> 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).
Michael,
I also heard the person on NPR say that the fraud was irrelevant to putting
Kennedy over the top. But that was not my point. My only point was that
the 1960 situation was proven to be fraud, and the 2000 situation has not at
this time.
> 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.
I agree 100%
> 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.
Great point.
> 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.
Nixon could have pursued it but chose not to "for the good of the country".
I also agree with your previous post that if there is a movement to change
the Electoral College system, it should commence after this election is
resolved and not in the middle of it.
Kakki
