Sunday, June 04, 2006


Why the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. article alleging the election was stolen is substantially right and the critics substantially wrong. Part 5.

Manjoo: Kennedy points to an analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition. He says it showed that "16,000 voters in and around the city were disenfranchised because of data-entry errors by election officials, and another 15,000 lost the right to vote due to largely inconsequential omissions on their registration cards." He adds the study concludes that statewide, "a total of 72,000 voters were disenfranchised through avoidable registration errors -- one percent of all voters in an election decided by barely two percent." Reality: Kennedy has misread the Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition report in a small but important way....The report simply does not say that 72,000 people were disenfranchised. In a sense, Manjoo is correct. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition report: Statewide extrapolation indicates that about 42,500 votes may have been lost and 30,000 put at risk – that is, over 1% of votes in a Presidential election that was decided by about a 2% margin. So, Kennedy overstated this by lumping together the lost plus possibly lost. On the other hand, Manjoo failed to credit the fact that these are conservative estimates, meaning that he may be understating the issue. Furthermore, Kennedy could be accurate in claiming 100% of the "at risk" votes as lost. Basically "at risk" means the Coalition couldn't absolutely prove the votes were denied. So, the report does not say that 72,000 people were disenfranchised. It says that perhaps that many-- or more-- may have been disenfranchised. Manjoo: Kennedy elides the fact that in Ohio, decisions about voting-machine allocation and precinct location are determined by local boards of elections, which are bipartisan; any Republican effort to allocate machines in a way meant to harm Democrats would have necessarily involved Democratic officials. Many people register as Democrats for career reasons. In Ohio, there are widespread complaints about the Boards of Election being riddled with ringers. (See Malcolm at Kos for some important points) And then there's Blackwell's role, in which he overruled the decisions of local Boards. Damschroder held back some machines. Surely that isn't just poor allocation: it's putting a thumb on the scales. However, the larger point is that the county should have bought more machines. Thus concludes the Manjoo-athon. Affiant says not further. Today, at least.
somebody pointed me here from echidneofthesnakes.

good stuff. glad to see somebody is up to the task of debunking the critics, unlike the other cowards on the b'sphere.

now i'm going to try to absorb the rest of it.
Thanks for reading, Jello.

Following exactly what happened in Election 2004 really is difficult, a lot of inside baseball. But if you take away one message, I hope it is this: Until there is an open and wide-ranging investigation, conducted with the power of subpoena, we will not have the final answer. All of the huffing and puffing about what is proved and what is not is just air, poorly used.
Thanks from me too for the nice work. I've long been appalled and disgusted by the way the "big guys" in the liberal blogosphere have avoided and ignored this important issue.
Good to hear from you, Spooked.

I think most people in the debate are well-intentioned. But the forces favoring the status quo always start at an advantage, especially for a people grown lazy in exercising their liberty.

So, I think we will just have to show them how, by patiently-- but not stubbornly-- pressing the case for investigating the election system.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder