O-hio

Well, the news of the week appears to be Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s, article in Rolling Stone about whether the election was stolen in Ohio in 2004. My friend Albert calls it electrifying, Will Bunch hopes it will start some useful debate; no matter what you think, it's a remarkable consolidation of studies and documentation of a huge array of questionable events (with context from experience in previous elections and other nations).

After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes

Much debate has ensued about whether the appearance of this article is a critical development (the break-through of this issue to the major media) or pointless rehashing. Chris Bower thinks it's more important to get involved than to place blame with faceless corporations or national election regulations, and I certainly agree, but I'm not sure that being in the room during counts really helps if the machines have been hacked in advance. However, the picture painted by Kennedy is much larger than Diebold, and it seems clear that greater oversight (or maybe foresight) by vigilant citizens could have prevented much of it. Just part of the "all politics is local" reality; the battle must be fought county by county. . .