I really hate to say this, but dictatorship does have one advantage over a failed democracy. There is no doubt that elections (if these are even to be trifled with) are fraudulent. As it currently stands, we lack an objective yardstick to tell us how much our system is genuinely democratic, and how much is built on a prostitution of democracy. Voting as a rubberstamp, a hoop of approval, a ritual that the pre-selected candidate must go through in order to ensure at least some baseline of public support, determine to what extent the "sale" was successful, etc. In short, the candidate that our system usually produces is that which can best sell the middle- and working-class on the agenda furthest from its own class interests.

That's abnormal to be sure. Are we 75% democractic, 25% rigged? 75% rigged? Hard to say. Without the Range Vote, elimination of electronic voting machines, solving the problem of the Corporate Media, and massive campaign reforms, we'll never really know how much of our system is on the up-and-up vs. not.

A dictatorship, on the other hand, offers 100% clarity.

Our Constitution established a system in which the popular vote has no bearing upon the selection of the president, so why the brouhaha over how accurately those meaningless votes are counted?

Dan Rather did a report on HDNet about Florida ballots in some districts being made by another company. Those ballots did not pass quality inspection. After running a punch test, they had many hanging chads. The officials were told about this and they said to send them to those districts anyway.

They haven't shot all the choices yet. You actually CAN vote for those not destined to win (I checked its still technically legal). Why not vote for the person on the ballot who most closely resembles your voice? Your vote wont change the election and your representative wont represent you but you might actually represent you.

The media is a big part of the problem. We need to create more media outlets in order to advance these types of conversations and investigations into what type of democracy/plutocracy we really have.

I saw the author of How To Rig An Election on CSPAN talking about how the Republicans hired him to use black urban voices to call white Democrat voters in an attempt to alienate the white voters from voting for the Democrat candidate.

The voting machines run by Diebold and ESS are also a huge problem.

We need to keep talking about these things so voters will have an idea of what is going on in this country.

Continuing to vote in these elections is a pointless waste of time. There's not a wit bit of difference between the two parties. Thankfully, at the end of the day, the Open Borders policy will make it all utterly meaningless because no one will be left who supports the gov't of a country with no borders, a country whose flag represents nothing more than a soiled welcome mat ground into the mud by the feet of countless thousands sucked into the economic turbine that this economy has become.

The Greens are not themselves champions of internal democracy.

Among their problems, determining membership totals in the party is currently impossible in most states. If there's no reasonable way to count their members and their votes in state and national internal elections, one person, one vote is not possible.

There IS a difference between the parties, or there was. Gore wouldn't have gone to war with the Muslim world. He would also have heeded the warnings before 9/11 because he wouldn't have had a childish need to discount everything Clinton, as Bush had done. If you think there is no difference, then you will MAKE no difference.

gimme: The Greens have flirted too much with structured/rigid rules, central committees, and representative democracy. The Green TKV instead suggests decentralization and concensus-style decision making -- not dictatorship of the majority or mob rule (democracy when it does work).

As for determining membership, that's not the same as one vote = one person. Whoever votes is a vote, no more, no less.

When Paul Wellstone died in that "plane crash" was an election stolen? (yes, that is an innuendo). Would Wellstone have had a chance against Hillary & Barak or would he have been marginalized?

At the rate the 1% is ripping off the 99% in the US, it won't be long before it won't matter if somebody steals your purse...there will be nothing of value in that purse.

I noted an inaccuracy in your article where you stated: "The folks who voted with ballots that Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell said were printed on the wrong weight paper lacked standing too."

According to the Conyers report, the issue of the paper referred to the voter REGISTRATION forms: "Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.

It's always good to get the facts accurate when countering the corruption of the right. The far right distorts the truth enough.

LaMarche and Cobb sure did a hit for the Democratic Party with their demobilizing campaign in 2004. The Green Party is pretty much dead because of these 2.

The DP is not an opposition to the RP and the GP is not an opposition to the lack of opposition that the DP represents! ........Pat who?

Nader didn't help the GP much either. Now he's come out in favor of (now-defunct) Edwards, and by running in '04 despite other endorsed GP candidates the vote was split -- and the GP lost major party status in several places.

To paraphrase a Russian joke from Communist times (We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us), we pretend to vote and they pretend this is a democracy.

Paul Bramscher, the Green Party was encouraging people to vote for Kerry in battleground states. I felt betrayed by them for that. They shot themselves in the foot.

kathyodat

I was first for Dennis, then Ron Paul... will likely be voting for a party candidate other than the Democans in the general election.

Nice concise article on how are elections are actually rigged... by the press handlers.

Paul Bramscher,

The problem I am referring to IS about the equality of Green voters. For the Greens, it is impossible to know if the distribution of delegates by state is a fair (or even close to fair) representation of the number of Greens within each state because there's no way to know who is a green and who isn't. In most states, you cannot register Green. According to some folks in California, they've been vastly under-represented at the national level, all in the name of being "fair" to smaller states and those without Green registration as an option. Google 'Camejo' on the topic. Lots of blog debate about it from 2004. I've only recently come upon it.

As for the problem with majorities. I've heard about consensus before but I've never quite understood what it meant. I just looked it up. Good luck with that method. I'll take majority rule with minority rights. I want the Greens (and the Libertarians) to mature and win elections. Just hate to see them doing things like 2004.

Maybe we should have UN observers watching our "elections". The US can not meet the standards that are imposed on other nations when they have a "troubled" election. Nah, would be too late now anyway, anyone left with a smidgeon of a soul has already dropped out of the race.

McKain was my choice in '02. I can't believe that now. My (gagging) prediction for November is a McCain-Leiberman win. I think he's made a deal with the devil.

Einstein:

Democracy, taken in its narrower political sense, suffers from the fact that those in economic and political power possess the means for molding public opinion to serve their own class interests.

Yep.

BeForKids,

Cobb/LaMarche were running a "safe state" strategy, riding shotgun to Democrats, but their actions -- along with Nader's, or certain Green Party sell-outs in Europe -- shouldn't be taken as representative of the Green Party as a whole.

What I do read from this whole thing:
* Like him or not, Nader is in it for Nader. He's not interested in building a viable third party.
* The Green Party is splintered.
* Arguably an obsession with rules and minutiae. I was once a delegate at a statewide GP convention and walked out within a couple hours after watching people bicker over the most extreme and bureaucratic minutiae. To this day, I'm honestly unsure whether this is normal human nature -- or whatever there were people planted to stymie progress.
* At least in my state, the GP tends to be dominated by wishy-washy white/urban/intellectuals. Not enough interest in labor or hard-hitting progressive populism.

I wish the Green Party well, and feel that the Green TKV are undoubtedly a value set for the future. But I believe that there's no sensible reason to contain the Green Movement into a single-party, particularly in a winner-take-all corporate media environment.

If the Greens which to advance, probably they need to focus most on local races. And in races where they honestly have no chance of winning they should aim not at partisan victories, but cultural and values victories. The Green TKV have not been well-served by severe restrictions placed on it by partisan politics.

"To the barricades!!!!!!!"

Then there is the question of whether the Ds have been throwing winnable elections. Lot of politics looks lke the 1919 World Series or TV wrasslin'.

If, as wilmoor predicts, we could end up with warmonger McCain and that jerk Lieberman then we had better stop whining about Kucinich and Paul and get solidly behind our only chance of getting anything done and that is Hillary Clinton. Of course we all had our pet candidates, but we need to face reality and get together on someone who can win for the Democrats. It may be fun to talk about a third party, but that will not work and only takes votes we might need to beat the Republicans. Our country will not survive their kind of fraud and greed much longer. Obama is a good man, but the Repubs will eat him alive if he gets the nomination. Leave him for the next race.

Pat-the GP under you and David Cobb were responsible for running a lousy campaign in 04,rather than challanging the DP you chose to run only in states that would have been safe states for the DP ,thus you couldn't have influenced the DP and instead of prooving the importance of moving the DP to the so called left you actully showed how truley marginal the GP was in influencing the election.

Anyone hear of any patriots who have smashed a voting machine during an election in an attempt to restore the rule of law to our elections?

Isn't that the only way to prevent any more votes from being stolen in these insecure, computerized and paperless US killers?

mairs Gore's running mate was Joe Lieberman. You bet he would have done the same.

