RSS FEED
OpEd: Stolen Votes and Stolen Elections
Class Issues, Economics, Election reform, Elections, GOP, George W. Bush, Impeachment, International Politics, Labour movements, Media, New World Order, POTUS, Petitions, Protests, U.S. Election 2008, U.S. Elections, Unions, Vote Fraud, War on Terror, activists, boycotts, debate access, editorial, executive powers, opinion, peace movement, politics, poverty, u.s. house of representatives, white house, www.VoteStrike.com
OpEd: Stolen Votes and Stolen Elections
I’ve been accused of dissing the election porn industry, the people like Greg Palast, Mark Crispin Miller, Bev Harris, and others who investigate, analyze, document, and publicize stolen elections while 
encouraging people to vote. Most of them claim that by carefully monitoring an election, it is possible to deter or prevent vote theft. Even if that were the case, which it is not, since no matter how closely you observe an election, you cannot prove that a vote was stolen until after it has been stolen, it would not prevent election theft.
That’s because there is a big difference between protecting votes and protecting elections — vote theft and election theft are not the same thing at all. The election fraud industry concentrates on protecting votes. Even if that were possible, it could not deter or prevent stolen elections. So when they tell you that the election is going to be stolen again and that if you vote, you’re going to be screwed again, and then they tell you to vote and suggest that you monitor the election and video yourself getting screwed, what they are suggesting can only be described as election porn.
Here’s an analogy. You’ve probably heard about shoplifters and store robbers who work in groups. They go into a store and one or more of them creates a disturbance to distract the store owner and security guards, while another one robs the store. That’s how I see the election fraud industry. They are creating a disturbance to focus everyone’s attention on the theft of votes, so that nobody will notice that it is the theft of the elections, not the theft of the votes which really matters.
No matter how many times I point out to them that in their own words they have freely admitted that Bush was sworn in both times, in 2000 and in 2004, before the votes were counted, they persist in trying to focus attention on whether or not people are allowed to vote, and whether or not their 
votes are counted accurately. I keep pointing out that even if every eligible citizen was allowed to vote, and every single vote was counted accurately, it would not prevent elections from being stolen by simply, once again, swearing in the President before the votes are counted.
And that decision, to swear in a President before the popular votes are counted or without regard to the popular vote, is not up to voters, to elections officials, or to lower courts. The Constitution gives the sole power to make that decision only to Congress (however the Supreme Court, since no matter what it does its rulings cannot be appealed, has the same Constitutional power as it demonstrated in Bush v. Gore 2000).
So I don’t see the election fraud industry as raising public awareness. I see their focus on vote theft as distracting people from the real danger and thereby consciously or unconsciously aiding and abetting election theft, or in other words, I see them as an essential part of the shoplifting ring, rather than as being opposed to shoplifting.
They are all very clear on the distinction between voter fraud and election fraud, voter fraud consisting of rare cases of individuals attempting to vote when they are not eligible, and election fraud consisting of widespread voter suppression and election rigging by elections officials and voting machine programmers. But none of them, brilliant as many of them are, seem to understand the distinction between vote theft and election theft. Or perhaps they do, but in the service of the wealthy elites and the political parties, which need the popular vote in order to claim the consent of the governed, they are only pretending not to understand.
The election fraud industry and groups like VoteStrike and True Majority advocate that people vote, allow the election to be stolen, and then protest the stolen election. Would they tell you that the way to protect your car from theft was to park it in a bad neighborhood, leave the doors and windows open and the keys in the ignition, stand nearby and watch it being stolen, and then protest vigorously that your car had been stolen? It is obvious from the fact that they advocate that people protest the stolen election afterwards, that they know that the election will be stolen. So why are they still urging people to vote?
I really wouldn’t advise protesting. Our government happens to be a military superpower and it has given billions in crowd control gear and training to Homeland Security for the purpose of suppressing civil dissent. Our government happens to have a lot of experience suppressing civil dissent because it was often the case that when we stole elections or assassinated democratically elected leaders and installed dictators favorable to U.S. business in other countries, their citizens protested vehemently and violently, if, in most cases, futilely. The bullet or the ballot is a false dichotomy often used by political party operatives trying to get out the vote.
Simply not voting and then refraining from violence is the real key to ousting an illegitimate government. Once it cannot demonstrate the consent of the people obtained through elections, a government can still govern, but only as a tyranny, not as a legitimate, democratically elected government. Such governments find great difficulty in getting support from free nations. That affects their credit rating, which means that they have problems paying their mercenaries to suppress their populace. And mercenaries who don’t get paid, don’t work.
By not voting, you establish that the government is not legitimate. Then you just have to lay low so that they can’t shoot you until it collapses for lack of support.
