour later the networks put Florida back in the “too close to call” category, where it remained for the next 36 days, amidst Democratic Party efforts to have the votes recounted, Republican Party efforts to stop the vote counting, bitter publicly aired arguments and court battles.

Why would the national TV networks make two calls in the same state, within seven hours, which had to be reversed shortly afterwards? Our national news media attributed those two calls to “bad data”, but they never explained them in any adequate detail. An analysis of those two reversed calls sheds much light on the many problems with the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. That analysis provides no evidence that the early call for Gore was based on “bad data” at all. So why did it have to later be reversed? The Wednesday morning call for Bush was based mainly on a computer “glitch” that reduced Gore’s vote count by more than 16 thousand in a single precinct that contained only about 600 voters.

This chapter explores the reasons for the two “bad calls”, as well as the many illicit and shady maneuvers that provided the Bush/Cheney margin of victory in Florida and thereby gave us “President George W. Bush”.


Chapter 3 – Was the 2004 Presidential election stolen too?

It was well known in the days prior to the 2004 Presidential election that a Bush victory was highly unlikely without Bush carrying both Ohio and Florida. As Election Day unfolded, spirits in the Kerry camp were running high, as it became evident that Ohio’s 20 electoral votes would determine the victor, and Kerry had a comfortable lead in the Ohio exit poll. Even CNN’s right wing hack, Robert Novak, acknowledged that it would be an uphill climb for Bush.

But as the results came in from Ohio, optimism in the Kerry camp began to fade, and by late evening their remaining hope was narrowed down to strongly Democratic Cuyahoga County, and especially Cleveland, where reports of large pre-election increases in new voter registration and exceptionally high voter turnout had circulated. But this remaining hope soon faded, as it became clear that the (official) voter turnout from Cleveland was in fact miserably low, and by noon the next day John Kerry conceded the election, which he officially lost by about 119 thousand votes.

In this chapter I do not discuss all of the evidence for a stolen 2004 election, as I reserve most of that for later chapters that deal with election fraud by type of fraud. In this chapter I discuss: 1) the record breaking discrepancy between the many exit polls that were performed as voters left the polls and the official vote count; 2) the widespread silence regarding that discrepancy by our national news media, and; 3) the corrupted vote recounts that were performed when citizens concerned about the integrity of the election challenged the results.


Chapter 4 – Can you trust the corporations that make the computers that count your votes?

Both the running of our elections and the registering of voters have to a large extent been turned over to private for-profit corporations in recent years. These corporations have displayed great resistance to any laws or policies that would make their voting systems more transparent or less susceptible to fraud.

Many of these corporations have been shown to have political ties, especially to the Republican Party. It is widely acknowledged that the electronic machines that they produce, own, and use to count our votes, can be easily programmed to switch votes from one candidate to another. The final results produced by most of these machines cannot be verified by any means. Much evidence provides good reason to believe that these machines have been used to steal elections, especially the 2004 presidential election. Chapter 4 describes much of this evidence and explains why these machines are unfit for use in our elections.


Chapter 5 – Fixing elections by making 2 + 2 = 3

In addition to the electronic voting machines that count our votes at the thousands of individual precincts throughout the United States, other electronic machines compile the individual precinct vote counts to produce total county-wide vote totals. As with the individual voting machines, these “central county tabulators” can be programmed for fraud. Chapter 5 describes evidence of election fraud mediated by these central county tabulators and discusses how this type of election fraud can be prevented.


Chapter 6 – Illegal purging of legitimate voters

Of the many irregularities found in the 2000 Presidential election, it was the illegal purging of legitimate voters that was the biggest factor in the awarding of Florida and therefore the Presidency to George W. Bush. The irregularities identified in the 2004 Presidential election dwarfed those found in 2000 in scope and magnitude, and consequently Bush was awarded a second term as president. Once again, illegitimate purging of legitimate voters led the list of causes for Bush’s victory. This practice was prevalent all over the country, including again in Florida, but this time it was Ohio that led the way and made the biggest difference. And once again, the person responsible for conducting a fair election in the state that made the difference, this time Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, was the highly partisan Chairperson of the Bush/Cheney campaign in the state. This chapter describes the abundant evidence of illegal purging of legitimate voters in Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 and elsewhere.


Chapter 7 – More dirty tricks – Voter suppression and intimidation

This chapter discusses other means of voter suppression, including:

 Insufficient allocation of voting machines to poor and minority precincts
 Spoiled ballots – on which the voter intends to vote but is unable to do so
 Moving polling places without notifying voters
 Voter intimidation
 Frivolous lawsuits against voter registration organizations


Chapter 8 – The “voter fraud” myth and the barrage of new restrictive voting laws

Restrictive voting laws decrease voter turnout by making it more difficult for people to vote. They disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and Democrats. To rationalize these anti-democratic laws, Republicans have been pushing for several years the myth of “voter fraud” – the idea that voters who impersonate other people and otherwise vote illegally represent a monumental threat to the integrity of our elections.

While the first restrictive state voter ID laws were passed in 2003, by September 2011, 30 U.S. states required either photo ID or some other form of ID in order to vote. American voters who are homeless, do not own cars, or otherwise lack access to photo IDs are usually ordinary people who have fallen on hard times and gotten caught up in a system that is making life more and more difficult for ordinary people. Preventing them from voting helps the cause of the American oligarchy at the expense of almost everyone else. Consequently, in 2012 alone, voter ID legislation with the purpose of disenfranchising millions of Americans was introduced in 34 states.

Chapter 8 debunks the “voter fraud” myth, discusses the anti-democratic effects of the restrictive voting laws that use the “voter fraud” myth as their rationale, and describes the current status of voter ID laws.


Chapter 9 – Shocking testimony on vote switching in the 2004 presidential election

There are several unsolved (not to mention uninvestigated) mysteries surrounding George Bush’s 2004 Ohio “victory”, many which suggest the possibility or likelihood of electronic vote switching. A computer programmer, Clint Curtis, provided sworn testimony to Congress that he wrote a computer program, at the request of a Republican operative, which was capable of rigging the 2004 election, and which he believes was in fact used to rig the 2004 election. The man charged with investigating Curtis’ allegations appeared to be on the verge of verifying his allegations and tracking them “all the way to the top” shortly before he died under highly suspicious circumstances. The investigation into his alleged suicide was quickly squelched by Governor Jeb Bush’s administration in Florida.

Four years later, following numerous investigations that cast further suspicion on the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, ‘Karl Rove’s IT guru’ was killed in a plane crash shortly before he was scheduled to testify in a court case involving allegations of vote manipulation in that election, and shortly after receiving threats regarding his impending testimony. The close association of this man with Karl Rove is probably significant.

Chapter 9 discusses those two deaths in detail, in the context in which they occurred.


Chapter 10 – Legalized bribery of government officials

There is no greater corrupting influence on a democratic (or any other) government than systematic bribery of the government officials who are supposed to serve the interests of the nation’s people. In the United States today the system that is used to finance election campaigns amounts to systematic bribery of our government officials. This system perpetuates a double whammy on the American people. Money from wealthy “campaign contributors” – individuals and corporations – has tremendous influence on the outcomes of our elections. Then the recipients of that money, once installed in office, use the powers of their office to pay back their contributors by passing and supporting legislation that favors them, at the expense of everyone else. That enables the wealthy contributors to accumulate even more wealth and power, and the cycle repeats itself over and over again.

The end result of legalized bribery in our country is that a great many of our politicians do everything they can to make their wealthiest constituents happy with them, at the expense of everyone else. They do that with the knowledge that the voters they lose in doing so will be more than compensated for by their disinformation campaigns that will be paid for by their wealthy donors. This is a recipe for turning democracy into corporatocracy, which is a major component of fascism.

This chapter describes the malignant effects of legalized bribery in the United States, and some of its history, along with the most important U.S. Supreme Court decisions that enabled this system, by striking down campaign finance reform laws passed by the U.S. Congress, and by using the rationalization that corporations are “persons” and money is a form of “speech”. Thus our Supreme Court has conferred our First Amendment protection of free speech upon corporations, thereby enabling them to spend millions of dollars in behalf of the political candidates and causes that support their interests.


