Aborted recount effort is ‘Grand Theft Electoral’


It’s one thing to abstractly claim that U.S. elections are a farcical exercise to legitimize the rule of a bipartisan imperial oligarchy. It’s quite another to publicly lay bare some of the stinky moving parts of that farce. The attempted recount initiated by 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein did exactly that, starkly illuminating 3 facts:
•that U.S. elections are intentionally and fundamentally broken and rigged, recount-proof and audit-proof;
•that both the capitalist parties like it that way, and;
•that state and federal courts are willing to issue patently absurd rulings from the bench to keep it that way.

The 2016 presidential election was certainly stolen on, before, and after Election Day.

•It’s certain that voters were disappeared by the millions in the months leading up to the election. It wasn’t the Russians that did this. For some time now, Republicans have found themselves in a demographic dilemma. They are unable to get substantial numbers of Latino or Black voters, and the numbers of their base constituencies are declining. So for a generation, standard Republican strategies have included making Democratic voters and votes disappear by the thousands and hundreds of thousands at state level, and by the millions on the national scale.

In the months leading up to the 2016 election, millions of likely Democratic voters were prevented from registering by voter ID laws and uncooperative local registrars. Spurious police raids and criminal prosecutions hindered voter registration drives, and Republican-sponsored private initiatives like CrossCheck, a database designed to provide the excuse for state election authorities to challenge legitimately registered voters with names similar to voters or alleged felons in other states.

All these measures combined to remove a seven-figure number of voters from the rolls across the country.

•It’s likely that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions more votes were made to disappear on Election Day. Russians didn’t do this, either. The tactic of sending all the old and broken-down voting machines to ghetto precincts and the newer ones less likely to break down to Whiter Republican ones is a standard move practiced by election authorities in large and diverse counties and cities from coast to coast.

In Detroit, the state has long since relieved residents of even the pretense of self-government.

Detroit and Flint have their own mayors, city councils, election authorities and the rest, but their budgets are all subject to approval by officials appointed by the state’s Republican governor. The same crop of state appointees who decided Flint residents should drink from their poisoned river, denied Detroit’s request to spend some of its own money on new voting machines.

The aborted recount effort revealed that an astounding 59 percent of all Detroit’s voting machines failed Election Day, and more than 75,000 ballots went uncounted. In Detroit and much of Wisconsin too, voters mark their choices on paper ballots which are fed through optical scanners that count the vote. Or not.

Similar patters appeared in Flint, and in Dearborn, Mich., the largest concentration of Arab-American voters in the U.S. Trump only carried Michigan by 10,000 votes.

•State and federal courts intervened to abort any recount before detailed and damning evidence could be developed in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The specious “reasoning” behind legal rulings which aborted meaningful recounts is roughly on a par with the quiz questions Dixiecrat registrars once used to fend off Black registrants. They’d ask prospective Black voters how many bubbles were in a bar of soap. It was good enough then, and it’s good enough now.

Michigan’s attorney general made the astounding ruling, seconded by state court judges, that Detroit’s paper ballots must not be examined by humans who might easily determine the intent of those 75,000 voters.

Wisconsin officials didn’t allow their recount to go as far as Michigan’s. They left it to each county whether the supposed “recount” would be accomplished by human observers tallying the paper ballots, or feeding the paper ballots into the same broken machines, or simply reading the totals the broken machines had coughed up on Election Day.

The proposed recount in Pennsylvania was a joke from the beginning, since the majority of that state’s voters are forced to use audit-proof Direct Record Entry machines which record voter choices directly to electronic media – with no recountable permanent paper record.

A federal district court judge in Michigan summed it all up when he declared that “…a recount as an audit of the election has never been endorsed by any court…” Current law then holds that so-called “recounts” are utterly meaningless, and it’s perfectly OK for elections to be unaccountable and not subject to any audit whatsoever. You wouldn’t run a taco truck business without an audit. But an election?

Wisconsin eventually halted the recount with Milwaukee, the state’s largest concentration of Black voters, NOT recounted by hand, declaring that since Stein was not within striking distance of a win in that state, she had no standing to ask for a recount in the first place.

•Why didn’t Hillary Clinton expose the massive interstate tampering with ballots in largely Black constituencies? Why didn’t Hillary Clinton’s campaign seize upon the persuasive indications of widespread fraud to mount challenges in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and for that matter Alabama, Georgia, Arizona, Indiana, Florida, Texas and other places where tens or hundreds of thousands of presumably Democratic votes vanished or went uncounted?

Hillary’s campaign was forced to send token observers to the recount effort. Hillary partisans operating without the campaign’s permission did the original research and drew up a Wisconsin petition alleging foreign intervention as the reason a recount was needed – a petition which Stein carelessly endorsed, to the embarrassment of most Greens.

