Reply #38: Non-transparent elections are NOT VALID!

[Peace Patriot]

Technically, Bush is president, because the states' presidential electors (who have no idea how our votes are tabulated), verified the reports of the secretaries of state (who have no idea how our votes were tabulated), and reported them to Congress (one third of which was 'elected' in 2002 by voters who had no idea how their votes were tabulated), and Congress agreed to accept the results of these mysteriously 'elected' states' presidential electors.

And those electors, in winner-takes-all elections, were "elected" by voters almost ALL of whom had no idea how their votes were tabulated.

The war profiteering corporate news monopolies had confirmed that OPAQUE result by FALSIFYING their own exit polls to match it--and HIDING evidence to the contrary.

And, despite the fact that this entire process was completely OPAQUE, the end result is supposedly okay, because it is TECHNICALLY correct. Bush's Congress confirmed the results of Bushite voting machine companies (which tabulated the votes in secret), which was confirmed by the news monopolies (whose numbers were also fiddled in secret).

If there ever was case for the "spirit of the law" as opposed to mere technical compliance, it is this, the most important thing we do in a democracy: elect the president and our other representatives. Technical compliance--in this case, the mere form of compliance with NO SUBSTANCE--cannot make an election valid. To be valid, an election must be TRANSPARENT. Otherwise, it is tyranny!

The reason that the Bushites got away with this is that the Democratic Party hierarchy enforced a no-challenge position (as they had done in 2000), which only a few courageous Democrats defied in 2004 (among them, John Conyers and Barbara Boxer). For some of the reasons behind the Democratic Party leadership's apparent insanity on Bushites owning and controlling our election system, see my post # 35, above.

Granted, the Dem leaders and candidate Kerry had a very hostile Congress, a very hostile press, and a very hostile Supreme Court to buck. The odds against a challenge, at the point of Nov. 2004, were immensely bad. But their challenge SHOULD HAVE occurred long before that, back in 2002-2003, when HAVA (the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle) was passed with completely inadequate controls (no paper trail required, for instance), and an underfunded monitoring agency (the EAC).

Why didn't they challenge it THEN? --is the question that Dem leaders need to answer.