Relevant NOW: Kennedy / Nixon vote "steal" in 1960?

[mofo]

This may be a very hot topic today.

I *know* that cecil has addressed (and debunked) the popular belief that the 1960 election was stolen by the Chicago democratic machine, but I can't find it in the archive anywhere. My favorite part of that story has nixon being too noble to contest the vote.

I realize that there was a lot of ballot-box stuffing going on for both sides at that point (and may be going on as we speak), but I seem to recall reading hard numbers someplace that disproved the democratic theft.

Thanks,
mofo.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Snopes lists this one as "Some Claims We'll Never get to the Bottom of."

The charge that a one vote change in each precinct in Illinois would have defeated John F. Kennedy in 1960 is hard to prove or disprove because it's widely understood there was a fair bit of cheating carried out by both sides over those 27 electoral votes. What the numbers eventually tallied out to be is almost immaterial, as both Nixon's and Kennedy's factions were reportedly stuffing every ballot box in sight. That year, the motto in Illinois seemed to be: "One man, one vote - and then some." A statement from Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley captures the essence of what was going on in that place and time: "One of their precincts, outside of Peoria, where there are only 50 votes, just announced 500 votes for Nixon."

Source: http://www.snopes.com/spoons/fracture/onevote.htm

[astorian]

I have no doubt that Richard Daley's Democratic machine cheated in 1960, and did everything possible to give the election to JFK. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that Nixon was "too noble" to protest. Nixon was many things, but not noble!

More likely, Nixon recognized that, even IF he ended up winning Illinois after a protest, Kennedy still had more than enough electoral votes to become President. The POPULAR vote that year was remarkably close- but the electoral vote really WASN'T all that close.

[Lemur866]

If either Illinios or Texas had gone for Nixon, he would have won the electoral vote.

Nixon didn't demand a recount because he was noble but because he knew that if the vote still went for Kennedy he'd be finished...people would view him as a sore loser, a crybaby. And even if we won, there'd be a re-recount demanded...the issue would get very ugly very quickly. And of course, the recount is being handled by Daley's political machine...

[Whack-a-Mole]

Astorian --

Read the quote from Snopes in my post above. It seems to suggest that Nixon's cronies were every bit as bad as Daley/Kennedy's cronies in stuffing ballot boxes. Indeed, the quote from mayor Daley shows that Nixon's people were not above (where a precinct with 50 votes reported 500 votes for Nixon).

Presumably, if Nixon made a stink and had people look into vote fraud in Illinois, they would have found corruption on his side as well as the Democrat's side.

Noble? No.

Serving his own best self-interest? Yes. (Especially if fighting would have made little difference in the outcome.)

[tomndebb]

[quote]If either Illinios or Texas had gone for Nixon, he would have won the electoral vote.[/quore]


Nope. Not close. If both states had switched it would have changed the election.

Kennedy 303
Nixon 219
Byrd 15

Illinois has never had 34 votes (which would have still left Kennedy the 269 - 253 winner over Nixon and Byrd actually stealing votes from Kennedy, not Nixon.)

This is one of those perpetual myths (that feeds the Kennedy assasination conspiracy theories, as well). Kennedy could have lost Illinois and still won.