The central tabulators that tally 80% of all U.S. votes (whether cast on paper or on machines, at the polls or by mail), are so unreliable that they are akin to flush toilets, but that is not the point, that’s just a distraction. The point is that since the Constitution does not grant us the right to vote directly for President and Vice-President, the popular vote is not the sole determining factor in who becomes President, as it would be in a democracy or a republic. In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, the President was sworn in before the popular vote was even counted, so whether or not it was counted accurately is irrelevant.
Constitutionally, it doesn’t have to be counted at all.
And of course in a top-down system like our government, the people at the top can make decisions which cannot be appealed, so the rest of the ticket is irrelevant. If The Decider or Deciders at the top decide that there will be a bailout, it doesn’t matter at all if 90% of the citizens of that government disagree. We the people have no voice. Most of us, including myself, thought that at least we could select those who would make the decisions. We cannot. We can vote for them, but our votes do not determine who they will be. Decisions such as who will be on the ballot, how many votes the central tabulators should allocate to each candidate, and who will actually be sworn into office (usually before the votes are even counted) are above our pay grade.
Whether or not our votes are counted accurately, the Constitution did not grant us the final say. Not only are we Constitutionally barred from voting directly for President and Vice-President, but the Constitution makes Congress itself the sole and final judge of Congressional elections. So when you go to Congress with solid, documented, and indisputable evidence that your election was stolen, as several Congressional candidates did in 2006, Congress can dismiss your case without even bothering to look at the evidence, which is exactly what it did in every case.
There’s a big difference between a vote and a voice in government. If our vote was a voice in government, I’d still be a voter. And in that case it would be critical to ensure that our votes were counted accurately, something I spent years fighting for before I realized that it wasn’t the real problem or the biggest danger. Election integrity efforts fight the symptoms instead of the disease. Monitoring and documenting the theft of votes can do nothing to prevent the theft of elections. They are separate, different, and unequal problems and it is the theft of elections which requires our attention. Protesting a stolen election afterwards can’t get it back.
Unless we can prevent it from being stolen, we are stuck with the outcome for another four years. Would you allow your car or your wallet to be stolen if you were guaranteed that in another four years you would be given an opportunity to try to get it back?
If elections could change anything, they’d be illegal. Don’t vote — it only encourages ‘em. For more information on how to discredit an illegitimate government through an election boycott, check out the featured discussions on my website http://noinnovember.ning.com
~Mark E. Smith
About the Author: Based in San Diego, Mark E. Smith is a self described “anti-fascist, even when the fascists are Democrats. I don’t care what they call themselves, if they support wars of aggression and encourage people to vote in rigged elections, I call them fascists.” Mark, admittedly, has been “banned from from more websites” than he can remember. That includes Care2 and Op Ed News. He is the Curator of his own site: http://noinnovember.ning.com
as always, email us at editor@globalpundit.org
admin @ October 20, 2008
Many thanks to Peter G. Neumann who posted a link to this article on his list, ACM FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks)
Peter G. Neumann, moderator, chmn ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, and also posted a brief comment.
http://www.csl.sri.com/users/risko/risks.txt
Some may point out that this is all for not, that we we are having record voter turnout, but people are waking up, spread this article far and wide.
“No Army can stop an idea who’s time has come.”
—-Victor Hugo
Please sign up at the No In November site and show your solidarity! If we don’t show our numbers in this fight for our votes it is all for NAUGHT.
What it all comes down to for me is this:
“There’s a big difference between a vote and a voice in government. If our vote was a voice in government, I’d still be a voter.”
Me, too. I have learned over the past eight years that my vote means NOTHING to these people. It is obvious from the way congress votes on issues that the will of the people is not even being considered, much less carried out.
As Emma Goldman said, “If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.” I withold my vote and my mandate until we establish a form of government in which all of our voices will be heard.
Great Article, Mark!
Sharon Frowhlich
Thanks, John-Michael.
Greg Palast recently noted that more than TEN MILLION voters have been purged from the voting rolls, so unless their “record turnout” includes a lot more than ten million new voters, it won’t even be noticed. And, of course, since our Presidents are usually sworn in before the popular vote is counted and without regard to the popular vote, only the voters themselves are interested in how many of them voted and which candidates they attempted to vote for — the powers that be just ignore the votes and steal the elections.
There is no way to prevent the winning candidate from conceding to the loser before the votes are counted, the Supreme Court from stopping the votes from being counted and selecting the winner themselves, or the Electoral College from going rogue and throwing the election to the House of Representatives to decide.
There are many other ways that our elections can be stolen Constitutionally and without regard to the popular vote. The one I’m predicting will be used this time is that the Republicans will present a petition signed by several Republican Senators and at least one Democratic Senator, to reject the Electoral votes of several large states like Ohio, New York, and California, on the basis of alleged “voter fraud.” The Democrats will have “no choice” but to support their Republican colleagues in having the Electoral votes of large blue states thrown out.
What the Democrats’ excuse for once again betraying their constituents will be is hard to tell, but they can use some of their usual excuses, such as that they needed to be bipartisan, they felt threatened, they didn’t want to be called sore losers, etc. And, as always, they will say it is “for the good of the country.”
That only makes sense if you recognize that they consider themselves rather than their constituents to be “the country,” and since they happen to be very, very rich, they believe that wrecking our economy and embroiling us in unwinnable wars of aggression has benefited the country (them) a great deal.
Given that control of the world’s larger military superpower is at stake, and that our electoral system cannot be secured from fraud, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits of voting.
My beautiful friend Mark, so this is where you’ve been hiding out. I miss all of your articles so much Mark. TY for sharing all of this important information with us. The public should know all!
A special thanks to JohnMichael for the forward and for your insight as well hon.
I have already made up my mind to say NO in November as well.
Much love & respect Mark, and I miss you!
Dohiyi {peace}
FreeSpiritRunning…
I will pass this along as well my friend.
that was an amazing article.. opened my eyes .. thank you so much
Frankly, I don’t see the point of boycotting the elections. Such an action may produce results only when a very large part of the population is sure to participate.
If the constitution needs amending, there is a procedure to do that. Fortunately, the democratic system in the USA is still better than most other countries’ in letting grass-root movements in individual states make some impression on the central government.
About being banned. Many times the truth is very difficult to swallow. Gagging is uncomfortable and it is only normal to try to avoid that which causes the initial reaction. Combine that with the fact that we indoctrinate our children from early elementary school to believe that our system is the greatest in the world and that voting is a sacred right and personal responsibility that guarantees our democratic process and insures the Republic
will continue and you have a situation which is
very difficult to accept.
And….there is a bit of honesty in our indoctrination. It does insure the status quo, lends credibility to whoever is in office and leaves voters feeling like they actually participated. (Exactly what the framers of our constitution designed the system to do. They really were brilliant men.)
Thank you for teaching through your article Mark!
It is very scary to realize that the Constitution does not grant us the right to vote directly for President and Vice-President. The popular vote is not the sole factor in who becomes President, as it would be in a democracy or a republic.
I think that what we need to change is the Constitution, but we are very busy with all type of distractions.
Very comprehensive, and well argued pieces thanks Mark.
Certainly the top down system,primacy of Congress and ‘pre vote-count swear in’of the President, are methods designed to sideline real democracy .I would add to this list, the role of the media,particularly Fox,in acting as kingmaker.
A couple of aspects and questions strike me here,and i’d welcome your response.
The difficulties which exist ,when encouraging a no vote,particularly amongst progressives are I feel:
1)The great fear of further Republican ruination,of America and the world,should McCain/Palin become Preident and Vice President.There is only an inch of difference between the two parties,in fact Chomsky accurately illustrates,that they are two wings of one party.As one UK former politician Roy Hattersley said ” that inch is everything”,when promoting conservative-lite new-Labour.
Progressives would look back to 2000 and say that,the world be a slightly better,safer,and greener place if Gore had been allowed to become President,or if he had gained a few more votes (usually meaning the votes which went to Ralph Nader).
That “better of two evils” factor is an enormous motivator, for those wavering between voting for the Dems (or Europe’s former social democrats), and not voting.
I know,i’ve felt it,and i’ve gone with it..for some of the right reasons,and possibly some of the wrong ones.This policy of ‘voting for the least worse,as it will be far worse,if the other shower get into power’ is a powerful motivating thought,it is felt globally,and is i feel ,one of the bigger barriers to your excellent campaign.
2)Another question arises, re another possible barrier too,would ‘not voting as a purposeful disengagement, from a corrupt process’ be distinguishable to the public,from ‘not voting,due to myriad other reasons ‘?
If not,then does that distinction need to be more visible ?and if so,how could it be made more visible? .
Cheers
Many thanks for your kind and insightful comments, FreeSpirit, Aimee, Marian, and Tere.
Amos, the procedure for amending the Constitution happens to be in the hands of the people we may not have actually elected and who are, in any event, not accountable to us during their terms in office. Grass roots movements can initiate actions, but Congress can squelch them before they can reach fruition.
The Blue Apes of Wrath wrote: “This policy of ‘voting for the least worse,as it will be far worse,if the other shower get into power’ is a powerful motivating thought,it is felt globally,and is i feel, one of the bigger barriers to your excellent campaign.”
You are correct, however that conclusion is illogical. Anyone who knows the facts, knows that both Gore and Kerry WON their elections. Of course in both cases the votes weren’t counted until long after Bush had been sworn into office, so it was not evident at the time. However, having had two Presidential elections in a row where the lesser evil won the popular vote but the greater evil became President, I believe that people should be fully aware by now that voting for the lesser evil does not ensure that’s what you’ll get.
