I wrote:
> > We can cut down on fraud and irregularity,
> > and perhaps move to popular rather than electoral voting, to >reduce the
> arbitrariness, but we cannot eliminate it. Dems >benefited from it with
> Kennedy's election; Reps likely will >benefit from it with Bush's..
And Kakki responded:
> See Michael, this is where I start to spin - the Dems in 1960 benefited from
> *proven*, in a court of law, criminal fraud consisting of votes from people
> who were dead and other ballot box stuffing (This was also was explained to
> me by the esteemed NPR radio today). Please don't lump in the situation in
> Florida with that unless fraud there is proven in a court of law, too.
First a point of information (new to me as well): apparently IL was
ultimately irrelevant in putting Kennedy over the top; TX was more
important, and no improprieties that I am aware of were alleged there. (I
still could be wrong).
But the more important point: I am NOT saying that Republicans committed
fraud and should go to jail or that this election should be overturned.
The parallel I am drawing is this: BOTH fraud and legal but confusing
voting practices increase the power of other forces to twist what is
already a very imperfect measure of public will. Anti-fraud protections
increased after 1960. After this election we should look much more
closely at how ballots are printed and arranged.
The secondary parallel is that in neither 1960 nor 2000 could the
Democratic or Republican nominee claim that he represented the public's
true will. The votes in both elections were just too damn close for that.
Cries of moral outrage over unfair play were justified in 1960, but cries
of moral outrage because the public will was thwarted were not. We
don't know who, if anyone, represented the "true" will. And similar
cries are unjustified now as well.
--Michael