After the '04 election I was went back to Cleveland, OH to visit family. I recall an issue of the Cleveland Free Times documenting voter fraud in many western suburbs. Many of the areas in question showed Bush getting 3000 up to around 7000 more votes in these precincts than there were actual registered voters.

Paul Bramscher January 30th, 2008 3:45 pm
" ... there were people planted to stymie progress "

I am sure that progressive organisations are frequently infiltrated by spoilers. It is one reason why I think we are individually on our own in the fight for an equitable society.

Parallax:

For that reason, I don't entirely blame Nader for running as an independent in '04. If the GP is more interested in the politics of self-destruction, it may take an independent with Green-compatible vision to charge forward in spite of the GP itself.

But I believe it IS possible to, effectively, spot spoilers forensically. Similar to the set of analytic techniques to determine whether someone is telling the truth. Look at the fruit of their past and present actions & vocalizations. Did their contributions add clarity, did they try to create bridges between different movements, did they offer constructive criticism, etc. Or did they typically toss a monkeywrench into the works, create roadblocks, slow down progress, incite wedges between groups and internally as well?

So the answer is that it doesn't matter whether they are spoilers or not. If their actions are useful for the movement they're an ally. If their actions were detrimental, they are (effective) spoilers.

"Is it hubris or denial or both that makes Americans believe that elections can't be stolen in this country?"

If we combine ignorance, stupidity and corruption along with hubris and denial, our recipe will be complete!

US election 2008 is interesting, to say the least.
Try a compare and contrast with "color revolutions"

our elections are not really elections, they are rigged games by the press to maintain the status quo for the corporations

the press isn't really the press, they are major corporations in control of mass media/pr machinery

our democracy isn't really a democracy, it is a new form of corporate/aristocratic feudalism, with a tiny minority controlling the vast majority of the world's resources (and we all go along...)

funeocons,

Agreed, except for the "new" part. It's starting to look like something very old indeed, perhaps enjoying continuity rather than discontinuity, with serfdom.

gimmeshelter,

Concensus politics, or something like it, probably worked for the majority of time as our existence as a species. The reason it seems so impossible today is that we've scaled power structures so large that the relationship between leader and led is now largely abstract -- begging for a fascism of one kind or the other. Our Senate, for instance, is based on 2 senators per state regardless of square miles OR population.

Well, that arrangement, irrational as it was 200 years ago, bought you a FAR GREATER amount of representation. The US population in 1776 was about 2.5 million. Our representation in that half of the legislative branch, as voters, has therefore diluted over 120 TIMES in the the past couple centuries, given modern population levels.

So yes, let's talk about scaling problems. Genuine democracy can scale only in parallel, by decentralized and small power structures. I'm of the opinion that no leader of any sort should answer to more than about 1,000 constituents. At a figure that small, it's possible to actually meet him/her, have 1-on-1 dialog, know one another by name, etc.

I agree with you on the delegate problem, and this is an example of why the Green Party may not be able to exist rulebound in contexts which are contrary to its own principles.

Here in Minnesota we don't register with political parties. But why even have delegates? Were they trying to copy failed and outmoded practices of the Republicrats? The point of concensus decision making is that people represent themselves to the greatest extent possible. Being represented by a politician is a double-edged sword. Sure, it's theoretically better than dictatorship. But it's certainly not better than self-representation. The extent that a politician represents me by proxy is the extent to which my ideals are likely to be lost, bought out, co-opted, etc. as the case may be.

Why not have a convention OPEN TO ALL WHO ATTEND, and allow anyone else to vote via mail or e-mail as well?

The only real issue is how to keep out the spoiler riff-raff. But we have that issue regardless, especially in states like mine -- which don't require registration in a party.

Expose Election Fraud

Demand the vote be counted in public. Transparency, not secrecy.

Go to your precinct before closing time, bring friends and a video camera. Ask the little old ladies to count the votes in public, as is required for a democratic election.

If they tell you they swore an oath to let the diebold machine do the counting, then get that on video cam- but also ask them why. Why are they sworn to ensure the votes are counted by a private corporation with ties to the Bush administration.

