Was the 2004 election stolen? No. | Salon.com News (Farhad Manjoo)
This article is very critical of the Rolling Stone piece by RFK Jr. I am not deeply familiar with the examples that are criticized by the Salon article, but I wonder if the points are, in fairness, valid. There was a lot of criminal activity going on in Ohio as well as other states, but these articles never cease with the back and forth rebutting of claims. I just hope we get some election reform to remove all of this doubt in the system. That seems to be the most important point in all of this. If we get a system where there can be no doubt in it's validity as some exist in other countries, with the proper transparencies and efficiency, all of this will go on for every election for years to come.
Here is a section of the Salon.com article:
(snip)
If you do read Kennedy's article, be prepared to machete your way through numerous errors of interpretation and his deliberate omission of key bits of data. The first salient omission comes in paragraph 5, when Kennedy writes, "In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots." To back up that assertion, Kennedy cites "Democracy at Risk," the report the Democrats released last June.
That report does indeed point out that many people -- 26 percent -- who first registered in 2004 did not find their names on the voter rolls at polling places. What Kennedy doesn't say, though, is that the same study found no significant difference in the share of Kerry voters and Bush voters who came to the polls and didn't find their names listed. The Democrats' report says that 4.2 percent of Kerry voters were forced to cast a "provisional" ballot and that 4.1 percent of Bush voters were made to do the same -- a stat that lowers the heat on Kennedy's claim of "astounding" partisanship.
Such techniques are evident throughout Kennedy's article. He presents a barrage of seemingly important, apparently damning data to show that Kerry won the race. It's only when you dig into his claims that you see what thin ice he's on.
more...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/I am curious to see if he mentions this article in his show today (Ring of Fire -
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/default1.asp)