. . .one post and presto, a reply from someone connected to the campaign!
For your consideration:
We know several precincts ran out of ballots. We know the shortage caused lines. We know voters who intended to vote did not because of the problems.
The question is not whether or not the problems would have "changed the result." A remedy needs to be demanded on behalf of every registered voter in every precinct that was affected. No matter how large the margin between the candidates, the precincts that had problems need to be identified.
The only way we are going to end such corruption (intentional or not) is to refuse to accept it -- demanding a remedy is one way we can "just say no."
The simplest way to remedy failures that discourage/prevent voters from voting is to designate a date and convenient location where people from the problem precincts (the ones who have not already voted) can come in and cast their vote. (There are a variety of ways such a remedy could be demanded -- e.g., could petition election officials or find a creative attorney to make a motion in court.)
Publicly demanding this type of a remedy is likely to prompt a chorus of objections. The debate is on our ground, so the more public the better.
When "special treatment" in the form of lengthy delays, misdirection, or failed equipment is brought to the public's attention, the establishment response goes something like this:
"That's the way it goes. Not fair. Don't like it. But have to accept it. Can't prove it would've changed the results."Those who argue that we must accept "special treatment" voters are subjected to during an election expose their own hypocrisy when they attempt to argue that we must reject a remedy that offers "special treatment" to those voters after the election.
Why shouldn't the "price" for imposing intolerable barriers be to give those who were targeted (whether or not they were targeted deliberately) a completely unfettered opportunity to vote?
Claims that the remedy is unnecessary because it "it won't make a difference" are easy to deal with. Perhaps the numbers are such that the additional votes cast won't change the result. So what? Providing the remedy creates a critical precedent. Instead of giving lip service to "making sure it doesn't happen" you are creating consequences and incentives for ACTUALLY "making sure it doesn't happen again." In the process, it shows the voters who were so poorly served that their election officials are actually committed to serving them. It makes it clear that the voters are the "clients" in this.
An election that has been corrupted by barriers to voting that are correlated with racial, socio-economic, or partisan status is not a fair election. It doesn't matter whether the discrimination was intentional or unintentional. In absence of a remedy the results of a discriminatory election must be rejected on principle: ("Rejection" can take many forms -- even something as simple as what the AP did in 2000 -- they have never "called" the Florida Presidential election.)
The notion that if the margin of victory reflected in the reported results is of sufficient magnitude we are forced to dismiss violations of the right to vote is Un-American and morally repugnant. Claims that insufficient numbers were disenfranchised to change the outcome must be rejected on principle -- American principle v. Fascist principle.
(BTW, when the processes or the results of an election are suspect, most of us believe we need to prove "it" (whatever it is) "changed the results." In fact, we need to figure out ways to put the burden of proof
http://january6th.org/stop_stolen_elections_now.html#notion3">where it belongs -- on the state.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