Post the video to youtube, then at PeaceCandidates.com (- ;

I fear that it doesn't matter at all what any of us want---I now speak simply as a US citizen. We have totally lost control of the electoral process---not sure when it happened or if there has been an actual fair election in my lifetime.

I just know that unless the majority of the US voting population can acknowledge that the game is rigged and if we want any say in what is done in our name and how our tax dollars are spent---we had better get off our butts and insist on voting on hand counted paper ballots nationwide---and the counting must be done in public and every aspect, every stage of the tabulating open for public review.

If it takes a week to get the results, so the F--K what? Isn't it worth it to know that even if we are given limited choices, at least we had some say in the final outcome???? Maybe if elections were conducted this way, we might even have more to say about who the party nominees turn out to be.

Right now, voting makes so little sense to me, because our voting system is not secure----PURE AND SIMPLE!!!! And why every elected representative does not make this a legislative priority only reinforces my view that the system is rigged. And those doing the rigging leave no stone unturned, no contingency left to chance. WAKE UP FOLKS!!!! Believe it or not, things can get worse, and I fear they will if we don't act quickly.

No matter how one views the level of corruption that has occurred in elections... Wolf Blitzer recently noted the Miami Dade county was taking longer to report their counts than usual in the Florida GOP race not more than two days ago... we casually grin or make snide remarks in acknowledgment of the continued possibility of corruption at the county level... however without a serious movement to face the issue head on....

One can not escape the expected voter turnout expected to sweep this
country like a storm quite frankly never seen before. Grassroots organizations are once again proving themselves effective and therefore have received a new investment by the candidates and a new generation of voters, motivated by the current state of the union and seeing and living the effects of policymaking are expected to influence the electorate body in ways one can simply not predict or foresee.

With that said, I ask the two following questions. Are districts nationwide preparing for an increased voter turnout? And is the nation ready, in such a contested election, to handle the backlash of the possibility of a voter malfeasance, in other words a rigged election...

I enclose an article I have continued to send to congress, both house and senate, and newspapers locally and statewide. Thank you.

Dear Sir or Madam,

It baffles me that, in a society founded upon democratic principles, of
many rights most cherished, tried and dear, none should be deserving more
continual attention and concern than our most beloved right to vote. And
yet for too long this issue has slipped under the radar.

Voter malfeasance has been already accounted for on many levels. And
voters are waking up. In a time none before so urgent, we can not afford
the robbery of our citizen's right to representation through the true and
honest trial of democratic elections. Therefore we must stop the use of
fraudulent voting systems.

We have seen time and again technologies sabotage voting results. We
have seen a technology that should serve us, prevent us from serving
ourselves to a truthful and clean democracy.

I implore you and your constituents to take this matter seriously and push
for paper balloting by all means necessary.

I offer these questions in closing.

Is your district prepared to handle record turnout? Is the nation ready to
handle the backlash of an election malfeasance?

Thank you for your consideration and service to this nation.

Sincerely,

Justin Nash

The man with the point about demanding public vote counts on the day of elections is correct. Enough griping and whining, its time to act. If everyone in this nation takes action and politely but imperatively enters into this offices and demands that the count be public and video taped we are on our way to the right track.

Both lots of dither and good thinking here. Seems like everyone missed the key point: electoral college makes it all moot.That contrivance goes back a l o o o n g way.

Think of the energy, time, passion, and dollars that go into this charade?!

Like the best magicians, the whole thing is a marvelous misdirection, "...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!..."

Answers? Not participating? Revolution? Putting money and life effort into a Kinder, Gentler nation?

Not sure where that is, but maybe it is time to exercize "free willy": leverage hard, strip out the cash, and head to a progressive, peaceful social democracy. Contrary to neocon myth, they do exist.

It'd be an ironic twist to see a grass-roots movement of the common man making a hasty grab and exit from this flaming ship, as we have seen countless corporate raiders do.

jefemt - Mootness is established way before elections and the role of the electoral college. The electoral system suffers from 1) A voting district protection racket in which Democrats and Republicans have colluded to create a situation where "Over 90% of Americans live in congressional districts that are essentially one-party monopolies. (From FairVote¹s Dubious Democracy http://www.fairvote.org/dubdem/overview.htm); and 2) Lack of campaign finance regulation (e.g., publicly funded elections) to rein in corporate and major-party control of campaigns.

