Op-Ed
Remarks at the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center on November 10, 2012: Thank you to Sergio for inviting me and helping set up this little trip I'm on. Before I forget, tomorrow is Armistice Day, so we'll be celebrating by dying in front of Senator Feinstein's house at 10 a.m. at Vallejo & Lyon Streets before walking across the Golden Gate Bridge. Please come. And at 1:30 Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan and I will be speaking on the question of whether U.S. wars are legal at the main public library in San Francisco. We can talk about that question today, if you want, but I won't make it the main focus of my opening remarks.
I saw the article that made it to nationofchange.org. I used to think that the electoral college should be abolished as well. After having served as an election judge in Minnesota through several cycles, I see one major drawback to using the direct popular vote. In a really close election, does anyone want to consider what a nationwide recount would look like? Seriously, I think that is a huge and real potential problem.
Instead, I would like to see the electors to come out of each congressional district. That would limit the scope of recounts and make them manageable. So, what to do with the other two electors per state? Well, the states could decide to award them based on popular vote in the state. That would seem best. Of course in a state like North Dakota, it would essentially still be winner-take-all, but that is a natural outcome of only having one congressional district.
Instead, I would like to see the electors to come out of each congressional district. That would limit the scope of recounts and make them manageable. So, what to do with the other two electors per state? Well, the states could decide to award them based on popular vote in the state. That would seem best. Of course in a state like North Dakota, it would essentially still be winner-take-all, but that is a natural outcome of only having one congressional district.
Summary So Far
So far, I have been discussing the Lucasville uprising as a whole. I’ve asked: Why should we doubt the accuracy of the trial court verdicts? What caused this rebellion, anyway? In what sense can these events be called “tragic”?
Let’s sum up where we have arrived.
In Essay 1 we offered some examples of the unreliability of conclusions asserted by prosecutors in trials after the end of the uprising. Particularly dramatic was the statement of one of the prosecutors (now a state court judge), Daniel Hogan, that we would never know “who hands-on killed the corrections officer, [Robert] Vallandingham. . . . I don’t know. And I don’t think we’ll ever know.” How can the State of Ohio propose to execute three men (Siddique Abdullah Hasan, Jason Robb, and James Were) for the murder of Officer Vallandingham when it doesn’t even know who killed him?
So far, I have been discussing the Lucasville uprising as a whole. I’ve asked: Why should we doubt the accuracy of the trial court verdicts? What caused this rebellion, anyway? In what sense can these events be called “tragic”?
Let’s sum up where we have arrived.
In Essay 1 we offered some examples of the unreliability of conclusions asserted by prosecutors in trials after the end of the uprising. Particularly dramatic was the statement of one of the prosecutors (now a state court judge), Daniel Hogan, that we would never know “who hands-on killed the corrections officer, [Robert] Vallandingham. . . . I don’t know. And I don’t think we’ll ever know.” How can the State of Ohio propose to execute three men (Siddique Abdullah Hasan, Jason Robb, and James Were) for the murder of Officer Vallandingham when it doesn’t even know who killed him?
Let’s try to visualize the most unfair criminal trial we can imagine. Let’s make a
list of elements that might be part of such an unjust proceeding.
The list might include the following elements.
1. The judge excuses one potential jury member after another who states that he or she could not in good conscience recommend the death penalty.
2. The evidence in support of convicting the defendant consists entirely of testimony by other prisoners.
Each of these elements was present in the trial of George Skatzes, who was found guilty and sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of prisoners Earl Elder and David Sommers. In addition, in the portion of the trial concerning Mr. Elder’s death:
3. Skatzes was sentenced to death for allegedly ordering prisoner Rodger Snodgrass to murder Earl Elder. But Snodgrass, a prosecution witness, testified that Elder was still alive when he left Elder’s cell.
1. The judge excuses one potential jury member after another who states that he or she could not in good conscience recommend the death penalty.
2. The evidence in support of convicting the defendant consists entirely of testimony by other prisoners.
Each of these elements was present in the trial of George Skatzes, who was found guilty and sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of prisoners Earl Elder and David Sommers. In addition, in the portion of the trial concerning Mr. Elder’s death:
3. Skatzes was sentenced to death for allegedly ordering prisoner Rodger Snodgrass to murder Earl Elder. But Snodgrass, a prosecution witness, testified that Elder was still alive when he left Elder’s cell.
Election 2012 probably doesn’t prove anything.
But it provides some evidence for the hopeful proposition that: even when the game is rigged, the cheaters lose:
· MONEY. Even though the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed gross amounts of money (almost $6 billion) from known and unknown donors to distort the process, few elections near the top of the ballot appear to have been bought. But the down-ballot races may be most of the iceberg.
Big money may not have overwhelmed the electoral system in 2012, but that’s far from saying big money doesn’t control too much of government and too many public officials.
· PROCESS. Even though hyper-partisan Republican legislators, election officials, and outside groups made a concerted effort by a variety of means to suppress voting by likely Democratic-leaningconstituencies, there was sufficient pushback from the courts, the Justice Department, and professional election officials to allow the democratic process to function pretty well.
But it provides some evidence for the hopeful proposition that: even when the game is rigged, the cheaters lose:
· MONEY. Even though the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed gross amounts of money (almost $6 billion) from known and unknown donors to distort the process, few elections near the top of the ballot appear to have been bought. But the down-ballot races may be most of the iceberg.
Big money may not have overwhelmed the electoral system in 2012, but that’s far from saying big money doesn’t control too much of government and too many public officials.
