The answer is yes the Republicans did have the means to steal elections
back in 1982, but they got away with it even more easily in the days
before the internet.
The "VoteScam" video is especially helpful for gaining a glimpse into
the election theft methods of the 1980's and before. I forgot to
include the link before. Here 'tis:
(59 mins-- but worth it! People need to know the problem of U.S.
election rigging and theft has been around since long before touchscreens).
So, the so-called "Bradley Effect" is probably just another lie like the
"reluctant Bush responder" was in 2004. Let's get the truth out there
and blow this thing wide open before they try to use the "Bradley Effect" to
explain why Obama lost the 2008 election. There is a great deal of
power in getting this argument out before the election, because after
the election we all know what they'll say... "Sour grapes! Sour
grapes! Sour grapes!". Bringing it up now and widely circulating that
the Bradley Effect is B.S. may force them to come up with some other
stupid excuse... but any other excuse is likely to be so transparently
bad that it probably won't work at all (I hope).
The cunning thing about the Bradley Effect is it plays into people's
suspicions that there are a lot of closet racists out there in a way
that allows them to feel morally superior to most of their fellow
citizens ("I'm not a closet racist-- I said I was going to vote for
Obama and I did, by golly, but all those other jerks... grrrrrr.....")
It's sort of like sitcoms selling Americans the idea that they're
smarter than most of the people around them by showing so many stupid
characters on TV.
Now, there probably are plenty of racists out there, but the idea that
they wouldn't be able to fabricate some reason for not voting for Obama
other than "Well, He's Black, So OBVIOUSLY I Can't Vote For Him" is
utterly ludicrous. Racists aren't so dumb that they can't come up with
a simple answer like "I don't think he has enough experience" or "I
don't think he'll protect us from terrorists as well as McCain" or all
the other empty reasons out there for voting for McCain, some of which
may be sincere for some people, but many of which ring hollow for many
Ann Tattersall wrote:
> Yes, I have always assumed there was something fishy about those 1982
> election results. The question is, did the Republicans have the means
> to steal that election? And if it was stolen, what was the method?
> They certainly had the motivation. Ann Tattersall
> Marc Baber wrote:
>> Was the Bradley Defeat in 1982 Election Theft?
>> Please note: The so-called Bradley Effect is just an unproven
>> theory. There has never, as far as I'm aware, been any evidence
>> presented that Bradley's loss in the 1982 Calif Governor's race was
>> due to racists mis-stating their actual voting intentions to
>> pollsters. There is another perfectly viable theory-- election
>> theft. What we now know of election theft from 2000 and 2004 is that
>> election theft in the USA precedes the introduction of touchscreen
>> voting systems (See the 1980's era "VoteScam" documentary). An
>> analysis of 2004 votes (see http://www.truthinvoting.org page for
>> details) shows that EVERY voting system (paper with optical scan,
>> lever-mechanical, touchscreen, etc.) was "red-shifted" by 5-10%. The
>> only exception was hand-counted paper ballots that exhibited a
>> discrepancy of only 1% or less. The discrepancy between exit polls
>> and official counts was NOT explained by the so-call "Reluctant Bush
>> Responder" (rBr) theory because, according to that theory, the skew
>> should have been greater in predominantly Republican districts-- It
>> wasn't. The rBr theory was presented in the MSM as if it were fact
>> and was never questioned in the official press.
>> So, it's very likely that what we have here is Pundits preparing to
>> explain a Very Big Lie (Why Obama Lost the election in spite of the
>> Polls) with another Very Big Lie (Racists exist and mistate their
>> voting intentions to cover their racism) which was used in 1982 to
>> cover the most likely truth (The 1982 California Governor's Race was
>> At the very least, we have to admit we have no way of knowing which
>> theory explains the 1982 Bradley loss.
>> The election reform movement needs to prepare the public for this
>> potential Very Big Lie-- to take it with a 5 lb bag of salt-- to be
>> very skeptical and look for actual evidence and statistical analysis
>> to determine the truth, not the lying pundits' speculations in the MSM.
>> Best regards to all,
>> Marc B.
I also would like to pose a couple of questions to this erudite group --
- Are EI people putting forth the scientific method of exit polls (long disparaged by the GOP) as the method of final arbitration in the upcoming election? In the absence of verifiable votes, putting forth a logical method to determine the real results of this election seems to be a sound interim solution. I'd imagine writing letters to the editor of major papers and sensitizing the public to this issue in the next two weeks might be a worthwhile effort.
- Is there a grassroots campaign somewhere to have a distinctive and large scale peaceful act of civil disobedience in the event of yet another stolen election? With Bush quietly killing the Posse Comitatus Act, I would be concerned about unplanned demonstrations, and believe a coherent grassroots campaign could have great impact.
Adjunct Professor, Evergreen Valley College
Award winning Screenwriter of BLACK BOX
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around