Chapter 11 – Corporate control of communications media

Because the good majority of information that most Americans receive today is through the telecommunications industry, and because access to the megaphones that the telecommunications industry uses to communicate to the American people is very expensive and under corporate control, the wealthy now have the ability to use those megaphones to a much greater extent than do ordinary American citizens. Consequently, wealthy persons, individually or through the corporations that they control, use their wealth to obtain air time on the previously “public airways” to get their message out – in the process precluding those with less money from doing the same.

The implications for national politics have been quite unfortunate, as our elected officials, Democrats and Republicans alike, feel the need to move further and further to the right, lest they risk being ignored, mocked, or attacked by our corporate news media.

This situation is intolerable. A free and independent press, which provides unbiased accurate information to the people, is crucial to a healthy functioning democracy. When most of the press is under the control of corporate interests, which strive to tilt elections in their favor, democracy becomes nothing but a fig leaf. The result is a playing field tilted heavily towards the right, in which the American people suffer because corporate interests are served at the expense of the vast majority of people.

Chapter 11 explores the history of corporate monopolization of our communications media, the resulting attacks on our First Amendment rights, and other consequences destructive of a democratic society.


Chapter 12 – Some actions we can take now

This chapter provides a framework for solutions to the myriad problems with the election system in the United States today. It ends with a quote from Milton Mayer, who studied the thinking of ordinary lower level Nazis during Hitler’s rise to power. Mayer explained in his book, “They Thought They Were Free – The Germans 1933-45”, the gradual process by which Germans gave up their freedom to Hitler:

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter…

You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time…

You speak privately to your colleagues… but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ … And you can’t prove it…

In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next… You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago.


Final Note from the Publisher: Use This Book!

We were keen to get this book published prior to the upcoming presidential election for what readers should perceive as pretty obvious reasons. Even those of us not privy to all the facts suspected that two out the last three presidential elections were stolen. Now this book removes whatever doubts we may have had.

The silence on this subject from both sides of the political spectrum (after some initial rather feeble whining) has been nothing short of deafening. From progressive and far left all the way to conservative and far religious right the mantra has resounded: “all right, whatever may have happened it is in the past, it’s time to forget about it, it’s time to move on.” But moving on without making an effort to understand from past mistakes sets the stage for creating a nation of fools ruled by a coterie of knaves. For if there is one thing we can count on, it is that members of the ruling elite continue to learn from their past. Indeed, stealing the 2004 election was a slicker process than the terribly clumsy and obvious 2000 maneuvering.

Our recent US election history is a tale painful to recount and an agony for those of us who were actively involved to relive. But it is imperative that we do so, because, as the great writer says: “past is prologue.” Here are some ways to use the invaluable information contained in this book…


If you read the book or part of it and agree that the information contained in it has the potential to educate American voters about the problems with our election system and motivate them to be more vigilant about protecting it, please consider writing a short review of the book and posting it at Amazon.
Posted by Time for change | Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:46 AM (27 replies)

Will Romney-Connected Voting Machines in Hamilton Co. Ohio Decide the 2004 Election?

The question that is the title of this post was recently posed by Bob Fritakis and Harvey Wasserman, who did so much to uncover and draw to public attention evidence of election fraud in the Ohio 2004 Presidential election, which provided the electoral margin of victory for George W. Bush in 2004. The article begins with this:

Electronic voting machines owned by Mitt Romney's business buddies and set to count the votes in Cincinnati could decide the 2012 election.

At issue is the potential role of Hart Intecivic voting machines, which will be used in two Ohio counties in 2004 – Hamilton County (which contains Cincinnati) and Williams County. Hamilton County is of far more concern because it is much more populous than Williams County.

Fritakis points out in another recent article that the majority of board directors at Hart Intercivic come from the private equity firm H.I.G. Capital. Employees at H.I.G. Capital have contributed $338,000 to the Romney 2012 Presidential campaign. That’s a lot of money for one company. Clearly it is very important to them that Romney be elected President. Furthermore, Ohio is shaping up as the U.S. state most likely to provide the electoral margin of victory in 2012 – as it did in 2004. And as in 2004, Ohio now has a Republican governor and a Republican Secretary of State, who are in charge of the election in Ohio this year. It is disturbing that a very heavy contributor to Romney’s campaign is so closely connected with a voting machine company whose machines are counting votes in Ohio this year.


