U.S. democracy in peril
Election fraud needs to be stopped
By Nathan Johnson
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
: “Doesn’t anybody else remember that box of ballots they found in the woods in Florida following the 2000 presidential election?”
Many people don’t vote because they feel that their vote doesn’t count, that one vote among millions cannot change anything. While it’s important to not overestimate any election’s influences on the class struggle and development of America, history shows the greater danger lies in not voting.
The saying “use it or lose it” has proven true of voting rights. There’s overwhelming evidence showing election fraud in the past two presidential elections to such an extent that it’s clear Bush lost both elections. I’m not into conspiracy theories; I’m just going by the facts.
The government twists the truth so often that I don’t suspect many people reading this are authentically surprised. I mean, doesn’t anybody else remember that box of ballots they found in the woods in Florida following the 2000 presidential election?
The 2000 election involved more than just the Florida controversy, where Republican demonstrators pressured counters to stop recounting, thus obstructing transparent democracy. According to Project Censored, a group dedicated to exposing news that the corporate media ignores, in the election 1 million African American votes weren’t counted and racial discrimination was prolific.
Election fraud was just as serious in 2004, but received even less concern than the 2000 fiasco, which I didn’t think was possible considering how apathetically the majority of Americans who had just voted for Al Gore accepted defeat. Those who wanted a recount in 2004, worried over the “100,000 officially logged reports of irregularities and possible fraud,” were considered “sore losers.”
For example, half of overseas voters didn’t receive ballots either at all or on time; a firm appointed by the Republican National Committee to register voters was found destroying Democratic registrations; 357,000 Ohio votes weren’t counted while the state was won by 118,601 votes, 80,000 of which were attributed falsely to Bush. The list goes on and on.
Electronic voting machines are especially alarming. One machine in the 2004 election counted backwards to zero after it reached 32,000. Researchers at Princeton University demonstrated that voting machines made by Diebold are particularly easy to hack. The CEO of Diebold during the 2004 elections, a key fund-raiser for Bush, resigned in 2005 under pressure of insider trading allegation. Alarmingly, Diebold claims the voting records are their “private property” and therefore don’t need to be disclosed.
The difference between the exit polls and official count was so severe that it’s statistically impossible or, if you want to get technical, a 1 in 450,000 chance that Bush won. The margin of error in the exit polls was plus or minus one percent based on a sample size six times larger than usual to ensure an especially accurate estimate.
Our government’s unwillingness to investigate past electoral fraud or fix the situation demonstrates contempt for democracy, pure and simple. Without our votes the government effectively does not have the consent of the governed. As the Declaration of Independence explains, it then becomes “The Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government.” What are we waiting for?
Voter apathy reflects the growing popular disillusionment with our government, which is proving itself incapable of solving the real, structural contradictions of capitalism that intensify with every turnover of capital and erupt in the forms of war and recession.
The fundamental tenets of capitalism aren’t challenged by reform, but only in revolution. However, revolution will never happen unless the working class lays the groundwork for it in prior years. This necessarily includes fighting for key reformist legislature, including elimination of election fraud, as a means to the end of liquidating class society.
Fighting for reformist legislature is necessary, but insufficient in and of itself, for workers to gain political experience and develop class consciousness for escalating the class struggle to a revolutionary pitch. Workers also need to organize and fight for their own distinct socio-economic interests outside of the voting booth. The Civil Rights Movement couldn’t have succeeded without the mass demonstrations and protesting on the part of the working class.
Democracy means more than just voting. Therefore the struggle for qualitatively greater democracy must be extra-political. Voting under the current apparatus only becomes obsolete once a dual power has been established in the course of revolutionary struggle amidst aggressive total workers’ strikes and democratically elected strike committees, when the working class is in a position to seize state power.
Until that day, we must work to restore democracy to the standards of the Constitution. We need to mobilize now to send a clear message to the presidential candidates that we won’t tolerate another stolen election.
> Comments
RS on Feb 04, 2008 at 05:55 AM:
As a Democrat I am appalled at the "conspiracy theories" promulgated by Mr. Johnson. Yes Mr. Johnson, you do in fact seem to subscribe to “conspiracy theories.” The sources that you cite in this article are far less then credible. By spewing this nonsense you are helping Republicans by making those who don't support them look crazy. In fact, most of your editorial is just that, CRASY. Perhaps if you would spend some time WORKING for your chosen candidate instead of bitching about an election, that first, is now irrelevant and second Kerry did lose, we can elect a leader that America will be proud of. That is unless your candidate is Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or some other extremist. Your rants are not only unreasonable they are just plain dumb.
I challenge those who subscribe to such views to take a peek at the web-page for “project censored.”
http://www.projectcensored.org/
I am confident that anyone who is at least somewhat intelligent will draw the correct conclusions as to its content.
Faja Klaus on Feb 04, 2008 at 06:28 AM:
Actually this article is valid, and I'm rather surprised that a democrat is so surprised by this, especially when one considers the 2000 election. How can you NOT be suspicious of voting machine tampering? Are you sure you are a democrat? Nice article Mr. Johnson, you make a lot of great points.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 04, 2008 at 10:53 AM:
To be honest both sides do this kind of thing. In actuality despite popular conceptions it is far more likely that Gore was the one trying to steal the election in 2000. A recount done after the election by a democratic organization showed that Bush actually won the election by a much larger margin than the official recount. Meaning there was monkey business going on with the recounts on the Democratic side.
Now in 04 the evidence does suggest the Republicans were pulling stuff in Ohio. However and this is the important part. Other evidence shows that the Democrats were pulling stuff in Wisconsin. The FEC even officially stated as much. Now if we were to give Ohio to Kerry and Wisconsin to Bush (the likeiihood Ohio went to Kerry is about the same that Wisconsin went to Bush). Bush would still win. Just with fewer electoral college votes.
I do beleive that there is election fraud going on. However I think it is happening on both sides. I do however get frustrated with the popular misconception that it is exclusively a Republican phenomena.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 04, 2008 at 10:53 AM:
To be honest both sides do this kind of thing. In actuality despite popular conceptions it is far more likely that Gore was the one trying to steal the election in 2000. A recount done after the election by a democratic organization showed that Bush actually won the election by a much larger margin than the official recount. Meaning there was monkey business going on with the recounts on the Democratic side.
Now in 04 the evidence does suggest the Republicans were pulling stuff in Ohio. However and this is the important part. Other evidence shows that the Democrats were pulling stuff in Wisconsin. The FEC even officially stated as much. Now if we were to give Ohio to Kerry and Wisconsin to Bush (the likeiihood Ohio went to Kerry is about the same that Wisconsin went to Bush). Bush would still win. Just with fewer electoral college votes.
I do beleive that there is election fraud going on. However I think it is happening on both sides. I do however get frustrated with the popular misconception that it is exclusively a Republican phenomena.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 04, 2008 at 10:55 AM:
Oops my comment posted twice for some reason.
Nathan Johnson on Feb 04, 2008 at 09:54 PM:
As a Marxist (not a Stalinist) I'm for working class parties- which neither the Democratic or Republican parties are. It's a side issue which capitalist party in particular is causing election fraud and corruption, the point is American elections are deteriorating in transparency and legitimacy. Editorials can only be so long, so I picked the most alarming examples, which happened to be attributable to the Republicans.
Isn't it surprising that it takes a Communist to call out election fraud, while most Democrats and Republicans alike are in denial?
Nathan Johnson on Feb 04, 2008 at 09:54 PM:
As a Marxist (not a Stalinist) I'm for working class parties- which neither the Democratic or Republican parties are. It's a side issue which capitalist party in particular is causing election fraud and corruption, the point is American elections are deteriorating in transparency and legitimacy. Editorials can only be so long, so I picked the most alarming examples, which happened to be attributable to the Republicans.
Isn't it surprising that it takes a Communist to call out election fraud, while most Democrats and Republicans alike are in denial?
RS on Feb 05, 2008 at 02:51 AM:
Faja,
Show some concrete example of any legitimate candidates that would promulgate the views of Mr. Johnson?? OK...Dennis Kucinich and he got less the one percent of the vote in the most recent Democratic Primary contests. No, Mr. Johnson's views are not common in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I do agree that election fraud is a problem, but Kerry did not win in 04' while there were questionable tactics on both sides in 2000. Mr. Raatz is actually correct. Election Fraud occurs on both sides. As to the calls for Marxism....get over it, we live in a capitalist society. Let get back to reality here. Most Democrats promote and accept this view also. Perhaps you Faja, are the one who is not a Democrat. You might fit in well with the communist party.....
Johanan Raatz on Feb 05, 2008 at 08:27 AM:
"I'm for working class parties- which neither the Democratic or Republican parties are. It's a side issue which capitalist party in particular is causing election fraud and corruption,the point is American elections are deteriorating in transparency and legitimacy."
Its good you made that comment.
"Editorials can only be so long, so I picked the most alarming examples, which happened to be attributable to the Republicans."
Well first of all the Democrat fraud in Wisconsin made the front page of the Journal so that is unsually disturbing as well. Now granted the Republican fraud has been sensationalized more so it seems more significant and easier to reference however it would have been good for you to add in at least one instance of Democratic fraud. I know you dislike both parties but as Marxism is associated with the left the impression the average reader would get would be that you think the Democratic party isn't corrupt but the Republican party is. In reality election fraud is just another manifestation of human nature.
"Isn't it surprising that it takes a Communist to call out election fraud, while most Democrats and Republicans alike are in denial?"
Yeah it's funny. Well you know you dislike bother parties so your more likely to see both slightly more objectively than someone inside those parties.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 05, 2008 at 08:32 AM:
One interesting recent example of possible election fraud was the actually between two Democrats. In the New Hampshire primary recently Hillary miraculously overcame a double-digit lead on Obama. The exit polls however did not reflect this.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 05, 2008 at 08:33 AM:
One interesting recent example of possible election fraud was the actually between two Democrats. In the New Hampshire primary recently Hillary miraculously overcame a double-digit lead on Obama. The exit polls however did not reflect this.
Brian Averill on Feb 06, 2008 at 07:55 PM:
RS, It's clear the both parties have not wanted substantial participation in society (voting and much more). Whether we're talking about democracy here or abroad, we find that the U.S. policies which rise to the top are those promoting an elite democracy. I'll refer you to:
Gilman, Nils. "Mandarins of the Future" (more specifically starting at p. 47).
On a separate note, I believe Venezuela has a much more sophisticated system for recording votes. Again, it's within the interest of both ruling parties to keep the system vulnerable.
I'd also like to see you critique Project Censored. Just because you say something is "less than credible," that doesn't make it so. Let's see some proof.
a few dumb men... on Feb 06, 2008 at 10:53 PM:
I WANT THE TRUTH!!!!
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!
RS on Feb 09, 2008 at 12:41 AM:
Where is your "proof" of voter fraud Brian??? Where is you "proof" that Venezuela has a much more sophisticated system for recording votes???