Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHarlem Mystery: Did Rangel's District Go for Barack Obama?
New York Congressman Charlie Rangel was an early and essential backer of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president.
The support of the senior House Democrat was required if the senator from New York was to be able to run nationally with the assurance that her home turf was "locked up." And Rangel, as the dean of New York's Democratic House delegation, and a dominant player in the politics of Harlem for four decades, helped to do just that.
Along with the support of Georgia Congressman John Lewis, Rangel's backing also gave Clinton credibility in the African-American community beyond New York. But, now, Lewis is wavering in his support for Clinton -- suggesting to the New York Times that, after his Atlanta-area congressional district voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, he is likely to cast his superdelegate vote at the Democratic National Convention for the surging senator from Illinois.
When word came that Lewis and other African-American House members were starting to talk about "keeping faith" with their constituents and voting for the candidate who could be the first African-American nominee for president, I immediately checked the results from Rangel's congressional district.
According to figures reported after the February 5 New York primary, Rangel's Harlem-based 15th district voted rather comfortably for Clinton. The unofficial count with 100 percent of the votes supposedly tabulated was:
Clinton -- 55,359 votes, 53 percent
Obama -- 47,514 votes, 45 percent
That was close enough to create a 3-3 delegate split. But it was a clear Clinton win, and thus there would be no pressure on Rangel to vote the will of a congressional district that backed Obama.
Or so it seemed.
Now comes Saturday's New York Times Metro Section report headlined: "Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote."
According to the paper:
"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.
That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.
City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly -- and unofficially -- on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.:
The Times adds this relevant information: "The 94th Election District in Harlem, for instance, sits within the Congressional district represented by Charles B. Rangel, an original supporter of Mrs. Clinton."
No one is suggesting that Rangel did anything wrong, nor should they. There are many explanations for why vote counts are off, and there are many players in the process -- and Rangel is one of the more honorable of the lot.
What New Yorkers should be asking for, however, is a complete review of the results in New York City, with a heavy focus not just on the 80 election district where Obama supposedly received no votes but also on those where it appears that his vote was far below the level of support that he received in surrounding districts -- and that might reasonably be expected.
Could there be another 8,000 votes for Obama in the 15th?
That's a lot. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they exist.
No one, be they Clinton or Obama supporters, should question that every effort must be made to find every Obama vote in Harlem, along with "missing" Obama votes from other congressional districts in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
At issue may be a few more pledged delegates for Obama -- no small matter in a close race for the nomination -- and the broader question of how superdelegates who want to respect the sentiments of their constituents, a group that could include Rangel and several other House members from New York, cast their votes at this summer's convention.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
35 Comments so far
Show All1. I still think- among many reasons- Gore did not 'vote himself into office' because he would do so with severe damage to his credibility. That, and it does seem easy to supress/ignore blacks in congress. I believe more in real election fraud (campaigning, electonering, legislation) that lead up to the vote (or lack of) than I do in computer hacking. Yes, machine vote paper trails should be counted by humans and not another computer. But, it does leave open the opportunity for the unscroupleous to rigg a close election. Yes, electronic voting is a real threat. But there are still othere threats, let's not forget those. But the only real way to be sure you are battling the threat is to actually volunteer at your poll. Gonna do that?
2. Remember to look at where the districts and counties are when dealing with questions about hand count versus machine count. Oversimplified, rural precincts may have hand count because of fewer voters and funds, and opposite in urban areas- so voting differences could be actually based on something and not fraud. But, you don't have to be paranoid for them to be out to get you. And I don't trust/like paperless votes either. (Just try not to let your cycnisism depress voter turnout- or the "real-terrorists" win!)
Well, lizard, I think Ellison said it better, and more pithily, but that's just my opinion, whether informed or not, I can't say.
But, since you said so, I guess I'm entitled to it.
I lived in New Hampshire for 9 years, from 1994 until I left the USA in 2003 in disgust after Bush invaded Iraq. At the time I left about 70% of the US population still believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I was twice physically assaulted by supporters of the war, once in Manchester during a protest against Bush's visit (earlier my friend and I where told by the Secret Service to go stand in the "First Amendment Zone" far from where the Presidential motorcade would pass), and again at a peace vigil in Concord by an ex-Marine who told me "I shot an Iraqi SOB right between the eyes during the Gulf War and I could shoot YOU right between the eyes." But I digress...
I know New Hamsphire Democratic politics, and I believe the vote count for Clinton and Obama there was fair and accurate. I don't like the outcome but I believe it was accurate. More of the mainstream Democrats were early supporters of the Clintons. Obama came close to winning because of the vote by formerly undeclared voters who could become "Democrats for a day".
It's been said by others but I'll say it again. I support Obama because he was against the Iraq War from the start. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton in November because she voted to authorize the war, and has never apologized or adequately explained that vote. I just don't trust her not to start a war with Iran.
