Abby:
Do we have positive information that "voters were illegally disqualified
or discouraged from voting"?
Richard
On 12/1/2016 10:20 PM, Abby Vincent wrote:
Clinton would have to win recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
for it to matter. What they aren't counting are the votes of all the voters
illegally disqualified or discouraged from voting. Trump's vice president
makes him assassination-proof. He may just be too smart to do anything that
would get him impeached. Let's face it. We're stuck with him for four
years.
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 7:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Vote Recount vs the Media Consensus
Vote Recount vs the Media Consensus
Published on
Thursday, December 01, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Vote Recount vs the Media Consensus
by
Robert C. Koehler
(Photo: Getty Images)
The impatience across much of the media is palpable.
Recount?
Oh groan. That's not going to change the election results. The consensus
"truth" writhing just below the surface of the mainstream, eyeball-rolling
disapproval of Jill Stein's call for and financing of a presidential vote
recount in Wisconsin (and perhaps in Pennsylvania and Michigan) is that the
political and media consensus has already established who the next president
is. Like it or not.
And "election integrity" is apparently set in stone, here in America, the
oldest democracy on the planet. We took care of that a long time ago. No
matter that touch-screen voting is unverifiable and absurdly vulnerable to
hacking and the struggle for power brings out the worst in people. No matter
that the Republican Party - the political party that lost the vote but won
the election - has a long history of passing voter suppression laws aimed at
non-white Americans. The federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, striking down
one such law in North Carolina, for instance, accused state legislators of
targeting African-Americans "with almost surgical precision."
Nonetheless, in mainstream media land, questioning the results of a
presidential election has a sort of unpatriotic stench to it, almost like
burning the flag. Once agreement congeals and the winner is declared, that's
it. The election's over and it's time to move on.
To which I say: "Jebbie says we got it! Jebbie says we got it!"
These are the words that George W. Bush's first cousin, John Prescott Ellis,
uttered 16 years ago - in the early morning hours of Nov. 8, 2000 - while he
was serving as the election anchorman for Fox News during its coverage of
the Bush-Gore election. Ellis, who was a freelance Republican political
adviser, had been on the phone throughout the night with both George and Jeb
Bush, according to an account of the incident at History Commons, and
shortly after 2 a.m. had discussed the state of the Florida vote with Jeb.
The vote was excruciatingly close and considered by everyone else as still
too close to call, but the two cousins determined otherwise in their phone
chat.
Ellis announced Jeb's victory declaration to his coverage team and, within
minutes, Fox News declared Bush the winner of the election. What happened
next, as noted in the History Commons account, remains painfully disturbing:
"The other networks hurriedly, and inaccurately, follow suit."
Bush's lead was miniscule and dropping, but the other network executives,
fearing their coverage would look wimpy, jumped on the bandwagon one by one
and joined Fox in declaring Bush the winner.
The Associated Press refused to make the call, pointing out that Bush's lead
was steadily dwindling. "But the television broadcasts drive the story," the
History Commons explained. "Network pundits immediately begin dissecting
Bush's 'victory' and speculating as to why Gore 'lost.'"
The effect of this was to turn Al Gore - winner, like Hillary Clinton, of
the popular vote - into a sore loser, to the extent that he challenged the
highly controversial and questionable Florida vote totals.
In other words, the American president is essentially determined every four
years by a sort of quick-draw consensus of corporate media conglomerates,
not by a cautiously precise hand count of the votes that have been cast -
votes that, in any case, only partially represent the will of the American
electorate, thanks to ongoing voter suppression that trims the American
electorate to suit the wishes of those in power.
The Green Party-driven vote recount in Wisconsin and perhaps elsewhere,
while hardly addressing all the problems assailing our democracy, at least
challenges the bogus consensus by which the president is currently
determined and acknowledges the ideal that every vote counts and every vote
matters.
Indeed, the value of every vote ought to matter more than who wins and who
loses. And mandatory, routine recounts might waylay the entertainment
spectacle of election night, turning it into something with deeper purpose
and significance than, say, the last game of the World Series. In a real
democracy, voting and governing are not separate entities but a
manifestation of the ongoing partnership between the people and their chosen
leaders.
And "the people" means everyone. As Greg Palast notes on Truthout, "just as
poor areas get the worst schools and hospitals, they also get the worst
voting machines.
"The key is an ugly statistic not taught in third grade civics class:
According to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will be
disqualified as 'spoiled' is 900 percent more likely if you're black than if
you're white."
The Green Party recount would re-examine "spoiled" and discarded ballots
along with those that were counted. Perhaps there's a lack of election-night
excitement to such work, at least from the perspective of a TV channel
executive, but I'd rather have a functioning democracy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License Robert C. Koehler
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally
syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound is now
available. Contact him at koehlercw@xxxxxxxxx or visit his website at
commonwonders.com.
