August 09, 2005

My Response to the Claims of Stolen Elections

As you can see from my previous posts, the Democrats are continuing in their attempts to delegitimize the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections. I have grown very tired with the idiotic claims that the elections in 2000 and 2004 were stolen.
With respect to the election of 2000, it is important to note that each and every independent recount held in Florida in 2000 came to the same conclusion: George Bush was the winner.

For an excellent article on the myths surrounding the 2000 election, see the Ethics and Public Policy Center's article here. The EPPC thoroughly debunks the central plank of the allegations that the purging of African-Americans from voter rolls in Florida cost Gore the election:

This is a reference to the fact that following the fiasco of the 1998 mayoral election in Miami which had to be decided by state courts after it became clear that convicted felons had been allowed to vote, in violation of Florida law the state of Florida had hired a firm called Data Base Technologies (whose office Moore shows on the screen) to systematically remove convicted felons from the voter rolls. This process met with difficulties from the start, including issues relating to the fact that in some other states some convicted felons are allowed to vote, and Florida was not allowed to remove those people from its own voter rolls if they had moved to Florida after being released in another state. Florida's counties were aware of difficulties in this process, and so at least 20 of the counties simply ignored the Data Base Technologies lists of felons to purge from their lists, which meant that felons were removed in some counties but not others. It is true that when they vote, convicted felons vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans (See here)but it is also clear from an analysis by members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (See here) that too many, not too few, convicted felons voted in the 2000 elections in Florida that is, about 6,500 felons who were not legally allowed to vote did so anyway. So the result was likely many more (not fewer) votes for Gore. Finally, there is no evidence that any of this at any point had anything to do with race... An investigation by the Palm Beach Post showed that the process used by Data Base Technologies at no point brought the race of individual convicted felons into the picture.

Moreover, the EPPC notes that "the independent recounts, conducted by several universities and media organizations, showed that in every recount scenario that had been requested by the Gore campaign, Bush actually won more votes than Gore did in Florida, and therefore won the election, regardless of any court intervention." The EPPC provides further detail:

There were two major media investigations of the Florida post-election process. The first, conducted by USA Today, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder, showed that George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used. The second, conducted by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times, Tribune Publishing, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, likewise showed that by all the scenarios requested by the Gore campaign or suggested by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won . The only ways Gore might have squeezed out a win would have involved extremely contrived and unusual methods of counting ballots, which no one had suggested.

In 2004, Bush had millions more popular votes than Kerry...yet, these morons are still claiming that Bush stole the election. Why? Not enough modern voting machines? That is funny. This was never a problem in 1992 or 1996 when Clinton was elected. So, what other reason is there? The unprovable allegation of "voter intimidation". Seriously, how can we ever prove that there was absolutely no voter intimidation? How can you ever disprove the allegations of the number of voters that stayed away from the polls or decided to vote differently as a result of such voter intimidation? Was there Republican voting intimidation? Who knows. I have seen no verified reports. If this were true, wouldn't the NAACP and other civil rights groups have immediately sought legal redress? There have been no successful law suits alleging voter intimidation that I am aware of. For a list of Democratic voter intimidation, however, check out Flopping Aces.

This is nothing more than propaganda and race-baiting. The Democrats want to hold onto their 90% share of the African-American vote, so they do it the only way they know how. Tell the African-American voters that the Republicans are racists bent on denying them their civil rights.

The simple truth is that a Republican president will never be legitimate in their eyes. No matter how large a percentage of the popular vote or how many electoral votes, these people will never admit that the election was fair.

Now, the overall sentiment of these morons is that George Bush is the enemy of Democracy and that the Voting Rights Act is essential to ensure that no more elections are "stolen"(ignore the obvious question: if Bush "stole" the elections in 2000 and 2004 by somehow denying blacks the right to vote and the Voting Rights Act was in full force in 2000 and 2004, then how is the Voting Rights Act the solution?). What they don't tell you, however, is that both the Bush Administration and the House Judiciary Committee Chairman support reauthorizationorization of the Voting Rights Act provisions in 2007. Why let the facts get in the way of a good lie?

For more, see this excellent post at Flopping Aces.

| |

<< Home