Some 150,000 small Democratic donors funded the Stein recount effort. Team Trump had suits in court and boots on the ground everywhere in the three states recounts were attempted. Hillary’s campaign had the money to orchestrate challenges in a dozen states, and to launch a sustained campaign to expose the national pattern of electoral apartheid centering upon Black and Latino communities. But they didn’t.

Evidently the one-percenters who call the ultimate shots for the Democratic Party just don’t much respect the millions of Black and Latin voters in places like Detroit and Philly and Jacksonville who provide that party with what Donna Brazile and others call its “base vote.” It’s a lot easier, and far more in line with the capitalist one percenter self-interest and world view, to blame the Russians.

•The attempted recount showed the need for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote. Democrats in the 1970s, ‘80s and early ‘90s failed to consolidate the victory won by the Voting Rights Act of 1967. While they held the moral and political high ground for a generation, Democrats, including Black ones, failed to nail their victory permanently into the nation’s fundamental law by amending the U.S. Constitution to include a specific right to vote.

Little by little, racist authorities encroached upon voting rights by refusing to comply with “motor voter” laws, by prosecuting clerical errors by voter registration and absentee ballot drives as felonies, gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and administrative machinations.

Democrats John Kerry and Barack Obama, both serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee, resisted the pleas of voting rights activists to filibuster the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito – neither of whom made a secret of their extreme right-wing views. So a few years later with Obama in the White House, the Supreme Court was able to gut the Voting Rights Act.

Given the current briar patch of voter ID laws, gerrymandering, CrossCheck databases, felony disenfranchisement restrictions on who can vote and when, black box voting, and machinations of state and local officials, along with courts declaring voters have no right to an auditable election the only way to clear the obstacles to voting rights, to make every vote count and ensure every vote is counted is by amending the U.S. Constitution.

Other nations have constitutions that spell out a right to vote along with the right to a clean environment, a quality public education, and more. Why not here?

•Did the attempted recount damage the Green Party? Certainly not. Stein asked the Green steering committee to be a fiscal sponsor of the thing, and they wisely declined. If the Greens had done this, they’d have enabled large donors to drop tens of thousands of bucks at a time into the effort to fund the recall, a move that goes entirely against the declared intention and tradition of the Green Party.

The dispute among Greens over aspects and ramifications of the recount and the aftermath of the 2016 has sparked a lively national discussion among Greens on how to make the Green Party more “small-d” democratic and sustainable. That can only be a good thing.

The Green party’s refusal to sponsor the recount meant it had to be funded by small donors. That was another good thing. According to the Stein campaign, about 150,000 individual donors kicked in an average of less than $50 apiece to pay for the recount effort.

Those small donors who habitually give to Democrats, but once on the list of the national and state Green Parties, they can be directly addressed, messaged and contacted by state and local Greens. A significant number will be converted, since Democrats would NOT stand up for their own voters or their own alleged principles.

The Stein campaign has pledged to donate leftover funds to voter integrity efforts around the country. Some of those efforts should specifically target the communities which were disenfranchised, and most of these efforts be run by Greens and not Democrats.

•Was all this necessary? Only if you imagine taking part in elections is meaningful in the first place.

In 2017, local Green parties will be working with candidates for municipal and local offices, for school boards and alderman and mayors and county commissioners. If the Green Party knows widespread vote tampering is taking place in 2016 and does nothing about it, how can we look local activists in the eye and tell them they ought to run for mayor and school board in 2017? That would make us hypocrites – almost Democrats.

The recount reminded millions of people that the Green Party exists as an alternative to the two capitalist parties. The corporate media work long and hard to keep any left alternatives beyond the pale and out of the political discussion. The attempted recount put us in that discussion in a way that would not otherwise have been possible. And for those paying attention, it delegitimized both Republicans and Democrats, and makes the case for something completely different.

The attempted recount was a good thing. It demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt not only that this was a stolen election, but that the laws, the courts, and corporate media are complicit in a bipartisan electoral crime wave of national proportions targeting communities of color.

Our job now is to tell that story again and again so it becomes common knowledge, and the foundation for whatever transitional demands – like amending the U.S. Constitution – that we can organize around for the near future.

Bruce Dixon is managing editor of BlackAgendaReport.com.



  1. Okay, we have millions of votes suppressed but Trump also won the popular vote if you exclude all the illegal voters. Sounds like a wash to me.

  2. Sorry to tell you this, but if at any time the Green party was primed to explode, is was in 2016 and you botched it magnificently. You presumed that the disaffected Bernie supporters would naturally levitate towards your candidate, and made no actual strategy to assure that your presumption became reality. Instead a know nothing like Garry Johnson out-shined you(even as they did far worse that should have been possible).

    But it isn’t just strategy that failed. It was the choice of candidates which reflect deeper issues. There is no “filter” for the Green party in terms of being a serious person(not to imply that no Greens are serious people). As someone who wanted Warren to run – and when she made clear she would not – I immediately jumped on the Bernie train before he even officially announced. As as you presumed I might, I did indeed eventually flirt with the idea of Jill Stein.

