hen America went to the polls on November 2nd, it was the second time in a month that an oil company executive -turned- puppet president was given a popular mandate by way of flawed democratic elections. The difference is that in the fledgling democracy of Afghanistan the people probably did get a result that accurately reflected their collective choice.

By contrast, this was the second successive presidential election in the United States of America that was stolen outright. It would have been too obvious if the result had come down to Florida again. Instead it came down to Ohio, and a Republican Secretary of State with lofty political aspirations, again. Spoiled votes, hung chads, disenfranchisement - again, again and again. Some of the technology and technicality has been refined in the past four years, but the objectives, the tactics and the outcome are the same.

In this piece, Greg Palast once again does an excellent job of summarising the villainy.

But the question remains: Why did Kerry concede? Why are the Democratic party and their lawyers silent when there is copious evidence to suggest that various forms of electoral tampering were successfully used to change the result?

The answer is simple - you know it, you just don't want to admit it. The reason the Democrats aren't protesting the result is that they would have done exactly the same things if they had been in a position to do so. The dirty tricks pulled by the Republicans, while not at all in the spirit of Democracy, are legitimate under the set of rules by which we rule our rulers, and are justified by their political ends. Bush won - unfairly, but squarely.

The problem isn't really Bush, or the Republican party at all. It's the entire politicorporate structure of the USA.

There is no solution short of revolution.