Since when did John Nichols' article become equal to Hillary bashing? Every time a voting discrepancy comes up, people appear out of the woodwork to defend the candidate who stood to gain by the error. Can you get it through your heads that this is about democracy and stop looking at your own self-interest in promoting your own candidate, or for blasting all party candidates as worthless so the vote tally doesn't matter. Some people would disagree with you and want their votes to count. There are plenty of articles you can go do that to, this one is about voting fraud, not how much you hate one candidate or another.
One is entitled to have an uninformed opinion, and one is entitled to be stupid. Such behavior,however, should not be rewarded, but opposed. You have your opinion and I have mine and through rational discussion we discover who has the evidence and who doesn't. You are even entitled to be close minded, but not entitled to being liked for it. Close mindedness leads to war. The US has many wars because it has many close-minded people. Is America entitled to be closed minded? Yes, and the world is entitled to oppose it. However, America is NOT entitled to attack countries that have not attacked it. America , therefore, in now entitled to go to prison and face execution. Opinions are your right, actions are not. The problem is in the crossing of that line. I am entitled to dislike anybody, not hit them.
Not sure if the following quotes fit into this discusssion or not, but I thought they were interesting, anyway:
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. If you are not informed on the subject, then your opinion counts for nothing."
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
--- Harlan Ellison
Think maybe the above quotes illustrate exactly how politicians manage to manipulate us so well.
For all you Clinton bashers, Obama is her political twin.
They have the same views on practically everything---there's a few where Hillary is better but not by much.
So, for example both call for increasing the military by 90,000. Why!
McCain wants 150,000 more.
So the choice this year, once again, will be between Coke and Pepsi, the lesser of two evils.
If Obama were really for change wouldn't he be calling for cutting the military like Jesse did 20 years ago?
in new hampshire, recounts were done on both the democrat and republican ballot lines and there was no significant difference between the machine counts and the hand recounts. some were off by one or two votes out of thousands cast in a precinct or ward. in fact, the hand recounts found more human errors in the recording of the tallies than machine count errors. stop looking for boogeymen where there are not boogeymen.
heavyrunner -
Mark-sense (optical-scan) voting machines are not fraud free because they use paper ballots. The ballots are counted by a computer.
See: www.vtcommons.org
U.S. Electoral Fraud: "Critical Condition" for U.S. Democracy, by Joel Bleifuss and Steven F. Freeman
"In the 2004 election, 64 percent of Americans voted on DRE or optical-scan systems, both of which are vulnerable to hacking or programming fraud. According to a September 2005 investigation by Congress's Government Accountability Office, such systems contained flaws that "could allow unauthorized personnel to disrupt operations or modify data and programs that are critical to … the integrity of the voting process."
For those of you who want more info on voting machines and their problems I would suggest you go to http://www.blackboxvoting.org
Lobo Gris
THANK YOU CARA!
I'll be honest, I am about as liberal as they come.
All you Obama supporters need to face the facts~
in regards to policy, Obama and Clinton are EQUAL, get over it.
Obama voted YES on the PATRIOT ACT and on $300 billion for Iraq. The only read difference between he and Clinton is that he is young and black.
Obama would make a fine president, but I am just sick on all of you self-proclaimed liberals thinking he is something new. He isn't. A Biden or a Richardson would have been something new~ people with REAL foreign policy experience.
The difference between an Obama and Clinton vote is that she has slightly more experience.
And the electability thing? The Republican spin machine hasn't even started on Obama whereas it has been going for years on Hillary, yet she still wins elections.
Hey Common Dreams ... what about HEALTH CARE? And 18,000 who die in this country each year?
Same to you.
Charles Rangel -- never voted for Iraq and one of the most intelligent members of Congress.
Unlike the guilt-ridden souls who frequent this online publication .. or edit it.
If the Democrats are stupid enough to hand him the nomination, that is.
And whatever you do -- love your children and don't vote for Obama.
BTW
If you were a Clinton supporter Mom or Dad in one of those caucus district who didn't show ...
Don't forget to not vote for further school funding in your next election, no matter how much you've supported money for education in the past.
As Joan Baez and Stevie Wonder sell records to the college crowd.
The self-righteous posturing of the new Obamite left-wing moral majority is ridiculous.
Take a look at some of the weird statistic skews in white upper middle class caucusing districts with strategically placed official or unofficial school district persons from the Obama campaign.
There is no Obama mandate from the People.
And Harlem could very well have gone to Clinton, Bill Clinton being wildly popular in those parts.
Wake up, people, and just start looking at who is going to have to deliver on the issues. Not who will save your poor, pathetic, liberal white-guilt ridden souls.
The Republicans are laughing at you.
It is very important for every vote to be counted, not just "...every effort must be made to find every Obama vote in Harlem, along with "missing" Obama votes from other congressional districts in Manhattan and Brooklyn."
I would be far more respectful of John Nichols's commentary if he had indicated a respect for the integrity of the vote count of all voters irrespective of the candidate.
(Checking on several grammar sites, possessive of names ending in 's' is traditionally "s's" and not "s'" which is used for possessives of plural nouns which have an 's' at the end. However, there is a trend to conflate them. Probably due to publishing requirements to save memory, paper, etc.)
"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama."
Not a single vote? Okey-dokey.
Time to get rid of charles Rangel.. sort of Reminds me of Adam Clayton Powell(in his later years), whom Rangel succeeded,after allegations of Bribery and corruption ruined a spectacular career. Rangel comes in on his coat tails and just
has done nothing for his constituency except get rich and supports the corporations that keep him in power...Making deals under the table, and supporting the lobby's that influence DLC decisions.
Wasn't it Joe Stalin that said, "if I had any baby's, I would eat each and everyone of them."
I believe Iraq had WMD and I "think" Nixon was really a communist spy. Did he not go to China?
Before Joseph Stalin there was William " Boss" Tweed of NY's Tammany Hall Ring. "As long as I count the vote- What are you going to do about it?"
Look up tammany Tiger-Thomas Nast for some good visuals.
As far as zero votes for Obama- Bull_ _ _ _!
Take it from someone who cut his teeth in NY politics.
Screw Rangel, Clinton and the DLC!
Black votes are always going to be undercounted, if they are counted at all.
I believe that the Democrats and Republicans have a tacit agreement that the black vote will never be allowed to be decisive in a national election. That's why Al Gore did not insist on what might have saved his election in 2000: a statewide recount in Florida. In 2004, John Kerry ignored John Edwards plea that Kerry intervene in the open vote fraud that was being perpetrated against blacks in Michigan.
Charlie Rangel loves NAFTA and all the other trade agreements filling the coffers of the wealthy while Americans are losing their jobs.
In New Hampshire's primary all voting was done on paper ballots; the precincts that were tallied by optical scanners all went for Clinton. The precincts that were tallied by hand counting (about 20%) all went for Obama by the same percentage as the others went for Clinton. This was reported by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his radio show. Our election system is far from being fixed. In fact it may be worse than ever thanks to all the electronic machines bought by counties and states over the last few years to comply with the "Help America Vote Act". Nothing is too sacred for the Bush administration and the do-nothing Congress to screw up by selling it to the highest bidder, including our elections. In Germany (to give one example) all the ballots are counted by hand. It only takes a few days. Guess what? No matter how big an election is, it won't take any longer to count. Why? The more people vote, the more people are available to count the votes (and observe). But we ignorant, gullible, lazy Americans think we need to streamline and "modernize" everything. Watch out.
I believe Stalin also said "gratitude is the disease of the dog." :)
To wise guy: Thanks.
I don't trust the vote count in New Hampshire either. I work as a voting technician in my county here in California. I was involved with the Voting Integrity Project that grew out of the fiasco in Ohio in 2004. Because of my concern over the electronic voting machines I volunteered to be a voter technician so I could observe first hand what was going on. Our county is bigger than New Jersey in area, but has a population of only 18,000 people. We don't have very many precincts and everybody knows everybody and fraud would be nearly impossible. I have 25 years of experience working with computers and technology and a Masters degree from the University of Washington in the field. I thought our machines were safe.
Then our new Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, initiated studies of the various voting machines by the computer science departments of some California universities. When the reports came back, she decertified all the various brands of touch screen and other electronic voting machines and posted the results of the studies at the California Secretary of State's web site. I was amazed at the number of vulnerabilities even the Sequoia machines our county purchased had.
This past Feb. 5 I was at the same polling place I have worked as a tech at since we adopted the Sequoia "Edge" touchscreen voting machines. We did have one set up for the vision handicapped because they can allow private, audio based voting. But everyone voted on the mark-sense paper ballots, like you use for standardized tests like the SAT.
The polling place was much more calm and quiet and in general, went much better than when the touchscreen machines were used. I am talking myself out of a job, but those electronic voting machines are awful, even with out the security flaws.
It made me wonder if the security flaws were the reason they were introduced in the first place.
And the Clintons are as insider as insider gets. I favor heavy auditing of any election voted on the electronic machine. It is very suspicious that Clinton did better on just the electronic machines in New Hampshire. I wonder how the districts in which zero voters voted for Obama were voted? Those electronic machines are rife with security flaws. If you are interested, you should go to the California Secretary of State's web site and read the reports on them.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm
nymet624:
It was Joseph Stalin.
Who was it that said?, "It's NOT who votes, but who COUNT'S the votes that matters".
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark...
The next step is obvious and compelling:
Find a few dozen voters in the "zero districts" willing to testify that they voted for Obama.
Then let the investigations and indictments begin.
I don't know about this Harlem vote-count stuff, or how it will shake out, but Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Rangel are part of the New York team, having worked together as such for a long time. It's not a surprise he supported her---but maybe he did so TOO SOON.
None of these Congress-member super delegates are going to want to be seen as trying to overturn voters' wishes (while they themselves stand for re-election), and most of them are going to take a wait-and-see approach on whom to support. Coattails are important and they all know it.
Is this why the Dems wouldn't go to the mat for paper trails with voting machines? They were willing to lose Ohio and beyond in '04 rather that have honest elections?