|
Imperial
Bush
2004 Campaign
Behind
Colin Powell's Legend
The
2000 Campaign
Media
Crisis
The Clinton Scandals Nazi Echo The Dark Side of Rev. Moon Contra Crack Lost History The October Surprise
"X-Files"
International |
We have received dozens of e-mails from readers about our articles on possible voting fraud in the Nov. 2 election. Some criticized us for contributing to baseless suspicions. But many more readers said they share our opinion that a careful investigation into alleged voting irregularities is warranted. While we can’t respond to each e-mail individually, we want our readers to know that we appreciate your interest. We also are encouraged by the number of Americans who have expressed determination to revitalize the nation's democratic institutions. Below are samples of the recent e-mails and some of our responses. We have not used full names to protect the privacy of our readers. On 11/9, David wrote: A recent article at Consortiumnews said "Statewide, Bush earned about 20,000 more votes than registered Republicans" I did a quick tally of registered Republicans in the first six small counties that I saw were predominately Democratic-Baker, Bradford, Calhoun, Columbia, Desoto and Dixie and came up with about 24,253 registered Republicans. In those counties Bush got 45,767 votes. That's about 21,514 more votes than there were Republicans in just those six counties- so it seems statewide, unless my arithmetic is wrong, there would have been considerably more votes going to Bush, possibly in error, than the 20,000 mentioned. Have I calculated something incorrectly? Our response: There are many small and rural Florida counties, mostly in the north of the state, where Democratic registration has been much higher than Republican registration for many years but have voted Republican, particularly at the top of the ticket. But these counties are relatively small and are offset in part by tallies in the larger counties throughout the state. Even so, there were 14 counties with at least 100,000 registered voters that gave Bush more votes than there were registered Republicans – notably the swing counties of Hillsborough (Tampa) and Orange (Orlando) and the Democratic counties of Leon (Tallahassee) and Alachua (Gainesville). If an examination of systematic voter fraud were done, it would make sense to focus on these 14 countries where Bush’s totals were unexpectedly high. On 11/9, Frank wrote: Do you think the optical scanners are the source of fraud, or just happen to be located in rural (pro-Bush) counties? Our response: Optical scanners were not used just in Bush counties, but throughout the state. Some useful information on the optical scanner issue can be found at this Web site: http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm. It is interesting to note that 44 out of the 47 counties that recorded more Bush votes than registered Republicans used optical scanners and of the 13 counties that for the first time turned out more GOP votes than registered GOP voters, every county but Hillsborough used optical scanners. The good news here is that the use of optical scanners should mean that there is a paper trail. If there is sufficient public demand, investigators could at least audit selected precincts to see if the electronic totals and the paper ballots match. On 11/9, Ola wrote: Examine the states that are strongly Republican. They can also give clues. For example, I recall (maybe erroneously) that in 2000, the Dems in Texas got 32% of the total vote; however this year, they got 38%, which means that the Repubs lost votes in this state. Of course, no one had any reason to play with Texas's votes, but it is funny that we went against the grain in some states, especially since Bush is "our boy." I know the Dems were motivated by the redistricting situation, but still, it seems that voters were only motivated to vote Repub in "certain" states. Our response: John Kerry did earn nearly 400,000 more votes in Texas than Al Gore earned in 2000, however his percentage of the vote total was about the same – 38.25 percent for Kerry and 37.98 percent for Gore. Outside of Florida, where Bush earned more than 1 million more new votes over his 2000 performance, Texas saw the second largest increase for Bush with more than 700,000 new votes. A good source for historical voting totals is http://www.uselectionatlas.org. For some of the data on the site, you need to sign up as a member. But, for those who want to dig into the county-by-county break out in each state over many election cycles, it is well worth the fee. On 11/9, Drew wrote: I certainly am deeply disturbed that Bush won, and would love to believe that he and/or his operatives fixed the results, but at least some of the evidence you provide just doesn't add up. You make the statement, "national exits polls show(ing) Kerry winning by 51 percent to 48 percent" but when I checked the link you provided to the CNN exit poll, it shows that Bush received 55% of the 46% of the voters who were male (25.3%) plus 48% of the 54% of the voters who were female (25.92%) for a total of 51.22% of the vote. … Of course this doesn't preclude the possibility that the reported exit polling data have been altered, but you don't seem to be suggesting this. Our response: CNN did revise its exit poll data to make the numbers conform with the “actual” vote tallies. That approach may seem to violate the integrity of the original figures which showed Kerry winning. But CNN apparently was operating under the assumption that the “actual” vote totals are correct and therefore the exit polls must be adjusted accordingly. CNN’s approach does eliminate the value of using exit polls as a test against voter fraud, which is how exit polls are used around the world. On 11/10, Marcy wrote: Thank you for Sam
Parry's November 9 article, "Bush's Incredible Vote Tallies." I
applaud you for a straightforward account of the voting discrepancies,
indicating the enormity of voter fraud that occurred on 11/2. Our response: For nearly a decade, we have been writing about the need for media reform. Indeed, we started Consortiumnews in 1995 because we felt that many important news stories were being ignored or underplayed by the existing media outlets. Our analysis is that the Republicans and conservatives achieved an advantage in the media wars when they began investing heavily in media outlets, starting in the late 1970s. As the conservative media grew, the mainstream press tilted increasingly to the right as well. For various reasons, liberals largely stayed on the sidelines. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.] In recent years, Internet journals and blogs have helped report news that is ignored in the mainstream and conservative media. There also have been a few hopeful signs that the liberals are finally recognizing the need to address the media imbalance. The launching of Air America Radio earlier this year represented a halting first step to compete in the sphere of AM talk radio. But much more needs to be done to restore some balance in the U.S. media. On 11/12, Randall wrote: Why don't you cry babies just give it up? The public rejected the ideology you advocate. Get a life. Our response: On the matter of voting irregularities in the choice of a U.S. president, it would seem reasonable to expect that the American people should have full confidence in the vote tallies. That’s especially true after Election 2000 when the popular vote loser, George W. Bush, was installed in office by his political allies on the U.S. Supreme Court. We will continue to follow and report the facts as they develop.
|
