OR: Both Sides Play Dirty, We the Voter Loses
Published on October 18, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
BUSH CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL RESIGNS President Bush's New England campaign chairman stepped down Friday after the Democrats accused him of taking part in the jamming of their telephone lines in New Hampshire on Election Day 2002. "The Democrats' allegations against me are without merit," the official, James Tobin, said in a statement. "But to avoid any harm to the campaign from their underhanded tactics, I elected earlier this week to step down from my voluntary position with the campaign." Last summer, Chuck McGee, former executive director of the state Republican Party, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and admitted paying $15,600 to a Virginia company that hired another business to make computer-generated calls that jammed Democrats' phone lines for about 90 minutes. Mr. McGee acknowledged speaking to an unidentified official with a national political organization about the jamming. Democrats have said they believe that Mr. Tobin was the official. (AP)

The last few days have refocused the election now that the debates are over on the actual voting. The election seems to have more abuse going into it than one in Afghanistan. The sophistication of the participants and the millions of dollars that will be spent signal an ever increasing desire on both parties parts to win at all costs.

This is not new, of course, as voter outrages in many states occured in 2000. However, now that the focus has shifted to "how" the election will be conducted it is obvious that both sides need to take a close look not at what could be done, because in a high tech age the election could be invalidated by many different means but rather the result of the tampering.

When I was in high school (back in the middle ages) the girls in my class always served as class officers. But I knew that I could win some spending cash by getting a guy elected. My friends all took the bet and pooh poohed any chance I had of doing it. Just to make it more lucrative, I had them pick the guy we would elect, who was, of course, the class clown (not me, btw, I finished second in that voting). What I did was go to the nominating committee meeting and talk about virtue and honor and, knowing that the class president of our sophomore and junior classes had groups of different friends nominated both of them (well, the junior class president was nominated by someone else, but you get the idea). Anyway, the day of the election came (which was done by getting everyone together in the auditorium (all 91 of us) and electing by a show of hands. The guy my friends picked was sitting in the back trying to think of a way to escape.

I stood up, talked about the rancor in the campaign (both candidates were bitter) and said we needed someone to bring the class together and so I nominated the class clown. He was stunned, of course, but in a brief moment of lucidity stood up, said he would do the best he could and sat down.

The vote went straight according to sex, all boys for the class clown and the girls split down the middle. The class clown was elected, I was a little richer and the rightful officers were usurped. As class president, the class clown went on to anger both teachers and students, cancelled the senior dance (he hated dancing) and divided up the class treasury at the end of the year and then had a "graduation beer bash blowout" following the ceremony.

Here's another issue. The report above was about a Republican campaign chairman for the Northeast (Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Run a search on the man's name (James Tobin) at CNN. You won't get a thing back. This story broke on Saturday the 16th. People at JU are extremely aware of most stories occuring. Had you seen this one?

The point is that elections can be manipulated, but at what cost? Would you want either of these men to be elected because their side played a little dirtier? How much dirtier is acceptable to you before even you could not vote for the man you believed so strongly about?

Can we afford to not have the right to elect?

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 18, 2004
T B:

I also have a background in stats and agree. (Wow! 2 Statisticians look at data and come to the same conclusion, hehehe.) The thing is, in states that will decide by less than 2% of the vote, a couple of thousand "influenced" to vote or not vote might be the difference. That's why the issue is so important.

Did you come up with the Tobin report? If you did, does it add anything to the N.Y. Times item? Thanks for the info on Web Ferret. I'll take a look!
on Oct 18, 2004
I also have a background in stats and agree. (Wow! 2 Statisticians look at data and come to the same conclusion, hehehe.) The thing is, in states that will decide by less than 2% of the vote, a couple of thousand "influenced" to vote or not vote might be the difference. That's why the issue is so important.


Exactly, that 's why I think a model could be created that would be able to objectively invalidate an election. It would only take models for a few states, where, as you correctly point out, a few thousand influenced would tip the scales. It would also be dependent on WHAT states that occured in and how much the election was won or lost by (Ex: Nevada has 5 Electoral Votes, if the election was won by 15 electoral votes and ONLY Nevada had been influenced by such actions, there would be no point in trying to overturn it).

The Tobin Report you speak of, is that the Energy Report? Also, I don't really read newspapers (except the sports... ). Newspapers (IMHO) are WAY too slanted. Generally, I get news from radio and satellite, then try to verify it for myself.

Cheers to you CrispE
on Oct 19, 2004
While we can all agree that "underhanded" tactics are to be condemned, but two trends seem to be developing since the final debate.

Bush's campaign is becoming more upbeat and positive in tone, despite the alleged dirty tricks, staying largely on message. And Kerry's campaign seems to be becoming more stridently negative & critical, grasping at any headline of the day that might make the opponent sound bad, even quoting things that have never been said.

I admit these are broad generalizations but I think they are correct and I'm trying to look at it objectively, allowing for my admitted preference for Bush.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 19, 2004
Daiwa:

Well, I would agree that these last 2 weeks will be very bitter but I think the media on it is going to use sound bites that emphasize the negativity and I am not sure it will be any more negative than it was. Remember, for the first 8 weeks (August and September) all we heard from Bush was 1) I kept you safER and 2) Kerry's a flip-flopper. Now that this message is old we hear 1) I kept you safER than Kerry will and 2) Kerry is a liberal. (Funny part of that is: I think he actually is mobilizing the Democratic base by doing so). From Kerry for the first 8 weeks we heard 1) Bush is WRONG on healthcare, taxes, Iraq, jobs and 2) Bush will still be wrong 4 years from now. Now, it's 1) Bush was WRONG and 2) Bush will be WRONGER going forward on social security and the draft.

Both Candidates are saying "I'm the lesser of 2 evils." The thing is, both campaigns are trying to be the greater of 2 tricksters.
on Oct 19, 2004
CrispE

The James Tobin you speak of in the article (which is not the Yale professor, Nobel Prize winner) did come up, but mostly under the same AP article. However, I did find another article (WMUR channel 9) that had additional info to the one you posted (it looks like the AP article left out some information that could be considered contextually important).

CONCORD, N.H. -- James Tobin, President Bush's New England campaign chairman, has stepped down after state Democrats accused him of involvement in the jamming of their telephone lines on Election Day 2002.

Tobin made the announcement Friday in a statement that also called the allegations "without merit."

"These allegations date back two years and have absolutely nothing to do with the present campaign," Tobin said. "But to avoid any harm to the campaign from their underhanded tactics, I elected earlier this week to step down from my voluntary position with the campaign."
on Oct 19, 2004
This is an example of why I trend away from newpapers. The preponderance of articles conveniently LEAVE OUT the fact that the allegations are from 2002.
on Oct 19, 2004
T B:

We have an old saying in chess that "the threat is worse than the execution" which is to say if he has done this once he probably will do it again. BTW: I wrote e-mails to both parties on this issue explaining my outrage on the activities of both. I'll let you know if I get a response from either.
on Oct 19, 2004
little_whip:

Thanks for the invite. I think that is a noble purpose. Have you contacted your congressman or senator about it yet?

BTW: It's really a vote of no confidence that you are talking about in your post which should be a citizen's right on all money issues (taxes, etc.) and not confined simply to elections. OR that would be my take.
2 Pages1 2