You know what really had me terrified on Nov. 7? The all-too-real possibility of a highly suspect result. What would we have done if the Republicans had held on to the House by a narrow margin, but circumstantial evidence strongly suggested that a combination of vote suppression and defective - or rigged - electronic voting machines made the difference?
Fortunately, it wasn't a close election. But the fact that our electoral system worked well ...
Full Story »
Krugman keeps the spotlight on this important issue. No new insight from what has already been reported, but an excellent distillation of the Sarasota County voting story.
I am well aware this same article could have been written about several Ohio races. I was personally involved in a Special Primary in Ohio that I witnessed many violations by BOE's.
Paul Krugman has been one sided and none of his predictions, even in his area of expertise (economics) have been correct from the time he left Enron and began writing for the Times. He makes no pretense of fairness and is rarely correct.
All the relevant facts on this story in a concise article. The only factual problem is the claim of "almost 15%" undervoting, when other sources have it at "nearly 13%". Needs evidence for "little national attention" - I find a fair number of articles, although I can't say what has appeared on TV.
Krugman has always done a good job in researching his pieces as well as using reputable and accurate sources. In general his works are all sensible and rational. His "slant" comes more from the evidence he finds. At worst his personal agenda is to try to help the most people possible, vesus many sources that are geared towards only corporate interests or those of some small minority of the population.
Retrieving Comments
