[Marxism] Two gains US scored recently in Iraq

Mark Lause MLause at cinci.rr.com
Sun Nov 28 21:08:20 MST 2004


The Democratic efforts to lose that election were much more important
than any vote-stealing, but I don't automatically write off a lot of
fudging.

There never was an entirely honest election in all of US history--I mean
one in which all the votes cast were counted, etc.  Alexander Cockburn
must be ignorant of how things work here to think that stealing
elections requires some big conspiracy.  It's no more realistic than
those who say socialists see capitalism as requiring some conspiracy.

Everyone involved only has to do what helps increase their standing and
these things converge nicely.  Officials in a precinct, a community, a
state are all competing for position in their party, and their ability
to deliver the vote is a vital aspect of that.  So, each of them does
their best to tilt the results for which they are partly responsible.  

The fact is that in most areas, one party might have a great deal of
control over the count--Chicago in 1960, for example.  When these local
officials have functioned in the farther past, there were fewer limits
and sillier results --the 1855 territorial vote in Kansas where more
people voted that lived there or when Alabama elected a governor in 1880
with a margin of victory bigger than the vote in the previous
gubernatorial election.  

...but, even within modern limits, fudging happens all the time and the
smaller the margin of victory, the more likely it had an impact. 

...and it doesn't require some big conspiracy--just the ordinary
function of the system...like capitalism itself.

Solidarity!
Mark L.













More information about the Marxism mailing list