Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Is Election Integrity Possible?

Is Election Integrity Possible?

“That a special interest group might try to cheat on an election in the United States is nothing new. Historians tell us how local political machines from both major parties have in the past used methods of double counting, ballot box stuffing, poll taxes and registration manipulation to affect elections. In the computer age, however, election fraud can occur externally without local precinct administrators having any awareness of the manipulations - and the fraud can be extensive enough to change the outcome of an entire national election. There is little doubt key Democrats know that votes in 2004 and earlier elections were stolen. The fact that few in Congress are complaining about fraud is an indication of the totality to which both parties accept the status quo of a money based elections system. Neither party wants to further undermine public confidence in the American "democratic" process (over 80 millions eligible voters refused to vote in 2004). Instead we will likely see the quiet passing of legislation that will correct the most blatant problems. Future elections in the US will continue as an equal opportunity for both parties to maintain a national democratic charade in which money counts more than truth.” Election Fraud Continues in the US By Peter Phillips http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0813-29.htm

Following WWII the US CIA actively engaged in sabotaging or rigging election throughout the world. Beginning with the Italian and Spanish election where covert US intervention prevented “communist” factions from winning either major seats in the parliaments or taking over the whole government via popular election, the US set a precedent of election rigging that continues to this day. Following the end of World War II, CIA operatives provided undercover support for democratic forces in elections in Italy, France and Japan, usually without the knowledge of the resident U.S. ambassador. Those early covert successes helped prevent the election of communist governments, but they also set a bad example and encouraged subsequent failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and make illegal use of federal funds in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. And more recently, with an intelligence budget (estimated at 60%) designed to gather information on activities in the Soviet Union, no intelligence agency predicted the 1991 sudden collapse of the communist empire.” http://www.ciponline.org/christian.htm Buoyed by their successes overseas it is only natural the same fascist forces that operate a shadow government here would eventually ply their tricks and stealth to directly control the outcome of elections here in the good ol’ US of A.
There has always been election fraud and vote rigging in local elections in the US. However the ability to control and outcome of a national election was outside the capabilities of the criminal cabal that is attempting to turn AmeriKKKa into a totalitarian police state. That was until 2000. In 2000 one faction of this cabal used their connections at the US Supreme Court to steal a presidential election. In respose of the 200 presidential debacle the US Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which called for vote reform and electronic voting. Some solution! HAVA turns out to be the very mechanism the ruling elites will use to steal even more elections like they did in 2002 Mid-term and the 2004 presidential elections. Electronic voting makes in easier to steal elections on a national basis; especially when the manufacturers of the electronic voting machines are partisan backers of a particular candidate or party. “Diebold, the controversial electronic voting machine manufacturer, is coming off a tumultuous week. Its chief executive, Walden O'Dell, resigned. It was hit with a pair of class-action lawsuits charging insider trading and misrepresentation, and a county in Florida concluded that Diebold's voting machines could be hacked. The counting of votes is a public trust. Diebold, whose machines count many votes, has never acted as if it understood this. Mr. O'Dell made national headlines when he wrote a fund-raising letter before the 2004 election expressing his commitment to help deliver the electoral votes of Ohio - where Diebold is based, and where its machines are used - to President Bush. Under pressure, Diebold barred its top officials from contributing to campaigns. But this month, The Plain Dealer in Cleveland reported that three executives not covered by the ban continued to make contributions. Diebold's voting machines have a troubled history. The company was accused of installing improperly certified software, which is illegal, in a 2002 governor's race in Georgia. Across the country, it reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with the California attorney” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun2.html?ex=1292562000&en=a0314a4ed36ebaa1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Did the machine makers facilitate the theft of the 2004 elections? All evidence points in that direction. All the so called “glitches” and foul up aided Bu$h!! This in itself is a statistical impossibility.
In 2004 Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republican votes that he got in 2000, receiving more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties. Bush managed these remarkable outcomes despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000, and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points. We also know that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but statewide results were not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 greater than the number of registered voters. More importantly national exit polls showed Kerry winning in 2004. However, It was only in precincts where there were no paper trails on the voting machines that the exit polls ended up being different from the final count. According to Dr. Steve Freeman, a statistician at the University of Pennsylvania, the odds are 250 million to one that the exit polls were wrong by chance. In fact, where the exit polls disagreed with the computerized outcomes the results always favored Bush - another statistical impossibility.” http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0813-29.htm From our perspective and based upon the evidence it is obvious Africans in AmeriKKKa were targeted for disenfranchisement by the Republicans. Some critics allege that the pattern of voter disenfranchisement is by design, having disproportionately affected racial minorities and/or urban precincts. For example, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights estimated that, in Florida in 2000, 54 percent of the ballots discarded as 'spoiled' were cast by African Americans, who represented only 11 percent of the voters. People for the American Way and the NAACP catalogued a number of voting problems with discriminatory impacts through early 2004. The 2004 election continued the trend that African Americans were much more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. As a result, a disproportionate reduction in the African-American vote would tend to hurt Democratic candidates. BBC journalist Greg Palast, a self-described progressive, alleged that if the election had been conducted without improprieties, Kerry would have won the presidency. Jesse Jackson, a prominent African-American activist and founder of the Rainbow Coalition, remarked on Election Day: ‘Suppose 500 black folks came into a white neighborhood to challenge votes. It would be totally unacceptable. We will not surrender in the face of this madness.’ In August 2004, the NAACP and other civil rights leaders charged that the Republican Party was mounting a campaign to keep African Americans and other minority voters away from the polls in November. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities

Am I suggesting we not vote in the upcoming election? No. I’m suggesting we become actively involved in our communities; that we concentrate on the local issues in school board and political elections while also promoting an ethnocentric (African consciousness) agenda. The ruling elites want to turn AmeriKKKa into a fascist police state and make us serfs and peons. If they plan to do this to their own people, what do you think they will do to us within this paradigm? What do you think their plans are for us? Hint think Katrina and you will see what they are up to. With this in mind do what you think is in your/our best interests not just on election day, every day!!

-30-

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home