--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
> Here's my problem with the RFK jr. piece...and why I stopped
> reading it.
>
> The piece dealt with a problem that is widespread in the US: there
> is not one election taking place, as the piece citess, but 13,000
> different ones.  Each of those jurisdictions runs their own
> election process with their own rules.
>
> THAT'S the problem...not that the Republicans bent the rules to
> their favour, 'cause the Dem's do it when they can do it, too.
>
> So once I got to that part of the article I said to myself: why
> read the rest when I know where it's going; this Democratic
> partisan -- RFK jr.-- is going to make it seem as if the
> Republicans are the bad guys and stole the election when the
> problem is the system.
>
> Did RFK jr. cite the problems with Illinois and West Virginia that
> many felt were responsible for "stealing" the election for his
> uncle in '60 when he ran against Nixon?
>
> Probably not.
>
> So, notwithstanding the very important issue of these 13,000
> different elections, I'm not interested in reading what some
> partisan had to say about it.  I got the general gist of it and
> bailed.
>
> Now, if I'm off base here and there was something ELSE in the
> article of importance, share it with me, by all means.

Did you get this far (4th and 5th paragraphs of
the article)?

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system
is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city
officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,''
says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election
Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections.
We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-
sovereign counties and municipalities.''

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their
decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John
Kerry and benefited George Bush....

Farther down the page:

But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show
implausible disparities -- as much as 9.5 percent -- with the exit
polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins
departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift
favored Bush....

...Ihe greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote
count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush
received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off
by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry
dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to
within three tenths of one percent....

''When you look at the numbers, there is a tremendous amount of data
that supports the supposition of election fraud,'' concludes Freeman
[a research methodology expert who says he "hates the
Democrats"]. ''The discrepancies are higher in battleground states,
higher where there were Republican governors, higher in states with
greater proportions of African-American communities and higher in
states where there were the most Election Day complaints. All these
are strong indicators of fraud -- and yet this supposition has been
utterly ignored by the press and, oddly, by the Democratic Party.'


In the rest of the article, RFK cites many specific
instances of various types of irregularities (not
just the exit poll discrepancies) in which the massive
majority resulted in more votes for Bush and fewer for
Gore.

If it weren't for this glaring disparity, you could
explain away the irregularities as business as usual
with both parties tweaking a flawed, fragmented system
to their own advantage.  If this were the case, you
would expect to see a roughly equal number of
irregularities that helped each candidate.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




SPONSORED LINKS
Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to