Let me break from the line by line to raise another point. Many people, sheeplike, accept the argument that if fewer votes are stolen than would be required to swing an election, it's no harm, no foul.
That is a terrible, and terribly wrong misconception. People, please! Wake up!
If George Bush, or one of his agents acting with his knowledge, caused even one
vote to be stolen, that would disqualify him from the presidency.
If a man wandered into the police station and said he had been robbed of $100, would the very first response of the police be that he had to prove
that he had $100 before they would investigate the robbery? Isn't this self-evidently absurd?
So, why are so many otherwise intelligent people demanding that Democrats prove
that so-and-so-many votes were stolen before an official inquiry can be opened?
4. The Connally v. Moyer race is very puzzling. An African American woman from the northeastern part of the state does wonderfully well in Republican counties against a member of the Republican machine.
Manjoo: Kennedy says Kerry's votes "were fraudulently shifted to Bush." He points out that "statewide, the president outpolled Thomas Moyer, the Republican judge who defeated Connally, by 21 percent. Yet in the twelve questionable counties, Bush's margin over Moyer was 50 percent -- a strong indication that the president's certified vote total was inflated....Contrary to Kucinich's assertion, down-ticket candidates do indeed sometimes win more votes than presidential candidates of their own party in some places -- sometimes a lot more. ...Lindeman points out that the numbers work out this way for a very specific reason -- ballots in Ohio don't list party affiliations for Supreme Court races.
So far, fine. It is certainly not proof
of skulduggery that a candidate should do well in unexpected areas and the Supreme Court race was in fact nonpartisan. In fact, I heard one interesting possible explanation-- that one of Moyer's rulings had displeased the far right, and so there may have been some revenge voting in Republican strongholds.
But that's just speculation. The voting pattern is still unusual, begging for some attention. So, Lindeman's explanation does not persuade. What we can say is that strange voting patterns like this are what one would expect if there was fraud.
5. Manjoo: Scrubbing the voting rolls of people who hadn't voted in prior elections isn't an arbitrary move. It's the law.
Some things that are legal are also wrong. Purging just before an election, and especially failing to provide notice of a change in practice was highly inappropriate.
If this were Blackwell's only sin, it would wash. However, given all of the tricks he used to knock people off the rolls, it adds up to a pattern of abuse of office.
Added: Over at Hullaballoo, Tapin makes the point that Manjoo misreads the law.
The full quote is
§ 3503.21. Events resulting in cancellation of registration; procedures to verify or correct change of address.(A) The registration of a registered elector shall be canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following: (1) The filing by a registered elector of a written request with a board of elections, on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and signed by the elector, that his registration be canceled. The filing of such a request does not prohibit an otherwise qualified elector from reregistering to vote at any time. (2) The filing of a notice of the death of the registered elector as provided in section 3503.18 of the Revised Code; (3) The conviction of the registered elector of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States as provided in section 2961.01 of the Revised Code; (4) The adjudication of incompetency of the registered elector for the purpose of voting as provided in section 5122.301 [5122.30.1] of the Revised Code; (5) The change of residence of the registered elector to a location outside the county of registration in accordance with division (B) of this section; (6) The failure of the registered elector, after he has been mailed a confirmation notice, to do either of the following: (a) Respond to such a notice and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections; (b) Update his registration and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections.
So, purging would seem to be legal only if a person doesn't respond to forwardable mail. We don't have figures on how many were purged with proper notice and how many were purged by fiat. But clearly one's view of the situation could change depending on whether the purge was done in full accord with the law. Fitrakis and Wasserman
claim that ca. 175,000 voters were purged from Cuyahoga without notice.
That would be a crime. Too bad Manjoo didn't research the issue.
This ends this segment, to be continued if I can bear it.