SUPPRESION: VOTING WHILE BLACK (AND BROWN AND RED)

January 19, 2005

Southern Exposure

VOTING WHILE BLACK (AND BROWN AND RED)
How the color of your skin still determines whether or not your vote counts

by Jordan Green

If you are African American, Latino or Native American and voted in the 2004 presidential election that allowed George W. Bush to keep the White House, you did so with a higher likelihood that your vote wouldn’t be counted than if you were white.

That analysis comes from a review of residual voting statistics in heavily minority counties in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico – that is, the number of people who showed up to vote, but didn’t have a preference for president counted.

But before you assume this means there’s a Jim Crow-style system of electoral exclusion designed to systematically suppress the minority vote, stop. Before you assume this means the election was stolen from John Kerry, stop.

Almost any rigorous examination of the methods of counting votes in Election 2004 by race, party clout and political subdivision suggests that Bush legitimately won reelection. But the absurdity of some of the conspiracy theories thriving in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party shouldn’t distract us from the real flaws in an electoral system that tends to dilute the power of the minority vote. We should be clear that while we have made progress towards making sure every vote counts, the United States still has a long way to go to make sure minority votes count as much as white votes.

A pdf:

<http://www.southernstudies.org/reports/VotingWhileBlackJan05.pdf>

Thnaks to Dzika on the daily thread

:shrug:

Jordan Green just got this email from me:

"I was just sent your recent Southern Exposure article "Voting While Black". While the title was intriguing enough to open the article, the second paragraph stopped me cold, particularly this sentence:

'Almost any rigorous examination of the methods of counting votes in Election 2004 by race, party clout and political subdivision suggests that Bush legitimately won reelection.'

"Since your article didn't include a bibliography, I couldn't know immediately if you've done any "rigorous examination" yourself of the 2004 election theft, or at what depth. There is a great deal of definitive evidence of voter intimidation and suppression, election day "dirty tricks", curiously consistent touch-screen voting machine "glitches" that always defaulted for Bush in two dozen states, and mountains of other evidence of election fraud and theft (including the "phantom votes" in almost half of New Mexico's counties) to document the dismantling of the "consent of the governed" in this country. Have you read that evidence? If so, you haven't referenced it.

"Since there are no references to the definitive research work on this election theft, I must ask you if you have read Freeman, Phillips, Rubin, Simon, the EIRS reports, Mitofsky's own rebuttal of his only theory for the exit poll "disconnect", the lawsuits filed in several states, the Conyers report, the GAO's 57,000+ complaints of election irregularities, etc., etc.? Have you reviewed the extensive analyses of the exit poll data leaked to us a month ago by New Zealand journalists after Mitofsky stopped answering questions and the corporate media fell silent? Have you read the November 3, 2004 front page of the Washington Post, which shows that -- no matter what demographic category you choose -- Kerry beat Bush by 51% to 48%? Are you aware of the laws broken in Ohio and other states to prevent (or at least stall) a proper recount of the vote there? Have you studied the pre-election and post-election polls that show (on average) that Bush has never held majority support in this country, and that his poll numbers are now the lowest of any re-elected President in polling history? Have you done any of this?

"If you had, you would know that between 4.3 and 5 million votes were cast for Kerry but counted for Bush. You would also know that the voter suppression and "dirty tricks" activities of the Republicans probably dissuaded another one to two million Kerry voters from casting their votes at all (and that's a conservative estimate.)

"I will read your article in depth tomorrow but since my first reading shows no reference to any of the above citations, it appears that you haven't even begun an investigation, much less conducted a rigorous one. I would be happy to provide you links to everything I have cited above, in hopes that you are one of those journalists who still wants to get the story right, even when he screws the pooch the first time around.

"Just to let you know that some of us who believe the election was stolen are basing our opinions on our relevant educational background and professional experience, I've attached my biographic sketch and resume (Note to DU: Three decades of public health epidemiology experience, fourteen pages of publications and graduate training at Vanderbilt, Texas, Stanford and Berkeley). I knew on November 3rd that the election had been stolen, and I now share that opinion with 30% of the American public (according to a recent Annenberg survey.) So educate yourself fully, if you have not done so already. And write a followup piece worthy of someone who is privileged to draw inspiration from the New Mexico mountains and the Land of Enchantment's sage-scented breezes. (I'm a former epidemiologist for the NM Department of Health, and big pieces of my heart will always remain in Pojoaque and Placita.)

