2006 e-voting election theft even bigger than 2004?!

And these guys say ’08 will be a hum-dinger!

Advertisements

Bush interferes in Ohio voter case, flouts his own Supreme Court

Is this unprecedented?!!  Even the corrupt Supremes threw the case out unanimously, ie, even the Republican ones, yet the Bushies aren’t taking No for an answer.  Is this a case of “How many legions has the Supreme Court”?  Will they have to send over a unit of U.S. Marshals to inhibit the White House from abetting the theft of this election?  Take command of the Secret Service?  Do they have the stones?!

Undercounting Obama survey support?

So suggests this article.  But watch the GOP scream “voter fraud” if it happens!

McCain and Repugs scream theft?

They charge Democrats and our supporters are stealing the election, and sue us?  That’s rich, and a classic case of misdirection, like sleight-of-hand magicians, considering McCain and the Republicans are publicly in the process of trying to prevent millions of us Democrats, poor, people of color, students, Blue-Staters, city residents, etc., from voting — AND privately, most assuredly rigging the e-voting machines or e-counting machines for good measure.  These are all repeats from 2000 and 2004, and possibly ’02 and ’06 too.

Lately we’re hearing that racist voters might lie to pollsters about their willingness, or not, to vote for Obama, excusing a discrepancy between pre-election surveys and the reported results or exit polls.  Is the re-surfacing of talk about this “Bradley Effect” preparing us for another stealth coup d’etat?  Nevermind that there might not have even been a Bradley Effect!  Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, a Black man, ran for Governor of California in 1982, and led going into Election Day, but lost, inspiring this Bradley Effect theory.  But some analysts I’ve read (I can’t locate where now) say that since both his lead and his defeat were within the polls’ margin of error, the Effect may be an illusion.  So beware allegations of an Obama Effect in coming weeks before and after Election Day!  It’ll be like in Ohio in ’04, when we were told that Republican voters intentionally lied to pollsters or refused to respond, producing the “glitch” that seemed to say W. carried that State’s election results, and the whole enchilada.  Was John Kerry Black?!?!?!

(Reminds me of the line in The Commitments about a Dublin, Ireland, soul band: “The Irish are the Blacks of Europe.  Dubliners are the Blacks of Ireland.  Northsiders are the Blacks of Dublin.  So say it loud: I’m Black and I’m proud!“)

Successful national political parties upset balance of power

Think about it: Technically the Democratic and Republican parties aren’t national parties, but State parties.  The U.S. has no nationally-elected officials; even Presidential Electors are elected State-by-State (which is why the national popular vote total doesn’t matter under the current constitution).  However, because all the State Democratic parties act like a national party, as do all the State Republican parties, the President of the Executive Branch becomes their national leader, subordinating his fellow-partisans in Congress and even, as we’ve seen in recent years, in the Federal Courts and “independent” Federal agencies.

Supposedly it wasn’t supposed to be this way.  The Federalist Papers claim to be incapable of envisioning such a nationwide, multi-region, multi-State “cabal” as a national political party (“faction” was another word they called it; “party” only came into use later), because of the presumed clashes of local and regional interests.  But long ago our elections of Presidential Electors were “nationalized,” relegating “sectional” interests to Congress.  This therefore also subordinates the States, which are supposed to be co-sovereign with the Federal government, and a check on Federal overreaching like we’ve seen so much of in the last 7+ years.

It all goes toward making the President of the Executive Branch the virtual dictator he is today … or can be if he’s allowed to be by those who are supposed to stop him.

What’s the solution?  Bar State parties from jointly endorsing candidates?  Even within States with a semblance of a multi-party system — such as New York, with its Democratic, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, and Right-to-Life parties — you often have cross-endorsement, and sometimes it makes the difference in the outcome — typically Republicans courting also the C and RTL ballot lines, and Democrats the L (though Liberal there means Classical Liberal, not liberal like you’re thinking).

What about going back to actually electing Electors, real persons of weight whom we entrust to pick the best person for the job?  Make the Electoral College a real collegium and not just a party-hack rubber-stamp for one or the other major declared and nominated candidate?

Like the U.S. Senate elected not by the voters but by State legislators — and for many of the same reasons — could it be that the “Framers” were sometimes smarter than I thought?!!!