Blue Apes: “Another question arises, re another possible barrier too,would ‘not voting as a purposeful disengagement, from a corrupt process’ be distinguishable to the public,from ‘not voting,due to myriad other reasons’? If not,then does that distinction need to be more visible? and if so,how could it be made more visible?”
Although the media tries to spin the fact that less than half (48%) of the eligible electorate votes as “apathy,” the only poll that ever asked people why they don’t vote, a Zogby poll commissioned by Paul Lehto, found that many said that they felt that nobody on the ballot would represent their interests. Arriving at that conclusion necessarily entails recognizing what one’s own interests are and having sufficient knowledge of the candidates to know that their voting records and/or political positions do not support those interests.
It is almost impossible to garner a lot of publicity for the truth in the USA, as the mainstream media is almost entirely owned and controlled by the Republican Party, while the alternative media is almost entirely owned and controlled by the Democratic Party (in its bipartisan role, as explained by the late Walter Karp in his classic book “Indispensable Enemies,” of co-opting the political left so that there cannot be any effective opposition to the political right). The mere fact that 52% of eligible American voters do not participate in our sham elections, however, does mean that even without publicity, a majority of Americans know the truth and have the strength of character to face the facts and act accordingly.
Come to think of it, can anyone explain why both the mainstream and the so-called alternative media focus on the minority (48%) who still vote, rather than on the majority (52%) who do NOT vote?
Doesn’t ANYONE care about addressing the concerns of the majority?
As long as this entire article is being used to tell every Republican not to vote; it has some merit. The Republicans have always cared too much for power that they will never relinquish it. The Republicans have done the most illegal election tampering of any known political party. They are the lowest of the low. So heed this bloggers article and do not vote Republicans; let real democracy take place and let change come of Washington.
MIK, it is very clear which team you’re rooting for, but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that you read or understood the article you’re commenting on.
None.
Are you one of those political hacks who gets paid by the piece to insert political blurbs online wherever possible, without regard to what they’re interjecting their propaganda into?
Everybody else who commented here, MIK, made it clear through their comments that they had read and understood the article. Political party flacks, both Democrats and Republicans, since they’re doing piece-work for the money, have neither the time nor the intellect to read what they’re disrupting.
The message your comment conveys is that Republicans are smart enough to rig elections and that Democrats are dumb enough to vote in them. Had you read and understood the article, you’d know that it doesn’t matter whether people vote or not, or whether or not their votes are stolen, because the Presidential candidates are sworn in BEFORE the popular votes are counted.
The elections are just a distraction to make people think that they have a voice when they don’t.
I’ve got no use for either of the pro-war, pro-corporate major political parties, or for the third parties and independent candidates seeking power within a totally corrupt system, but the ignorance of apathy of voters appears to be boundless, and that does interest me and I keep trying to understand it.
There will be no change under a Democratic administration, MIK. The Democrats and Republicans have already pre-funded the wars of aggression based on lies that both major party candidates are committed to, both candidates spit in the faces of 99% of their constituents and voters by supporting the bailout, and both candidates are members of the most despised Congress with the lowest approval rating in U.S. history.
Anyone who casts a third party or independent candidate vote so that their vote can be flipped to a party or candidate they oppose, holds their nose and votes for the lesser stench of two major parties guilty of crimes against humanity, or in any other way participates in a sham election where the candidates are usually sworn into office BEFORE the votes are counted, is so apathetic that they probably think that democracy means voting in sham elections.
MIK, if the government held an “election” to decide whether or not you should be tortured or killed, but it makes the decision to torture or kill you BEFORE it counts the votes, would you consider that to be democracy?
Voting, by itself, as a symbolic and meaninless ritual, is not democracy. In a democratic form of government, even a republic, the candidates can not be sworn in before the votes are counted, the way it is done here. And it is not the Republicans that make the decision to swear in candidates before the popular vote is counted. It is both Democrats and Republicans. When they ask for your vote, your volunteer time and effort, and your money to get out the vote, and then they swear in the new President without even bothering to count your vote first, doesn’t it ever occur to you that something might be seriously wrong with the system?
And if you don’t care, would you mind explaining to me why you are so apathetic?
[...] OpEd: Stolen Votes and Stolen Elections OpEd: Stolen Votes and Stolen Elections I’ve been accused of dissing the election porn industry, the people like Greg Palast, Mark Crispin Miller, Bev Harris, and others who investigate, analyze, document, and publicize stolen elections while encouraging people to vote. Most of them claim that by carefully monitoring an election, it is possible to deter or prevent vote theft. Even if that were the case, which it is not, since no matter how closely you observe a [...]