The potential for Hart Intercivic machines in Hamilton County to influence the election

I don’t know what the potential is for the Hart Intercivic machines to decide the 2012 Presidential election this year. In some ways it might seem that their potential is not that great.

The machines that will be used to count the good majority of votes in the county are Hart Intercivic optical scan machines, according to the Ohio Secretary of State website. Optical scan machines count ballots filled out by voters that are preserved and can be recounted in case election fraud is suspected. But that by no means ensures an honest election. Election fraud was strongly suspected in 2004, and a statewide recount was ordered. However, the recount itself, under the direction of Republican Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (who was also the Bush-Cheney campaign chairman), was itself a fraud. The fact that ballots and election records from 56 Ohio counties were destroyed despite a federal order to preserve them substantially exacerbates the suspicions surrounding the Ohio election and the Ohio recount of 2004.

The remainder of the votes in Hamilton County will be counted with the eSlate voting machines. These are electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper trail and therefore produce results that cannot be verified by a recount or any other means. But these voting machines will be used only for handicapped voters whose handicap (such as blindness) prevents them from using the optical scan machines. Obviously the number of voters using those machines will be small. But since the results that they produce are totally unverifiable, they could be programmed to add lots of votes to Romney’s total.


What to do

As I said, I don’t know what the potential is for the Hart Intercivic machines to be involved in a degree of election fraud that will decide the 2012 election. Their strong financial connection with the Romney campaign is certainly disturbing. But it seems to me that the possibility for very high magnitude fraud is remote if appropriate precautions are taken:

As noted above, if the Hart Intercivic optical scan machine is involved in fraud, that fraud could be easily discovered and remedied through a recount of the optical scan ballots. If Obama (or Sherrod Brown) appears to lose a close election in Ohio, the vote count from Hamilton County should be immediately analyzed to see if it is discrepant with the expected vote based on other recent elections and the vote counts of other Ohio counties. If it is, and if the magnitude of the discrepancy appears great enough to decide the winner of the election, the Obama campaign should immediately focus on Hamilton County and secure orders for a recount of the vote, with a team of lawyers used to oversee the recount to make sure that it isn’t fraudulent. No such effort was made in Ohio in 2004 anywhere in Ohio, and the recount fraud generated little publicity.

With regard to the potential for fraud with the Hart Intercivic eSlate voting machines, the total vote count produced by those machines should be immediately identified. If the number of votes fraudulently added to those machines was enough to determine the election result in Ohio, the total number of votes produced by them would likely be far out of proportion to the number of handicapped voters likely to use them. In that case, the issue could be quickly identified and investigated – and no Obama concession should be considered until the investigation is completed.
Posted by Time for change | Fri Oct 12, 2012, 07:27 PM (7 replies)

“We shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the African-American voter-turnout machine”

The excerpt from the quote that is the title of this post was recently reported by the Columbus Dispatch, quoting Doug Preisse, chairman of the Franklin County, Ohio, Republican Party. The full quote was:

I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine.

It was spoken for the purpose of rationalizing the limiting of early voting in Ohio, which in turn is part of a very large national effort to suppress the vote of minorities and the poor in order to get Mitt Romney into the White House and provide him with a Republican Congress.

The Republican Party explained the quote by saying that Preisse thought his comments were “off the record”.

Of course, this should be no big deal, except for the fact that the racism exhibited by the comment, as well as the many right wing actions that accompany such thinking, are promising to be rampant in the 2012 national election. And they very well could make the difference in who is elected President and which Party controls Congress.


Rampant racism promises to be in full force at voting precincts this Election Day

"True the Vote", a group with strong ties to Republican entities such as the Tea Party, the Koch brothers and Judicial Watch, plans to send out a million volunteers on Election Day to do "poll watching". While its purported purpose is to ensure the integrity of our elections, evidence abounds that its more direct purpose is to suppress Democratic voting. As Bill Ouren, True the Vote's national elections coordinator has repeatedly said with regard to his training program, the job of his poll watchers is chiefly to make voters feel like they’re "driving and seeing the police following you." And an article titled "How the Tea Party's Building a Poll Watcher's Network" provides clues to the true intent of True the Vote’s “election integrity” program, with a quote from Tom Fritton of Judicial Watch, a featured guest speaker at True the Vote training programs:

We are concerned that Obama’s people want to be able to steal the election in 2012 {with the} “illegal alien vote” {and a} “food stamp army.”

A guide produced by True the Vote provided recommendations for:

requiring photo ID to vote, increasing penalties for forged or otherwise fraudulent voter registration applications, prohibiting same-day voter registration, allowing recording devices inside polling precincts and designating English as the “official language of Texas and the only language used on ballots.”

A New York Times editorial provides an apt analogy to the Jim Crow era:

This is how voter intimidation worked in 1966: White teenagers in Georgia harassed black citizens in line to vote, and the police refused to intervene. Black plantation workers in Mississippi had to vote in plantation stores, overseen by their bosses…

This is how it works today: In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, True the Vote, descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout.

The article goes into detail on how this voter suppression works:

In 2009 and 2010, for example, the group focused on the Houston Congressional district represented by Sheila Jackson Lee, a black Democrat. After poring over the records for five months, True the Vote came up with a list of 500 names it considered suspicious and challenged them with election authorities. Officials put these voters on “suspense,” requiring additional proof of address, but in most cases voters had simply changed addresses. That didn’t stop the group from sending dozens of white “poll watchers” to precincts in the district during the 2010 elections, deliberately creating friction with black voters.

An article in Atlantic Magazine dealt with the vigilante flavor of these groups. It described a Tea Party rally in which a speaker

implored the crowd to prepare for a “ground war”: “In 2012, we need a patriot army to stand shoulder to shoulder on the wall of freedom and shout defiantly to those dark powers and principalities, ‘If you want to steal this election, you have to get past us. We will not yield another inch to your demonic deception … If you won’t enforce our laws, we’ll do it ourselves, so help us God.’ ” Shaking his fist in the air, he cried, “Patriots, let’s roll!” The crowd cheered wildly.


Why this is important

The voter intimidation is all part and parcel of a larger effort to suppress the minority, poor, and Democratic vote in general. It is on par with the massive efforts to limit early voting, require strict voter IDs that disenfranchise the poor and minorities, voter “caging” operations, and the purging of voter lists of suspected illegal aliens and felons.

Some might wonder whether this kind of voter intimidation is actually effective. It certainly was in recent previous national elections. Many minority voters are scared into believing that they will get into trouble with the law if they vote. Others feel physically intimidated. The incessant challenges slow down voting lines and force working voters with stringent time constraints to leave their polling places before voting. If that doesn't work, election officials with right wing sympathies may go along with the challenges and require that voters vote by provisional ballots, which may never be counted. An article on these right wing vigilante poll watching groups provides an explanation:

The law provides no standards or guidance for precinct election officials in determining whether the form of ID is valid. How does the judge decide whether it is a real ID? If you have any suspicion about its validity can you give the voter a provisional ballot? Do you have to have probable cause in order to reject the ID? Is it a reasonable doubt standard? Giving no guidance for standard of review leaves a loophole large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Here is where the law allows the zealously partisan poll worker to find any minuscule irregularity and make someone vote a provisional ballot.

A Democratic strategy group co-sponsored by Common Cause expounds on its implications:

It’s a coordinated attempt by a political party to fix the result of a presidential election by restricting the opportunities of members of the opposition party’s constituency – most notably blacks – to exercise a Constitutional right. This is the worst thing that has happened to our democratic election system since the late nineteenth century, when legislatures in southern states systematically negated the voting rights blacks had won in the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Some may object that this is an exaggeration – that the use of electronic voting machines that produce unverified results and can be easily programmed for fraud poses a far worse threat to our election system. But there is little need to argue about that. The presence of a worse threat to our election system is no reason to not be concerned about the resurgence of this blatantly racist threat.