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, December 1, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. #NotNormal
. #NoDAPL
. Bernie Sanders
Vote Recount vs the Media Consensus
Published on
Thursday, December 01, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Vote Recount vs the Media Consensus
by
Robert C. Koehler
. 12 Comments
.
. (Photo: Getty Images)
. The impatience across much of the media is palpable.
. Recount?
. Oh groan. That's not going to change the election results. The
consensus "truth" writhing just below the surface of the mainstream,
eyeball-rolling disapproval of Jill Stein's call for and financing of a
presidential vote recount in Wisconsin (and perhaps in Pennsylvania and
Michigan) is that the political and media consensus has already established
who the next president is. Like it or not.
. And "election integrity" is apparently set in stone, here in
America, the oldest democracy on the planet. We took care of that a long
time ago. No matter that touch-screen voting is unverifiable and absurdly
vulnerable to hacking and the struggle for power brings out the worst in
people. No matter that the Republican Party - the political party that lost
the vote but won the election - has a long history of passing voter
suppression laws aimed at non-white Americans. The federal 4th Circuit Court
of Appeals, striking down one such law in North Carolina, for instance,
accused state legislators of targeting African-Americans "with almost
surgical precision."
Nonetheless, in mainstream media land, questioning the results of a
presidential election has a sort of unpatriotic stench to it, almost like
burning the flag. Once agreement congeals and the winner is declared, that's
it. The election's over and it's time to move on.
To which I say: "Jebbie says we got it! Jebbie says we got it!"
These are the words that George W. Bush's first cousin, John Prescott Ellis,
uttered 16 years ago - in the early morning hours of Nov. 8, 2000 - while he
was serving as the election anchorman for Fox News during its coverage of
the Bush-Gore election. Ellis, who was a freelance Republican political
adviser, had been on the phone throughout the night with both George and Jeb
Bush, according to an account of the incident at History Commons, and
shortly after 2 a.m. had discussed the state of the Florida vote with Jeb.
The vote was excruciatingly close and considered by everyone else as still
too close to call, but the two cousins determined otherwise in their phone
chat.
Ellis announced Jeb's victory declaration to his coverage team and, within
minutes, Fox News declared Bush the winner of the election. What happened
next, as noted in the History Commons account, remains painfully disturbing:
"The other networks hurriedly, and inaccurately, follow suit."
Bush's lead was miniscule and dropping, but the other network executives,
fearing their coverage would look wimpy, jumped on the bandwagon one by one
and joined Fox in declaring Bush the winner.
The Associated Press refused to make the call, pointing out that Bush's lead
was steadily dwindling. "But the television broadcasts drive the story," the
History Commons explained. "Network pundits immediately begin dissecting
Bush's 'victory' and speculating as to why Gore 'lost.'"
The effect of this was to turn Al Gore - winner, like Hillary Clinton, of
the popular vote - into a sore loser, to the extent that he challenged the
highly controversial and questionable Florida vote totals.
In other words, the American president is essentially determined every four
years by a sort of quick-draw consensus of corporate media conglomerates,
not by a cautiously precise hand count of the votes that have been cast -
votes that, in any case, only partially represent the will of the American
electorate, thanks to ongoing voter suppression that trims the American
electorate to suit the wishes of those in power.
The Green Party-driven vote recount in Wisconsin and perhaps elsewhere,
while hardly addressing all the problems assailing our democracy, at least
challenges the bogus consensus by which the president is currently
determined and acknowledges the ideal that every vote counts and every vote
matters.
Indeed, the value of every vote ought to matter more than who wins and who
loses. And mandatory, routine recounts might waylay the entertainment
spectacle of election night, turning it into something with deeper purpose
and significance than, say, the last game of the World Series. In a real
democracy, voting and governing are not separate entities but a
manifestation of the ongoing partnership between the people and their chosen
leaders.
And "the people" means everyone. As Greg Palast notes on Truthout, "just as
poor areas get the worst schools and hospitals, they also get the worst
voting machines.
"The key is an ugly statistic not taught in third grade civics class:
According to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will be
disqualified as 'spoiled' is 900 percent more likely if you're black than if
you're white."
The Green Party recount would re-examine "spoiled" and discarded ballots
along with those that were counted. Perhaps there's a lack of election-night
excitement to such work, at least from the perspective of a TV channel
executive, but I'd rather have a functioning democracy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License /author/robert-c-koehler
/author/robert-c-koehler/author/robert-c-koehler
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally
syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound is now
available. Contact him at koehlercw@xxxxxxxxx or visit his website at
commonwonders.com.
