A history professor from Uppsala Universitet in Sweden, called to tell me about this article she had read in which a Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying that children should study this event closely for it shows that election fraud is not only a Third World phenomena. 1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation's secret police (CIA). 2. Imagine that the self declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover (electoral college) from the nation's pre-democracy past. 3. Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother! 4. Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate. 5. Imagine that that members of that nation's most despised caste, fearing for their lives/livelihoods, turned out in record numbers to vote in near-universal opposition to the self-declared winner's candidacy. 6. Imagine that hundreds of members of that most-despised caste were intercepted on their way to the polls by state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner's brother. 7. Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 327 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error. 8. Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and re-counting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district. 9. Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions. 10. Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint like-minded human rights violators to lifetime positions on the high court of that nation. None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will-to-power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange elsewhere."
Anonymous wrote:
No User <no.user@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
A history professor from Uppsala Universitet in Sweden, called to tell me about this article she had read
Uppsala Universitet has no female history professors. Sorry.
And what's more some of these non-existent female professors even have web pages. Sorry. If you've got to debunk a story, at least do the research. http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/HS.html#HS (Economic History) http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/deps/HH8.html (History) I can find at least 2 (& possibly 4, I'm not sure which names are women) women with the title "Prof.". Anyway, in the US "professor" means just about any University teacher or researcher. Here in the UK (& I think also in Sweden) it is either an honorary title given to a small number of very senior people, or else the head of a department (the word is used differently in different institutions), or sometimes the holder of one of a small number of prominent non-teaching posts. Uppsala has large numbers of female "Doktorand", who I presume are what here in England we'd call "lecturer." For most of the readers of this list, they would be "professor". Ken (who can overhear some female history professors talking as he types)
Ken Brown <k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> wrote:
And what's more some of these non-existent female professors even have web pages. Sorry.
Care to name one?
prominent non-teaching posts. Uppsala has large numbers of female "Doktorand", who I presume are what here in England we'd call "lecturer." For most of the readers of this list, they would be "professor".
Doctoral student.
Anonymous wrote:
Ken Brown <k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> wrote:
And what's more some of these non-existent female professors even have web pages. Sorry.
Care to name one?
prominent non-teaching posts. Uppsala has large numbers of female "Doktorand", who I presume are what here in England we'd call "lecturer." For most of the readers of this list, they would be "professor".
Doctoral student.
On the web pages I quoted in the posting you are replying to: http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/HS.html#HS (Economic History) http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/deps/HH8.html (History) we have references to Prof Ragnhild Lundstrvm, who I assume from the name is a woman. But, as I said, their are dozens of references to other female academics there who, to the Americans on the list) would count as "professors". Heck, in France, schoolteachers can be called Prof. Not that it matters because I doubt if anyone seriously thinks that that spoof has been anywhere near either Uppsala or Zimbabwe. It is still funny though. Ken
No User wrote:
A history professor from Uppsala Universitet in Sweden, called to tell me about this article she had read in which a Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying that children should study this event closely for it shows that election fraud is not only a Third World phenomena.
1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation's secret police (CIA).
[...snip...] Which is exactly what the current US situation looks like to most people outside the US. It presumably seems different to the Americans themselves (or at least the Republican voters amongst them), but to the rest of us the whole thing cuts heavily at Bush's credibility Ken
2. Imagine that the self declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover (electoral college) from the nation's pre-democracy past.
3. Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother!
4. Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.
5. Imagine that that members of that nation's most despised caste, fearing for their lives/livelihoods, turned out in record numbers to vote in near-universal opposition to the self-declared winner's candidacy.
6. Imagine that hundreds of members of that most-despised caste were intercepted on their way to the polls by state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner's brother.
7. Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 327 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error.
8. Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and re-counting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district.
9. Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions.
10. Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint like-minded human rights violators to lifetime positions on the high court of that nation.
None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will-to-power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange elsewhere."
At 11:45 AM 11/28/00 +0000, Ken Brown wrote: ....
Which is exactly what the current US situation looks like to most people outside the US. It presumably seems different to the Americans themselves (or at least the Republican voters amongst them), but to the rest of us the whole thing cuts heavily at Bush's credibility
Oh, my - you're saying that Bush has *credibility* in the rest of the world? :-) This reminds me more of the tail-wagging-the-dog situations that parliamentary systems get into when some minor religious party or right-wing-wackos or the Monster Raving Loonie party gets to tell the bigger party what to do because they need three more seats for their coalition. Too bad Florida has a winner-takes-all system - under proportional representation they'd have been done weeks ago, with one electoral vote for Nader, 12 for Gore, and 12 for Bush, and that would fairly accurately reflect the opinions of Florida's voters, unlike the current situation where the margin of error in the counts is much wider than the difference between the totals. And it's not even available as a compromise, because Gore's in the lead without the Florida votes, so that would give him the election. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
And of course if algore wins thru his court challenges, most people would see that as a rigged election as well. Which it is -- either way. Just two criminal gangs fighting over turf. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS Systems Librarian Arrowhead Library System Virginia, MN (218) 741-3840 hseaver@arrowhead.lib.mn.us http://harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Harmon Seaver wrote:
And of course if algore wins thru his court challenges, most people would see that as a rigged election as well. Which it is -- either way. Just two criminal gangs fighting over turf.
So we've got a problem. The voting methods we have aren't adequate. It's obvious that something needs to be done to fix this for the future... but what would you have happen now? Without a full recount, Bush's victory will always be questioned. With more legal battles from Gore, he loses credibility as the US citizens lose faith in the electorial process. How do you propose this be handled? I've not seen any good suggestions yet that address all concerns. Alex
At 09:31 PM 11/27/00 -0600, No User wrote:
1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self declared winner was
George was not "self-declared". He holds certifications of victory from the elections officials of 29 states totalling 271 electoral votes. DCF ---- Nine U.S. states have no general tax on wages and salaries: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming
On 11/28/00 at 2:16 PM, frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell) wrote:
At 09:31 PM 11/27/00 -0600, No User wrote:
1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self declared winner was
George was not "self-declared". He holds certifications of victory from the elections officials of 29 states totalling 271 electoral votes.
States don't certify presidential victories. The courts haven't completely weighed in. And the electors haven't cast their votes yet. So anyone claiming victory already is clearly a "self-declared" winner.
participants (9)
-
Alex B. Shepardsen -
Allen Ethridge -
Anonymous -
Bill Stewart -
Bo Elkjaer -
Duncan Frissell -
Harmon Seaver -
Ken Brown -
No User