"Once again, please respond if you'd like a linked reading list. The worst paper written about the election theft so far was the one by Russ Baker for TomPaine.com (which has now been thoroughly discredited) and your article looks suspiciously like it's competing for number 2. I know that was not your intention, so please let me help you wade back into this issue by sending you the twenty best links to the evidence for this election theft. We all deserve better than to be ruled by an unelected criminal cartel, and to be ill served by a dismissive and poorly informed Fourth Estate. However, I agree with you that disenfranchising my friends in Indian Country -- the Dineh, the Zuni, the Acoma, the Laguna, the Picuris, the Crow, the Shoshone, the Arapaho -- demands that all of us return to the warpath, together, to take our country back.

"Now go breathe some New Mexico air for me and consider yourself lucky. I will read your article more thoroughly tomorrow, and will await your request for more information to better inform your opinions regarding this theft of our democracy. When you get a chance, please enjoy some green chile soon at the Roadrunner Cafe in Pojoaque, and smile at the gap-toothed waitress for me."

... about the dismissive content and tone of this article. It's only seven pages long, but it will get your blood boiling. Read it and react, PLEASE.

I would really like ALL OF US to DU this article with as many strong voices as possible to say that IT'S THE STOLEN ELECTION, STUPID. We need Phillips, the Fress Press folks, Freeman, berniew1 and other EIRSers, TIA, understandinglife, Faye and anyone else who can take a few minutes to write this author and this on-line journal.

I am going on a personal crusade to get DU to respond strongly and loudly whenever a supposed "blue" journal or author writes a dismissive piece about the evidence of our 2004 stolen election. Read my response above and you'll know how I feel about this article. Despite its provocative title, it is a poorly informed,dismissive and wrongheaded article.

Jordan Green's email address (off the web-site for his current newspaper in New Mexico) is jordangreen75@yahoo.com

The web-site that Green's article was published on inSouthern Exposure is: www.southernstudies.org

You can contact this journal at info@southernstudies.org

Speak up, DUers. Join this Orange Stater's crusade for election justice, and for our blue spokesmen having an f***ing clue what they're talking about when they try to speak to, and for, us.

Please keep this kicked for a while. I'm going to PM some of you to ask you to use this article as another opportunity to speak directly to those who would misrepresent -- in our names -- the smoking arsenal of the 2004 election theft.

Dear Mr. Green,

For the most part, I thoroughly enjoyed your article about voter disfenfranchisement that occurred in the 2004 election. You do a great job of outlining the methods and examples of undercounting the minority vote in many states. However, you make one major mistake in your analysis. This mistake has been made over and over again by journalists and writers in the past months, and I urge you write further about this subject with the following in mind:

George W. Bush may not have won the election legitimately. It is quite likely that he did not.

In your article, you say several times that despite the irregularities and inconcistencies, George Bush won the election. But please ask yourself: what is the point of systematically disenfranchising certain voters, voters who will overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, if not to guarantee the results of the election?

You make it quite clear in your article that the majority of the reported errors favored Bush. If this was caused by arbitrary incompetence, the errors would be spread more evenly. It is plain and simple.

It concerns me that so many writers, from both the corporate and independent media, are refusing to investigate the possibility that the outcome of this election may have changed due to these irregularities. It is appalling.

We need a full investigation into the irregularities. We need intelligent voices like yours shouting this over the rooftops so our leaders heed the call. Election fraud has existed throughout our nation's voting history, that is certain. The technology we are using now, both to record and count our votes, makes the prospect of widespread fraud or error worrisome, at the least, and devastating, at the worst.

I recommend starting here for research:

http://www.jqjacobs.net/bush/

Warm regards,

XXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX

More Duers, speak up -- we need to address these bad errors and conclusions whenever and wherever they appear in the media.

