Should there be an investigation into the 2004 elections?

[ambitious_wench]

It occurs to me that if the 2004 elelction was tampered with, how can we trust a Republican-dominated Congress to conduct an impartial investigation?

I'd be willing to bet very good odds that if there was an investigation, it would come up that there was no tampering.

Any takers?

Comments

[velocichica.livejournal.com]

I don't think there was "tampering" per say. It just seems to me that the electoral college was voting with a bit more heart than they should have been. You get enough "moral" conservatives on a panel and they'll vote their heart... which defeats the purpose of the electoral college in this election, but that's another story.

Also, when you take into consideration the fact that I question how much they could have messed with the popular vote...?

Scared to say, this was a rather fair election... which goes to show you a thing or two about many of the American people.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure there wasn't. Granted, we don't have "hard" evidence. However, there sure is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to election fraud. Assuming it was being done by the Republicrats, or with the Republicrat's tacit approval, and they now control the Congress, could we trust the outcome of an investigation?

I'm not sure I can.

I think we need to legislate election reform. At the least, this would include standardization of how the vote is made--and I'm leaning towards paper ballots, hand-counted. Yes, that means more money. But I'm willing to pay for hundreds of vote counters to be absolutely sure that machine-implemented fraud isn't a factor.

I'm also leaning toward doing away with the electoral college, make the presidency a popular vote. I'm willing to consider arguments in favor of it, though.

Edie

[trick.livejournal.com]

Hi. I'm here because I liked some of your comments on ginmar's journal, and I thought I'd jump in.

First: The tampering.

Some interesting things have surfaced, including evidence that Kerry is gathering evidence rather than jumping off the deep end with accusations (as a prosecutor is wont to do, and as opposed to being labeled a whiner by the other side). His concession to Bush has no real legal standing, and if it does indeed turn out that the vote was tampered with, and he is indeed using his thousand-plus lawyers to investigate, that means we're in for an interesting New Year. Other speculations on this matter have pointed toward the strategy behind Nader's call for a recount in New Hampshire. While NH went to Kerry, there were still some of the same questions about the vote that were surfacing in OH and FL. Because NH is the smallest state, it is also the cheapest to file for a recount (something like $200, if I'm remembering correctly), but if voter fraud does appear there, the balance will shift from having to prove disenfranchisement to proving that there wasn't any tampering across the country. There are also rumors that Kerry is helping Nader in these efforts. At the very least, the theories are interesting. I'd direct you to the article itself, but it's late and I'm not googling well.

Second: The Electoral College
This issue is an interesting one. I believe the divisions for the Electoral College are antiquated, and there are better ways, but I don't think a flat popular vote is one of those ways. Aside from removing the notion of state sovereignty, it has the potential to divide the country even further. Undoubtedly you've heard rumors/threats of secession from the 'blue' states. Well imagine if the red v. blue map (and the resulting passions/outrages) were flipped. It is awfully difficult to push a state with a large population to secede, but a large state with a small population (for instance, any number of southern and southwestern states) with a grudge could easily squash internal opposition, or at least chase it out of town, and could probably convince a few neighboring states to come along for the ride. In its own way, the electoral college goes toward making sure voters in large, open, and often primarily farming/military states don't feel as trampled if they lose an election. Doomsday-type predictions aside, if we shifted to a popular election it is doubtful that presidential candidates would bother campaigning outside of the major cities-there's more bang for their buck in New York than in Omaha (depending on your views, this might not be a bad thing). Sure, there'd be a token small town, feel-good story, but beyond that, there's no reason for them to bother.

As it stands now, of course, isn't perfect - far from it. The major campaigning is done in the "swing states" (how DID they know everything - from Diebold to the final card in the election - would center on Ohio?), leaving a number of other states, which, given the right attention, could possibly swing (New Mexico and Nevada come to mind) hanging in the shadows. One of the more interesting solutions I've seen proposes we keep the electoral college, but divide the points according to percentages. For instance, if there are (and this is hugely simplified) 4 electoral votes, and 75% of the state votes for candidate A, while 25% votes for candidate B, A gets 3 points while B gets 1 point. Every vote, even in solid states, could potentially affect the percentages, which would more directly affect the outcome, but there is still the protection for the farmland ensuring their votes aren't completely overpowered by the votes from large(r) cities.

Just some thoughts. Don't mind me if they don't make a lick of sense. It's too late (early?) for the little hamster in my brain.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Hiya, Trick! Welcome to my corner of Live Journal. Thanks for your input, and it must be that my hamster is at the same level as yours because it all makes sense to me.

I hadn't thought of the sovereinty of the states with regards to abolishing the electoral college. I bet California would scream the loudest. *grin*

I know that Maine splits it's electoral votes pretty much the way you describe. I think that may be a realistic answer.

Edie