'On the eve of the elections in 2000, around 75% of voters saw the
confrontation as a game between two wealthy players, party managers
and the public relations industry tutoring candidates in the
projection of images and formulating phrases devoid of meaning that
could bring them some votes. This is the reason that the population
attached so little importance to the `stolen' vote that was so much
publicized by the more highly educated strata in the population. And
it is for this reason too that little importance will be attached to
alleged fraud in the elections of 2004. If someone is tossing a coin
to choose the king, is it so important that the coin is weighted?'
Noam Chomsky on the US elections. "Epochi" newspaper 12th December
2004 (translated from greek by halva_gr).
With respect, Noam, it is important because it is good to have the ability to choose, even though the choice in November was a choice between relatively indifferent candidates and policies, although at least Kerry was not a fundamentalist (take a look here). Because if we do not have the opportunity to choose, we are under a dictatorship. Yes I know that it is possible to have an elected dictatorship, and that is to a great extent what we have in the UK, but the fact remains that we do at least have some kind of elections, and that is better than no kind of elections. Which is why the Ohio recount and the cleanup crew's work is so important.
And in future a real choice may be on offer.