You never know what'll work. Hopefully he'll heed our advice!
:bounce:

Say it like it is!

:yourock:

And on edit, I will read it and speak up. I am still reeling from the Kevin Shelley debacle her in CA.

AND we need to get some California newspapers investigating the Shelley situation. The war's heating up and we need to SHOUT TRUTH TO POWER.

part of the huge swing in states like Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, etc. There appear to have been enough votes swung in 4 or 5 states to negate apparent Kerry wins in those states-
Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
and perhaps Nevada, Iowa, Missouri. http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html
Compiler switches of Kerry votes in straight Dem ticket votes were a factor in some of these other states, and no careful analysis of how many votes were swung by this has been done. But it could be very large.

... of the impact of the suppression, dirty tricks, fraud and theft on the vote count -- he missed that completely.

Talk about truth in advertising. The title was so provocative (and suggested knowledge of the subject), but the shallowness of his analysis and his conclusions were completely uninformed and wrong. That's why I'm kicking this thread.

If anything, we're not telling the qualitative "story" of the suppression and the dirty tricks that occurred in 2004 nearly as well as we're telling the quantitative "story" of this election theft. There's a lot there in the suppression/dirty tricks arena that any audience can hear and understand, when a major portion of the quantitative story goes over the heads of many audiences.

Let's keep kicking this thread a while to get people to read and respond to the article. I know a letter from you to the author and to the journal would mean a lot.

... interested reporter sniffing around more in New Mexico. I'm sure you directed him to the NM EIRS files. Thanks -- maybe we'll have an impact.

I think he is well-intentioned, he talks about impeachment!, but he is still missing my point (see my post #10 for my original letter, and my response to his reply below)...

Hi Megan,

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comments. I can see how you could draw the conclusion that George W. Bush didn't win the election legitimately. In truth, this business of election statistics relies heavily on probabilities. You take short cuts because sitting down and recounting the votes for every precinct isn't possible. You look for theft and malfeasance where you think it's most likely to have happened.
> My analysis is that George Bush won it legitimately. I'm aware that the secretary of state in Ohio limited provisional balloting to specific precinct, which probably depressed the youth and minority vote. I'm aware that Republicans launched vote challenge operations in some majority black precincts. I'm aware that there were long lines in a lot of majority black precincts. Still, my guess is that the unprecedented mobilization of Democratic constituencies more than offset those factors.

I forgot to mention the GOP groups' schemes to trick likely Democratic voters into going to the polls on the wrong day. I don't think it depressed the Democratic vote enough to close the margin of difference between the two candidates.

It seems like you're suggesting we should conclude there was a Republican conspiracy to steal the election because there is such an obvious pattern of minority votes not being counted. But what about all the conservative white counties in southeastern Ohio that had even higher residual voting rates than black Democratic Cleveland. I can also tell you there are plenty of conservative Anglo counties in New Mexico's "Little Texas" where higher than average numbers of voters didn't have their votes for president counted.
> These are counties that went for Bush 7-3. When you have high numbers of uncounted votes for president, you can't always chalk it up to system error.
> How can we say that the votes weren't counted because the voters either a) didn't care or b) made a mistake?

Megan, if you knew my politics, you can bet that I would cry foul if I saw evidence of systematic fraud. I based my judgment on the facts that I gathered. Because I don't see any convincing evidence of fraud, I encourage progressives, of which I count myself one, to move on. There's plenty of work to do: organizing marginalized constituencies who should be with us, challenging the legality of Bush's militarism. For all I know, impeachment is a possibility.
>
> All the best,
> Jordan

Hi Jordan -

I really appreciate you getting back to me. I would like to point out that I never said Bush DIDN'T win, I just said that he MAY not have won, and that it warrants investigation. I also never said it was a Republican conspiracy, but again, that an investigation is necessary to determine what we can about these 'irregularities'. That part of your reply is what I would expect someone like Bill O'Reilly to use to shut up a guest who is trying to have a rational conversation about this important issue. It is NOT about a 'conspiracy theory' (well, except in the most literal sense, if you look at the dictionary meanings of those words), and it is not about the outcome of one contest on one ballot in one election year.

