Skip to main content

View Diary: Red Shift: why it's important (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What do we do? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    High-tech surveillance and militarized police are useful against small numbers of relatively isolated people.  But if you have a large majority of the people aroused and protesting against injustice, singling out activists doesn't work, because most people are then activists.  

    Therefore, I recommend spreading the word about electoral fraud as widely as possible.  The alternative, as you say, is to just accept that we can do nothing.

    •  The problem with this (0+ / 0-)

      is that it supports the Right Wing meme of "Electoral Fraud", and simply makes it easier to restrict voting.

      We know there is fraud, and all that is happening is that they are making the problem worse not better.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 10:58:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, you are confusing (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, Smoh, kaliope

        the right wing meme of "voter fraud", which concerns actions by individuals to vote more than once, use false ID, etc., with electoral fraud, which concerns actions to undermine the general integrity of the electoral system as a whole by corrupting the vote count.  The latter is best done by people who have official access to the vote counting process.  

        •  I didn't confuse the two (4+ / 0-)

          But the electorate will by the time the media have finished with "Democrats calling out Voter Fraud".

          Evidence first is the only way to challenge the process.

          If there is any, and it's reliable then it's a nailed on Pulitzer for the journalist who breaks the story.

          It would make Watergate look like a misdemeanor.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 11:22:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh, cotterperson, twigg, kaliope

            that evidence first is the way to go.  And we do have the evidence, in the form of the statistical analysis of Richard Charnin and others.

            •  If I were a Prosecutor (0+ / 0-)

              I might think that you have evidence for a Grand Jury .... but on it's own it isn't enough.

              It might be proof positive, but it goes nowhere without testimony.

              That's just how the cynical world works.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              by twigg on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:08:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A Grand Jury sounds good to me. (0+ / 0-)

                That is how many a criminal investigation gets started--a prosecutor presents evidence to a Grand Jury and they support his investigation of the alleged crimes.  I am all for bringing this problem of electoral fraud into the criminal justice system; after all, we are talking about the crime of subversion of our electoral system.

          •  Regarding the media: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            for any journalist to pursue this in a major media outlet, his/her editors have to agree to run the story.  How likely is that?

            Consider where the media is today: we have Fox News, which pushes a right-wing party line and has been caught in outright lying over and over.  We have talk radio, with people like Limbaugh doing their best to sow division and hate.  We have newspapers that are part of chains that have eviscerated the investigative resources of those papers in order to save money and who avoid controversy so as not to offend advertisers.  

            And as for the old line media leaders, would the Washington Post investigate the equivalent of Watergate today?  Would the NY Times publish the Pentagon Papers?  In the 2004 election, the NY Times actually sat on stories that were unflattering to the Bush Administration because they feared that the election would be affected!  

            I guess what I am saying is, don't count on that Pulitzer.  The times have changed.

      •  There is voter fraud in the US, but it is (0+ / 0-)

        perpetrated mainly by Republicans. The most notable case is the Republican former Secretary of State of Indiana, Charlie White, convicted on multiple felony counts for voting where he did not reside, and for holding a local government job that was restricted by law to residents of a district he had moved out of.

        Also, New [Ann] Coulter Voter Fraud Investigation Reveals Danger To Domestic Abuse Victims

        Ann Coulter appears to have voted twice in the state of Connecticut while living in the state of New York.

        Busting the Dog Whistle code.

        by Mokurai on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site