The most important living Kennedy (Caroline) says we must make another run at a hopeful election with Obama.
She's right. We either try, or we get Clinton, Romney or McCain by caving to the corporations..

Folks, this is an unrepentant, genocidal, Aryan Slave Empire. Always was. Is now. And will be the day it dies in toxic smoking rubble.

The potential leaders who believed in the Republic are dead or silenced.

You may take heart in knowing that Richfilth monsters lack the gene for self-restraint. Because of that fact, very shortly it is they who will send the US into a bottomless BK, not us. It is they who will Shatter, not break, the Empire, not us.

The US was the biggest firesale of the 20th Century. All gone. Worthless paper. Weimar Germany. The Bund in China. A dying carcass carved up and cannibalized by foreign interests. That's us.

Sooner than most think, they will be Citizens of a State, not the US, if they have any 'Citizenship' at all. The Union will no longer extist. Grover Norquist gets his wish, but like my first marriage, it doesn't work out quite the way he hopes.

Peace.

Europeans enslaved their own kind first. In fact, serfdom wasn't lifted until the 19th century in many parts of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom#Return_of_serfdom). Though given the fact that Americans may now own as little equity since the Great Depression, we may be well on our way to returning to it.

This is a blind tyranny, sharing more in common with other tyrannies than any particular racial fingerprint. Being white didn't emancipate any serfs that I've read of, nor did it cause their slavery. It appears to ultimately reduce to rich vs. poor, apparently backed up by who controls the most firepower.

Jskinner - the power elite may own everything, but guess what! Some of us believe there are forces higher and more powerful than even the power elite.

Losertarian - you and others like you who will vote for a 'third' person rather than the Democratic nominee because you believe there's no difference in the two parties will guarantee 8 more years of what we've recently had. What you are going to do is exactly what the Republicans want. The Democratic vote will be split and the Republican vote will be unified. Combined with the usual stealing on the part of Republicans, via fake felon lists, caging, and other underhanded methods, a split Democratic vote will ensure a Republican win, despite the fact that for the first time since Reagan, nearly 85% of Americans polled on various issues, consistently come down on the progressive side of those issues - not just ending war in Iraq, but universal healthcare, public education, public roads and utilities (as opposed to toll roads owned by foreign corporations and governments), maintenance of the infrastructure, poverty, homelessness, etc. Even the willingness to pay higher taxes to achieve these things.

With 85% of Americans strongly in favor of the liberal side of numerous issues (without necessarily calling themselves liberals) we have a great shot at winning the White House and an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress. Unless, as so often in the past, Repubs unite behind their nominee and Democrats split because some are too determined to protest not being able to have their 'dream' candidate in the White House. This is exactly what Republicans want - they're laughing at you vote splitters right now, and they're encouraging you as much as possible in the mainstream media.

Wake up and think of what's at stake if we lose the White House again. At least 3 Supreme Court Justices will need to be replaced soon. The Repubs already have a 5 to 4 majority there. If we get another Repub president, the Supreme Court will be a unified force in the wrong direction for decades to come. Do you think abortion rights are all they will reverse? With 8 or 9 Conservative and neo-con Justices in the Supreme Court, things you thought were forever could become yesterday: Women could lose the vote again; we could have a federal government which won't intervene to stop separate lunch counters for different races again and separate but equal schools; we could see all manner of other things too horrible to imagine.

Wake up and support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she might turn out to be. Let's win for the Supreme Court and the Congress. Let's win for us.

I agreed with the article until I read this at the end, "No, by Election Day you'll substantively have only two choices. And the election will go to a friend of drug companies, insurance companies, imperialism and war."

Having more than two candidates in an election, instead of providing more choices, tends to distort the election. This is because a third candidate is likely to take more votes from the 1st place candidate than from the 2nd place candidate. I believe this is what happened in 1992 when Ross Perot took more votes from G. H. W. Bush than he did from Clinton. It happened again in 2000 when Nader took more votes from Gore than he did from Bush creating the fiasco that ensued. Had Nader not run, Gore would have had an overwhelming victory.

It is also very presumptuous to claim that all the candidates but one are friends of special interests.