· PROCESS. Even though hyper-partisan Republican legislators, election officials, and outside groups made a concerted effort by a variety of means to suppress voting by likely Democratic-leaningconstituencies, there was sufficient pushback from the courts, the Justice Department, and professional election officials to allow the democratic process to function pretty well.
A HUGE thank you to Bob Fitrakis and the Free Press for their tireless efforts to prevent another theft of Ohio’s vote. USA Today, Forbes, The Atlantic Magazine, Harper’s Magazine, & Huffpost all (finally) reported on dangers of black box voting on DREs. Bob was in an Ohio court on election day to get a temporary restraining order to prevent use of the untested, uncertified software patches installed late last week that would circumvent the regular reporting procedures to the secretary of state. The order was not granted, but Bob's work and the efforts of activists finally shone enough light on the subject to break the silence of the mainstream media... We are coming closer to the day when Athan Gibbs may finally rest in PEACE!
In memory of Athan: I thank you, Bob, from the bottom of my heart…
In memory of Athan: I thank you, Bob, from the bottom of my heart…
The simple truth of Barack Obama's victory is that if it had just come down to Ohio, Mitt Romney might have won.
The gears of the election theft machine were well-oiled and running at top speed...until an "October Surprise" named Hurricane Sandy intervened.
Those now rejoicing over the Obama triumph should know that there is absolutely no excuse for leaving this sinister apparatus of electronic election theft in place. Election reform should be at the top of the progressive movement's list, led by the non-negotiable demands for universal hand-counted paper ballots and universal automatic voter registration. As Obama said in his victory speech in reference to the long lines in Florida: "We need to do something about that."
This year, as in 2004, the Rovian blueprint was simple if not clean: keep the election close enough that Ohio and Florida would be the deciders…and then do the deciding.
Part One was the massive Jim/Juan Crow campaign aimed at disenfranchising millions of primarily black and Hispanic voters throughout the US, but especially in swing states Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.
The gears of the election theft machine were well-oiled and running at top speed...until an "October Surprise" named Hurricane Sandy intervened.
Those now rejoicing over the Obama triumph should know that there is absolutely no excuse for leaving this sinister apparatus of electronic election theft in place. Election reform should be at the top of the progressive movement's list, led by the non-negotiable demands for universal hand-counted paper ballots and universal automatic voter registration. As Obama said in his victory speech in reference to the long lines in Florida: "We need to do something about that."
This year, as in 2004, the Rovian blueprint was simple if not clean: keep the election close enough that Ohio and Florida would be the deciders…and then do the deciding.
Part One was the massive Jim/Juan Crow campaign aimed at disenfranchising millions of primarily black and Hispanic voters throughout the US, but especially in swing states Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.
Earlier this year President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. It allows for the indefinite detention without trial for any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism.
Some might have thought that there would be wide-spread revolt among people who voted for Obama against legalized indefinite detention. And there was some protest, mostly led by Chris Hedges (who did not vote for Obama), with some legal victories against the law.
But the political success seems to have come from the law itself -- in favor of Obama. Instead of provoking a revolt, the result seems to be this:
Obama is in effect telling his supporters: "You better support me more, because I just signed this law saying the president of the U.S. can detain anyone he wants. Now, do you want me to have this power, or do you want Mitt Romney to have this power?"
And so, perversely, Obama by signing a law most of his supporters almost certainly didn't want, has actually ensured a greater grip on them. He has in effect indefinitely detained them.
Some might have thought that there would be wide-spread revolt among people who voted for Obama against legalized indefinite detention. And there was some protest, mostly led by Chris Hedges (who did not vote for Obama), with some legal victories against the law.
But the political success seems to have come from the law itself -- in favor of Obama. Instead of provoking a revolt, the result seems to be this:
Obama is in effect telling his supporters: "You better support me more, because I just signed this law saying the president of the U.S. can detain anyone he wants. Now, do you want me to have this power, or do you want Mitt Romney to have this power?"
And so, perversely, Obama by signing a law most of his supporters almost certainly didn't want, has actually ensured a greater grip on them. He has in effect indefinitely detained them.
When British economist and public intellectual John Maynard Keynes wrote his famous essay entitled “The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill” in 1925, the British economy was still suffering the consequences of WWI, and was slowly sliding into the worst economic depression in world history. Today, as the Great Recession continues to devastate millions of people’s lives in the United States, Americans will decide in a matter of days whether they want Mr. Obama to continue on as President for another four-year term, or elect Governor Romney to replace him in the White House. As an economist who is committed to social justice, I would like to offer a brief assessment of President Obama’s economic policies during his first term, and speculate on the likely direction that the U.S. will take under a second term Obama administration versus a possible Romney White House.
With election day less than a week away, the spectre of another stolen election is upon us. The airwaves and internet are at last filling with discussion of this possibility.
When the first stories were broken by a handful of us after the fiascos of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, there was a stunning silence, followed by a wide range of attacks. Today the warnings about the possibility of another election theft are taken with increasing gravity.
The question is deep and profound, with a huge body of research and writing surrounding it.
But among the many concerns, two are key: massive disenfranchisement, and manipulation of the electronic vote count.
DISENFRANCHISEMENT:
When the first stories were broken by a handful of us after the fiascos of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, there was a stunning silence, followed by a wide range of attacks. Today the warnings about the possibility of another election theft are taken with increasing gravity.
The question is deep and profound, with a huge body of research and writing surrounding it.
But among the many concerns, two are key: massive disenfranchisement, and manipulation of the electronic vote count.
DISENFRANCHISEMENT: