portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

election fraud | political theory

Soiling the spoiler theory.

Nader continues to garner the wretching hatred of the Democratic party for being a potential spoiler. He is called a narcisist and worse for even daring to run. Does this mean that everyone has forgotten what happened in 2000?
On Nader the spoiler (a story promoted in all media - even "public" radio & TV): From the 2000 election, we know that:
  • Blacks were deliberately disenfranchised by removing verification requirements on "felon lists" requiring only first name & last name (in any combination - "clarence thomas=thomas clarence") and race to match. (An easy target in FL where I believe the ratio of black to white felons is ?5:1? maybe a little lower. Texas lists were used in FL too.
  • Colored voters described intimidation by state police.
  • Ballot boxes were reported missing, but reappered later.
  • An incident was caught whereby a Diebold election systems machine removed 16,000 votes from Gore in one county. The problem in this case was corrected, but was that the only time it happened? [think on this - there is a major logical flaw in these machines if a memory card can subtract votes. How do you pull a lever and subtract a vote?]
  • Does the US Constitution give the US Supreme Court any jurisdiction over state elections? (They ordered the recount stopped, after FL Supremes ordered it to be done. This is a case of FL law, not federal law.)
Most, if not all, of the above can be confirmed from primary sources at blackboxvoting.com and gregpalast.com (including some great video on the latter site - interviewing the people who engineered the election theft). If Nader's 1% went to Gore, wouldn't more ballot boxes have disappeared? wouldn't more memory cards have malfunctioned? Also, it should be alarming as hell to anyone in the sciences that the FL election was decided by a margin smaller than the state's admitted margin of error. This fact was very underreported. But, it is my belief that the close margin of "victory" was intentional. Otherwise, exit polls would have shown such major discrepancies that nobody would have believed a Bush victory. My point is that the "Nader is a spoiler" story is another lie in the headlines. It reinforces the lie that the election was in any way legitimate. It is a shill story to keep a third party or people's candidate as far away from the Oval Office as possible, just like the "Dean anger problem", or the incredible, invisible Dennis Kucinich.
don't bother democrats with the facts 01.Apr.2004 12:15

it's like pulling teeth

The democrats don't want to hear about election fraud. They don't want to hear about the problems of letting their campaigns be run by republicans. They certainly don't want to hear that their corporate party politicians are supporting all of Bush's policies and that their party is more republican than the republican party of a few decades ago. It doesn't matter that they can't provide any evidence that Nader was a spoiler; all that matters is that they believe it. And why shouldn't they? They were told that Nader was a spoiler by the corporate media (and we all know they never lie to suit their agenda) for months before and after the 2000 election. And of course, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. And given the emotional investment most democrats have made into demonizing Nader cognitive dissonance will prevent them from ever admitting they were wrong, or worse, counter-productive to furthering the causes they profess to believe in.

As for facts about the election fraud, I would add:

* The illegal voter felon purges removed 90,000+ voters illegally and was admitted by Katherine Harris under oath in court (Katherine Harris v. NAACP).

* Jeb Bush was already under 2 court orders prior to the 2000 election for illegally removing voters from the rolls.

* The voting machines in predominantly minority counties were set to not indicate ballot errors leading to as many as 1 in 8 ballots not being counted those counties.

* The Florida government said they would certify their electors for Bush regardless of any recount.

* The Supreme Court (which as was pointed out, had no jurisdiction in the Bush v. Gore case) made 2 remarkable admissions: 1) That they case was decided on the basis that recounts would harm Bush's legitimacy as president and 2) that the case did no set precedent (making it unique in the history of the Supreme Court).

Of course, there is more to the spoiling the spoiler argument which is the misguided and unsupported assumption that without Nader Gore would have picked up votes. But since you are focusing just on Florida I think not resorting to any arguments which in any way support the notion that the Florida elections were legitimate is important. Gore was never going win Florida; there were many people who made sure of that. It is also assured that a democrat will not win Florida in 2004 and likewise Texas and Nebraska. The real question is will the democrats be able to win their typical support states now that those states have purchased large numbers of voting machines from republican owned and operated corporations. California and Maryland are 2 to watch in 2004.

"spoiler" is dishonest to begin with; no such accusation is legitimate 13.Aug.2004 14:08

Stacy-Alfwin MacFadden

The reply to an accusation of "spoiler" should not be that a different victor in the duopoly didn't win; it should be that unless the accuser will admit to wishing third parties banned, the claim is dishonest to begin with. If neither of the two major parties will do, then the lesser one obviously will not do. If one cannot pressure a party or a politician with a vote, that vote has no meaning. Unless the Democrats face the risk of losing particular elections, they will not address the concerns of those to the left of them. Think of it this way: if there were only one party so far, and it was forbidden in practice to have more, claims of democracy would meet with a consensus of ridicule. Why, then, do claims of democracy not get shouted down when it is in practice (I do not see the point of a sham alternative) forbidden to have a third party? Because the mad concept of spoiler is allowed. Put plainly, if the lesser evil cannot lose in consequence of the third alternative, the third alternative is a sham. Lesser or no, an evil is an evil, and if I must vote for what to me is evil, I should be allowed to denounce the vote as fradulent.