 |
||
Telephone: 07725 735255 |
||
Note: Some platforms warn you about “active content” that could access your computer. If you don’t trust me not to give your computer a virus, you can browse this website without allowing the active content. The only difference is that the buttons below would not be highlighted when the cursor moves over them.
There was a lot of evidence of electoral fraud in the Presidential elections in 2000. For example, many black people got turned away from polling stations on the false basis that they had criminal records (which of course should not prevent people from voting for the rest of their lives). There was also the ‘hanging chads’ fiasco, where somebody's vote didn't count if the voting machine malfunctioned (with the Republicans preventing a manual recount using the courts, although I have read that the Democrat-controlled Senate could have overruled the Supreme Court).
The ‘solution’ to the ‘hanging chads’ problem was to provide other forms of computer, usually with touch-screens. This amplifies the problems of fraud since there is no paper trail which could enable a full recount to take place. The main suppliers of the voting machines have strong links with the Republican Party. Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., wrote in a letter to Republicans (on the 14th of August 2003) that he was ‘committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President’. Lo and behold, Diebold’s voting machines were used in the election, and they certainly played a role in handing the election to Bush.
The evidence that Kerry was defrauded in Ohio and Florida (and in enough other states which would have meant that he would have received more votes overall than Bush) includes:
The reason why this election was particularly important was that Kerry had pointed out that Bush had granted 85 or 90 billion dollars of tax cuts to people earning over $200,000 per year, and he promised to take that tax cut back. In other words, Kerry promised to tax the rich. It was also very significant that Kerry also pledged to close all tax loopholes. Kerry deliberately waited until the second live TV debate with Bush – which was his first opportunity to say what he really thought without being censored by the multinational-controlled mass media (and in which he received questions from the audience rather than a representative of big business like in the first debate). Before that, he had played one faction off against another, in order to get into the situation where he was competing to be President – hence the ‘flip-flops’ that Bush concentrated on criticising him for.
On the environment, Bush justified refusing to sign up to the Kyoto agreement on the basis that it would cost 1.3 million jobs in the USA. However, Kerry pointed out later in the debate that Bush had granted tax incentives for countries investing outside the USA, causing mass unemployment at home.
That election was not simply a case of two big business parties competing with each other, because Kerry was much more radical than his advisers. In fact, in my opinion, Kerry is a revolutionary socialist in disguise! I came across a website (by Mark Rabinowitz at
www.oilempire.us) which contains a lot of useful information about US electoral fraud from a radical perspective, plus other important information such as about 9/11. However, Mark failed to mention anything about Kerry’s radical economic programme, probably because that would contradict his hypothesis that Bush and Kerry were on the same side. His evidence for that, apart from a lot of right-wing views that Kerry had expressed in the past (and which were in order to climb the greasy pole in my opinion) was that they are both in a very secret and influential conspiratorial organisation called ‘Skull and Bones’, which has got many of its members in positions of great power including three US Presidents. He did not seem to have considered the possibility that Kerry is an infiltrator from a conspiratorial organisation on the side of the working class within both the Democratic Party and ‘Skull and Bones’. Nevertheless, it seems that Kerry’s membership of ‘Skull and Bones’ forced him to concede the election – but his concession does not have any legal effect so the result can still be challenged. In fact, the Green Party and Libertarian Party are in fact forcing a recount in Ohio, which may overturn the result (but of course it can only be a partial recount because there are no paper records for many votes).
Although the Democrats in the USA used to simply be a party of big business, like the Tories and Liberal Democrats (and now Labour) in Britain, there are now serious left-wing forces within the US Democratic Party. The Progressive Democrats of America even urged their members to support
www.911truth.org. In my opinion, Marxists in the USA, who are scattered in tiny organisations, should use the method of ‘entrism’ (i.e. infiltration) as practiced by the Militant Tendency in the British Labour Party in the past.
I have set up an internet discussion group (at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/us-electoral-fraud) to discuss electoral fraud in the US Presidential election and what can be done about it. It could play a part in mobilising working class and middle class people in the USA to demand real democracy in the USA, including a much fairer electoral system, and perhaps a new Presidential election without waiting until 2008 (via a similar campaign to the Campaign for Democracy in the UK called The Alliance for Democracy, for which I have created a discussion group).