It is much easier to brush this off when we assume it won't change the result. But, in my opinion, changing the result of the election is not the important thing here. The important thing is knowing, without a doubt that the man in the White House is the person the American people chose for their President. There is a recent Annenberg survey which indicates that 70% of Amercan voters were either 'very' or 'somewhat' sure their votes were counted correctly. That leaves nearly 1 of 3 people questioning the counting of their votes.

You say that you have concluded that this wasn't wideposread enough to make a difference and to look into further. You say that is based on your research. I am saying that you haven't done your research.
I agree that our President has committed impeachable crimes that have nothing to do with the election. I work toward the goal of impeachment. But that is a seperate issue from true Election Reform. And to reform our election system successfully, we have to investigate it's problems fully.
I am sure there are many topics that interest you, and if you go no further on this issue that is your choice. Keep on fighting the good fight!

Warm regards,

XXXXXXXXXXXX

I don't think he has studied the issue at all. And his dismissive tone covers a very shallow understanding of the facts of this election theft.

In my letter, I asked him a series of direct questions about what he knew about the evidence for the election theft. I look forward to his response, but from re-reading his paper today, I see almost no scholarship in reviewing the bedrock of what is now known. In some ways, it is so close to the Russ Baker piece in TomPaine.com as to appear to have been poured from the same pitcher of Kool-Aid.

Unless and until young Mr. Green can display anything like serious scholarship on this issue, he can keep the dismissive tone he used with you because, to me, he's pretty tone-deaf.

If he should respond to my letter, I will certainly share it with all of you. For me, I'm sending him this comment also. I do hope to hear from him eventually. Because the only ones I'm accustomed to hearing "move on" from are Repugs who want the American people to avert their eyes from this franchise train wreck that they've achieved for all of us to see. Certainly not people who presume to be progressive, but come across as mainly clueless.

... to learning. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Here's his letter to me and my response:
-----
Jordan Green wrote:

> Hi Bernie,
>
> It looks like you've already e-mailed me the links, but I'd be glad to look at more if you've got it. I'm a working journalist. I don't pretend to be the most qualified. Do a Google search of me if you want to see my bibliography.
>
> I used to live in Espanola, NM, but now live in Greensboro. I share your affection for the Land of Disenchantment.
>
> Since you've only read two paragraphs, I'd be interested to know what you think of the other 200 plus.
>
> Best,
> Jordan

My response:

Jordan,

I read the article last night and again today, twice. My conclusion remains the same -- that you have lots of reading to do to catch up on the rigorous research that has been conducted on this election theft. What I sent you were not links, but a bit of my professional background to let you know that I am not acting from a comfort with conspiracy but from the discomfort of a three decade social scientist and epidemiologist faced with overwhelming evidence of an election theft. And your article covers only a few aspects of the crime, displays some major holes in what we know in Ohio, New Mexico and other states and in general does not reflect any familiarity with much of the principal studies, investigations and eye witness accounts chronicled by the Election Incident Reporting System, the GAO and other sources.

I am very, very concerned about the impressions left by your piece and by the conspicuous absence of any discussion of the well-documented evidence that should inform any discussion of this election theft by now. And I am a bit puzzled at your level of certainty that the election was won by Bush "fair and square" in the absence of any apparent awareness of that literature. Believe me, this story is only growing, not quieting down. So if you're a journalist in a position to keep growing along with this story, there's much you can do to catch up.

You could start by simply going through my earlier letter and answering "yes" or "no" to the many questions I asked about whose works you have read, what information you have considered, what your primary sources are, etc. At the same time, you might want to look at the three attachments I have included with this email. They are the Freeman paper, the Daily Kos review for the case of fraud in Ohio and a one page list of multiple links to important reports and papers about the election theft that I have compiled. They will give you something to read immediately. After getting your comments (of what evidence you're already aware of) in response to my first letter, I will send you additional links, as necessary.