    On the surface everything seems right even if fairly unrealistic. I figure you reach for more than you actually hope to get, and negotiate towards something achievable. It does sort of cut into the credibility though and I think the Green platform was WAY over-promising on the level of simply trying to grab attention. Little effort seem to be made to make the propositions seem viable which in effectively damaged your credibility. That wasn’t fatal all on its own, but didn’t help.

    The real problem was once you dig below the surface. You can’t allow a candidate for serious office who holds counter-scientific views. I know some of these views take hold in certain circles that may be more sympathetic to Green views, but all the same you need a standard bearer above all that.

    *GMOs are shown to be safe for human consumption, and this is overwhelmingly the consensus of the scientific community. That isn’t to be mistaken for a consensus that various chemicals used are safe as they must all be researched(and the research reviewed by their peers) on an individual basis. Some GMO products (such as golden rice) especially hold the promise or reducing vitamin deficiencies(and thus some horrible diseases) in some cultures. You can produce more food on less land with lower carbon footprint to feed more people for less money. The “Green” party should be shouting the praises of genetically enhanced crops while also speaking against Monsanto(obviously for other reasons) anyhow.

    *Nuclear power is not inherently unsafe, but certain types of reactors can be(some more than others). No nuclear scientist holds the views commonly heralded as “obvious” by self identified Greens such as Stein. One could dedicate no more than an evening to educate themselves on different reactor designs/functionality, or one could use the events that have happened(anecdotal data) as proof to reaffirm their views.

    The unjustified fear of nuclear power (in all forms) prevents newer reactors from coming online, and therefore de-facto keeps the old unsafe and otherwise less desirable plants online. These plants would have/should have been retired long ago, but are kept going do to the hurdles facing new prospective plants.

    Nuclear fission also doesn’t add to our carbon footprint, and types of reactor exist that “eat” what you consider nuclear waste, not to mention don’t produce weapon grade byproducts, and can be more easily secured(underground even). It scales easily to be much larger than other carbon neutral energy sources currently do. We can’t wait until Solar, wind, etc gradually gain ground. Neither can we wait for Fusion. Yes we should promote all fossil fuel alternatives, but we simply cannot wait/gradually transition. We need(ed) rapid change transition, and only nuclear fission could have made it happen… possibly it is too late now anyhow.

    *Wifi etc. Non-ionizing radiation doesn’t cause cancer. At best it excites the molecules of your body a tiny bit(causing an extremely tiny and temporary increase in local temperature). No “probably not” about it. The difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation should be in mere high school science books if one bothered to read them. One who doesn’t understand this doesn’t have even the lowest level of physics knowledge. There is no scientific debate here. The notion is flat out impossible.

    And you can prove the same thing at home. Buy a Geiger counter off Amazon or something. Measure your food. Microwave it(MUCH more powerful than your cell phone/wireless router). Now measure it again… no increase in radioactivity because it doesn’t cause ionization even at high levels.

    *Vaccines… wow. Vaccines do not, and cannot cause autism. Autism happens in the womb. Unless vaccines have time travel capabilities… this can’t happen. That’s why you rely on peer-reviewed research instead of questionable blog articles from your preferred echo chamber.

    No, I cannot vote for a person who doesn’t accept what the scientific community would tell them over some crackpot theories. And I can’t be associated with a party that gives pseudoscience a microphone. The Greens are not a serious party and that’s probably why Sanders has never accepted your invites. That’s why the people who suddenly(not as “suddenly” in my case) began heralding the virtues of Socialist Democracy rejected you despite your presumptions. Well also fear of Trump, but that only amplified the need of a serious candidate. Regrettably Clinton was the ‘best’ (a word with almost no meaning) available(in the general election) that sort-of almost fit the role.

    I have to hammer this again. You got to face off against the 2 most hated candidates in US history, and a goofball who probably can’t find the state he was governor of on a map. There was a mass rise of Democratic Socialist rhetoric smashing though the corporate media’s blackout of such ideas. People where energized and ready to demand real solutions to the problems caused by runaway capitalism. The current incarnation of the Democratic Party was fully exposed for what it really has become. 2016 was your moment, but you where not ready for it.

    You can take my excessive comment as hate, or you can take it as constructive criticism(without need to agree completely) and begin some introspection – a need of which you certainly share in common with the Neoliberals(well maybe they need it worse). If nothing else, you can take it as an outside perspective… a sample of how people like me (who theoretically should naturally align myself with you) view the Greens. So you have your work cut out either way.

    But remember that another moment is coming. Whatever Trump will attempt/do is going to create a massive need for meaningful opposition. I rather expect the Democrats to fold as per usual. 2018 is not so far away(it might feel like it). Will you be ready? Because if you won’t be, we’re going to need an alternative “left wing alternative” because failure is not an option.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here