The "voter fraud" myth as the excuse behind the voter suppression

No discussion of this issue would be complete without noting the so-called “voter fraud” myth that rationalizes the reason for all this voter suppression. Yet the issue of "voter fraud" as a threat to our elections has been shown over and over again to baseless. An editorial cartoon figure puts the issue in perspective:



An analysis of voter fraud in the United States by Lorraine Minnite found it to be "rare and isolated". Art Levine puts the "voter fraud" scam in perspective:

Voter fraud is actually less likely to occur than lightning striking a person, according to data compiled by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice… The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud.

On Election Day 2000, outrage over “voter fraud” in St. Louis inspired the GOP to make a big deal of it and press charges. Levine explains:

Missouri's then-Secretary of State Matt Blunt launched a trumped-up investigation that concluded that more than 1,000 fraudulent ballots had been cast in an organized scheme. A Justice Department Civil Rights Division investigation, started before Ashcroft shifted the department's priorities, found no fraudulent ballots, however. Instead, it discovered that the St. Louis election board had improperly purged 50,000 voters from the rolls.

Later, in October 2002, Ashcroft as U.S. Attorney General initiated an effort to combat voter fraud – the “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative”. Yet, though “voter fraud” was declared a high priority, Professor Minnite found that only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting between 2002 and 2005. Not a single person was even charged with impersonating another voter – the claimed rationale for the restrictive voting laws. Fourteen of the 24 convictions were of noncitizens who were apparently confused about election laws.


What can be done?

The above mentioned strategy memo co-sponsored by Common Cause provides some recommendations for averting the kind of voter intimidation described in this post. It notes that even if the Obama campaign is successful in thwarting the worst voter suppression abuses and wins the election, the Republican Party is sure to invoke “voter fraud” as the reason for their loss and use that as an excuse to delegitimize an Obama victory and/or a Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress, in an attempt to force compromises on many policy issues. It recommends the following:

Neutral election officials should be prepared and encouraged to call for police assistance in maintaining order the moment problems begin to arise and not wait until frustrations have mounted. The militants in the voter vigilante groups will have no hesitation about dismissing virtually all electoral monitors – state, federal or neutral third party – as collaborators in the sinister Democratic conspiracy but they will emphatically not want to be seen as clashing with the local police. The organizers of the voter fraud groups will not want to see video of their militants confronting policemen or news headlines that read “Voter fraud groups clash with police at polling places.”

Democratic observers should be prepared to caution frustrated voters that angry confrontations or disruptive behavior will play directly into the hands of the voter vigilantes and conservative media. In contrast, calm but firm protest and dignified interviews with local TV and other media can dramatically illustrate who are the victims of injustice and who are the victimizers.

Citizens at polling places should be prepared to relentlessly track and digitally record all Fox news and other GOP-friendly media and cameramen with their cell phones and be prepared to quickly provide local and national TV stations with any video evidence they obtain of conservative photographers and reporters encouraging obstruction or disorder. “Fox news cameramen provoke clash at polling place” is headline Rupert Murdoch will most definitely not want to see the day after the elections.

Democratic election monitoring groups should be prepared and have a system in place to precisely document all legitimate voters who are denied the right to vote because of delay or disruption of the polling place by the voter vigilantes and be ready to use this documentation as the basis for both civil and criminal legal action against any voter fraud groups whose actions result in the disenfranchisement of American citizens.


My book on the myriad problems with our election system has been recently published in different electronic formats by Biting Duck Press and can be found at the link in my sig line.

Posted by Time for change | Tue Oct 9, 2012, 07:30 PM (3 replies)

Why Is there No Mainstream Talk about the Threat of Electronic Vote Switching in the 2012 Election?

There are five very simple reasons why anyone concerned about the state of our election system and our democracy should be concerned about the threat of electronic vote switching in the coming election. These reasons are so obvious to anyone who is familiar with the state of our election system that it is difficult to fathom why almost nothing has been done about this threat, though it has been well known for at least as long ago as the days following the 2004 Presidential election. It is equally difficult to fathom why there is so little talk about it in the “mainstream” media today – unless one postulates that our corporate-owned “mainstream” media is well aware of the threat and yet chooses to ignore it because they are more interested in preserving the status quo than they are in preserving our democracy. Let’s consider why we should be concerned about this threat to our democracy.


Electronic voting machines can be easily programmed for fraud

Myriad articles have been written on how easily electronic voting machines can be programmed for fraud. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever disputed this. Here are some excerpts from the summary of a typical article on the subject, titled "Analysis of an Electronic Voting System". It was written by four authors, one from the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of California, two from the Information Security institute at Johns Hopkins University, and one from the Department of Computer Science at Rice University:

We show that voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal software… In the face of such attacks, the usual worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. That said, we demonstrate that the insider threat is also quite considerable, showing that not only can an insider, such as a poll worker, modify the votes, but that insiders can also violate voter privacy… We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election. Any paperless electronic voting system might suffer similar flaws, despite any “certification” it could have otherwise received. We suggest that the best solutions are voting systems having a “voter-verifiable audit trail,” where a computerized voting system might print a paper ballot that can be read and verified by the voter.


I would like to add just two comments to this. First, I am much more worried about fraud mediated by very powerful and wealthy people than I am about the “such as a poll worker” noted in the excerpt above. Second, while a voter-verifiable audit trail is a good start towards addressing this problem, it is currently far from sufficient. There have been many problems discovered with voter-verifiable audit trail systems currently in use. Furthermore, even if such as system was made to work perfectly it would not ensure an accurate vote count, since it cannot work unless the paper ballots are actually counted. In the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio, it required a great effort to get permission to do a recount, the Democratic nominee had conceded the election long before the recount began, and when it finally was performed it was found to be fraudulent, having occurred under the supervision of Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, who was also, simultaneously, the Bush/Cheney Campaign Chairman in Ohio in 2004.


Electronic voting machines produce unverifiable results

There is no way whatsoever to verify the results of a vote count produced by an electronic machine that is not associated with a voter-verifiable audit trail. All we have is vote counts produced by the machine, which we are left to accept on faith. In situations where recounts have been ordered, the “recount” of the vote count produced by the electronic machines is conducted simply by having the machine produce the number again. The “results” are already in the machine. Inevitably they produce the same numbers that they did the first time.

When election integrity activists ask that the machine be examined by an independent outsider expert, in an attempt to discovery evidence of fraud, their request is inevitably refused with the rationale that the machine is proprietary – meaning that it is owned by the corporation that made it. Courts have upheld the rights of the voting machine owners to refuse to allow independent examination of their machines – in large part because of written agreements to that effect between the voting machine owners and the election officials who contracted with them to count our votes.

Any idiot could tell you that that is a recipe for election fraud and tyranny. Why do our election officials make such deals with voting machine corporations?


There is much evidence that electronic voting machines have been used for fraud

The final exit polls, posted at 12:23 a.m. on Wednesday morning, November 3, 2004, predicted John Kerry with 50.8% of the national vote and George W. Bush with 48.2% of the national vote – a difference of 2.6%. In marked contrast, the machines that were responsible for the official vote count registered a national vote of 50.9% for Bush and 48.1% for Kerry, a 2.8% Bush victory. The difference between the exit poll results and the official vote count – the red shift – was thus 5.4%. The statistical odds against such a large discrepancy occurring by chance were astronomical, approximating one in a million. In Ohio, the state that determined George Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004, the exit polls predicted a Kerry victory by 4.2%, while the official vote count gave Bush a 2.5% victory – a red shift of 6.7%. In that same year, a discrepancy between exit polls and the official vote count in the Ukrainian presidential election led to the reversal of the official results, thus elevating Viktor Yushchenko to the Ukrainian presidency – with the official support and encouragement of the U.S. government. Yet the exit poll discrepancy in the U.S. Presidential election was barely commented upon by our “mainstream” media.

An analysis of reports by U.S. voters to the Election Incidence Reporting System (EIRS) developed by the National Election Data Archive Project demonstrated numerous voter complaints of vote switching that they directly witnessed on the touch screen machines on which they voted. The good majority of these complaints, by a ratio of 12 to 1, favored Bush over Kerry. A report by Paul Lehto and Jeffrey Hoffman identified 19 voter reports of electronic vote switching in Snohomish County, Washington – all which favored Bush – from the Washington State auditor’s office, the Washington Secretary of State’s office, and a Snohomish County voter complaint hotline. An investigation undertaken by the Washington Post regarding electronic vote switching in Mahoning County, Ohio identified 25 electronic voting machines in Youngstown, Mahoning County, each which transferred an unknown number of votes from Kerry to Bush. The Post report went on to state “Due to lack of cooperation from Secretary of State Blackwell, we have not been able to ascertain the number of votes that were impacted or whether the machines malfunctioned due to intentional manipulation or error.”

Supporting the supposition of election fraud as an explanation for the vote switches described in the EIRS and other analyses, as well as the exit poll discrepancy nationally and in Ohio, sworn testimony of computer programmer Clint Curtis before the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic staff suggested an intention on the part of Republican functionaries to utilize electronic vote switching software in the 2004 election. The strange "suicide" death of the Florida investigator who was in the midst of investigating Curtis’ allegations (after telling Curtis that his investigation revealed corruption “all the way to the top”) provides additional reason to believe that the implications of Curtis’ revelations were very important.

All of this is just a sampling of the great conglomeration of evidence that electronic vote switching not only can be, but actually has been used to steal elections – and not just in the 2004 Presidential election. There is much more.


Electronic voting machines with no paper trails will be widely used to count our votes in 2012

In the 2012 general election, almost 25% of U.S. voters, from 17 different states, will vote on electronic machines that produce vote counts with no paper trail at all. Again, these results will be completely unverifiable. An additional 12% of U.S. voters will vote on electronic machines that produce voter verified paper trail audits, with all their attendant problems, which would require an honest hand recount (a seemingly unlikely possibility) of the paper ballots in order to verify their results.

With electronic control over 25% to 37% of votes cast in the 2012 Presidential election, do you think that that is enough to swing an election? Again, I have to ask: Why is this allowed in a country that is supposed to be a democracy?


The issue of motive

All of what I wrote above are simply facts – facts that cannot be disputed, though some may argue with the interpretation of those facts with regard to the question of how widespread electronic vote switching has actually been in previous U.S. elections.

Given the known capability of private corporations to program their machines to switch votes from one candidate to another, do you think that any of them would actually have a motive to do it if they could? I suppose that there are people who would answer “no” to that question, but personally I think the answer is so obvious that it doesn’t warrant discussion.


The book

My book on the myriad problems with our election system has been recently published in different electronic formats by Biting Duck Press. Electronic vote switching is one of many issues discussed in it. It is titled “Democracy Undone – Unequal Representation, the Threat to our Election System, and the Impending Demise of American Democracy. It can be purchased at this link: http://bitingduckpress.com/democracy_undone/ .

Here are some excerpts from an editorial review of the book by Jonathon Simon, Executive Director of the Election Defense Alliance and the man who first identified and reported the great exit poll discrepancy of 2004:

In writing Democracy Undone, Dale Tavris has forsaken easy refuge in the crowd of passive bystanders to a chilling and devastating crime…. The subject is computerized election theft, which Democracy Undone examines, for the most part unblinkingly, in the crucial context of the multi-faceted breakdown of American politics and American democracy itself. We are shown a government that is veering further and further from the interests and the will of the governed in a process that is accelerating catastrophically…

Yes, it is the stuff of “conspiracy theories,” and passive bystanders can comfort themselves with the “never happen here” mantra. That is, after all, how the Big Lie prospers and exactly what its perpetrators count on. But Tavris provides plenty of evidence not only that it can happen here… but that it has happened and is happening here…

It’s a chilling nexus but no less real for being so disturbing. We have, individually and collectively, too long been bystanders to a cheap trick with massive political and historical consequences… There could not be a more timely or important book to read this November or in this rapidly darkening time.

Posted by Time for change | Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:05 PM (7 replies)
Go to Page: 1