And as far as what I thought of your paper, here's what I posted on "democratic underground" about your paper, along with a recommendation that other DUers read your paper and send you their comments. I've already seen what you sent Megan (as well as her response to you), and I must tell you that she thinks (like me) that you just "don't get it." Here's what I posted earlier today: (sent him one of my earlier posts)

As you can see, I've never been known to mince words. Please review the attached articles and the reference list and then get back to me. Once you get past my sarcasm, you will find someone who would be happy to bring you up-to-speed on the evidence, if you are serious about being a journalist with other opportunities to grow into a story and to better inform your perspective.

Fly by night

This is a fellow I talked with about his Halliburton research a couple of years ago. I was very impressed with his research, which was totally detail, grunt work, the kind of thing almost nobody was doing.

I think those of us who have been slaving away on this election stuff for months or years need to keep the door open for well-intentioned folks -- I'm thinking Jordan is well-intentioned. But, the tough part for a journalist to admit is that he didn't get the full story in his weeks of work.

It takes apparently more than just a handful of weeks to do this particular story.

And, like a lot of people, he frames it as "you have to prove Bush lost or there's no point in persisting". W R O N G

It's like he listened to (and believed!) the Congressional "debate" on January 6th, when every person who stood up there said, "We don't dispute that George Bush won."

I wrote him again. He sounds like a good guy that we want on our side!


Hi Jordan - Upon rereading my second email to you this morning, I want
to apologize for coming across as somewhat gruff. It occurs to me that
you don't know me, and you probably don't understand my tone- I am
sorry if I seemed dismissive, I did not mean to. I was writing
quickly. I get very frustrated at the assertion that this is an
intenet theory of conspiracy, and that is what I was reacting to. Just
as I felt you were writing me off as a conspiracy theorist, I reacted
to only a few things you said. And I certainly did not mean to say you
haven't done your research, I just feel that there is more to read on
the subject.

I only want to add this one link, to demonstrate that some very
well-credentialed people have come to some interesting conclusions.
The following report was presented by a number of Ph.D.s from such
universities as Temple and Cornell. Please, at the least, read this
report.

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

Again, thank you for your hard work. I am so afraid that, after 2000
and 2004, America will still be surprised in 2008 if there is another
shady election. That is my biggest fear. I have spent many hours over
the last couple of weeks reading and analyzing bills being introduced
in both houses of Congress for Election Reform, and corresponding with
my Congresspeople, Senators, and their staff. I am extremely committed
to this cause, and I want to be sure the right changes are made to our
system. I fear that, until we fully investigate the 2004 election, we
will not be able to get the right bill passed. I don't want you to
think I am just a grumpy 'armchair activist' upset because my
preferred candidate did not win. If you do decide to study this issue
further, and if you have any questions about a particular aspect,
please feel free to ask me. I have a lot of good resources bookmarked!

Have a great week.

Sincerely,

I hope to hear back from him. I agree that he sounds like he could be a good guy on this. I would also recommend that you communicate with Southern Exposure, the journal that published Green's paper (see my earlier posts for a link), let them know how you feel and suggest they open their journal for a rebuttal. I'm sure we could find several folks (including us) who'd be happy to set them straight. The journal also has an obligation to inform its readers better than that single article did.

Keep that honey flowing!!

That's a great idea for Southern Exposure to open its pages to rebuttal.

Will you post their contact info, so several of us could write suggesting that?

I could see them getting several excellent rebuttals, and having to print them all!

The web-site where Green's article was published is in Southern Exposure: www.southernstudies.org

You can contact this journal at info@southernstudies.org

I have already written them once. I think I will also copy them on my last follow-up letter to Jordan. It's a good idea to encourage them to allow full-blown rebuttals, not just short letters-to-the-editor.

Great idea.

... or he would have probably dismissed it. I did send him some useful documentation and I hope he'll read it and get back in touch with me. I may send him that short PowerPoint program I've pulled together on the election theft, in hopes he takes a look at that too.

I know that at least four DUers wrote him also, so hopefully it will stimulate some re-thinking on his part about his conclusions. It definitely seems to be a pattern among too many journalists on our side to drink that "just move on -- there's nothing to see here" Kool-Aid -- Baker, Palast, Not In Our Name, etc.

I keep wondering -- what's up with that?