Originally posted by Jesse Jackson in the 01/04/05 Chicago Sun-TimesThis Thursday in Washington Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the senior minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will formally object to the counting of the Ohio electoral vote in the 2004 presidential election. If any senator joins him, the counting of the vote is suspended and the House and the Senate must convene separately to hear the objections filed, and to vote on whether to accept them.
The grounds for the objections are clear: The irregularities in the Ohio vote and vote count are widespread and blatant. If the Ohio election were held in the Ukraine, it would not have been certified by the international community.
In Ohio, the gulf between exit polls and counted votes is vast and glaring. Blatant discrimination in the distribution of voting machines ensured long lines in inner-city and working-class precincts that favored John Kerry, while the exurban districts that favored President Bush had no similar problems.
Systematic efforts were made to suppress and challenge the new voters in Kerry precincts, whether students or African Americans. Some precincts were certified with more votes than the number registered; others were certified with preposterously low turnouts. Voting machines, produced by a company headed by a vowed Bush supporter, provide no paper record. Ohio's secretary of state, the inappropriately partisan head of the state's Bush campaign, has resisted any systematic recount of the ballots.
The systematic bias and potential for fraud is unmistakable. An in-depth investigation is vital -- and the partisan secretary of state has opposed it every step of the way. In this context, Conyers and his colleagues in the House are serving the nation's best interests in demanding an investigation of the irregularities in Ohio, and objecting to business as usual in counting the vote.
If Harry Reid, the new leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate, has any sense, he will lead members of the caucus to support their colleagues from the House and demand a debate that will expose the irregularities in Ohio. If Kerry wants to establish his continued leadership, he will stand first to join with Conyers and demand a debate.
Oy. I'm not sure if he has any evidence of any systemic problems or biases, but I highly doubt it. Mainstream Democrats and the Kerry campaigns have let this go and realized that they lost. These two jokers haven't realized yet that one of their claims is based on unreliable exit polls and nothing else. They need to realize that and let it go to fight another day.
Whether it's true or not is immaterial, since the only thing that matters is if it can be proved, which it really can't. Since there is no concrete evidence (not "There are rumors that..." or "my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roomate told me...") that I'm aware of, I'll assume Bush won Ohio unless proven otherwise.
And if they have no real evidence, they need to save the grandstanding for an occasion when they do have proof, otherwise the Democrats run the risk of Chicken Little Syndrome.
I appreciate the effort/spirit, but save it for when it's needed.
"If you've got a Corvette that runs into a brick wall, you know what's gonna happen."
It's not going to happen. Not a single Senator protested the 2000 election, but many Congressfolks did(which didn't please Al Gore at all). And yes my nerdy ass watched the voting on C-Span(at 15 years of age too).
O.K. I have heard about the inconsistencies with the exit polls are real polls so I have a few questions. 1. How many people were polled? 2. Was it done at the same time/place? 3. Where was it done? Does the percentage of rural, suburban, and urban match the state in general?
Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Exit polling is just asking people as they leave the polling place who they voted for. There is nothing in the question or answer that guarantees either that the answer provided is correct, or that the appropriate proportion of voters will respond. It may be that people lie about their vote, or that one group of the voting public may be more likely to respond to an exit poller than another.
I think the point is that if someone decides to throw rocks (or bricks) at you, you are allowed to shoot them... I may not believe in the whole armed services thing but if I'm allowed to do this, then sign my ass up. EDIT: