I wanted to write as a loyal reader to let you know how I feel about Republican attempts to characterize George Bush's election victory as a "mandate." The truth of the matter is that the election illustrated exactly the opposite -- that the nation is bitterly divided and that no mandate exists for an extreme conservative agenda.

When Richard Nixon won reelection over George McGovern in 1972, he carried 61 percent of the popular vote and captured the Electoral College 520-17. In 1984, Ronald Reagan took 59 percent of the popular vote and carried the Electoral College 525-13. Those elections, it is fair to say, produced mandates for Republican Presidents, as well as political capital to be spent during their second terms.

But with 51 percent of the popular vote and a 286-252 win in the Electoral College -- in which President Bush won the decisive state, Ohio, so narrowly that the result was not yet clear on election night -- the Republicans are claiming an obviously non-existent mandate. This is, of course, a political ploy intended to exaggerate the nation's level of support for the President's policies and proposals. But I think as a news organization, you have a responsibility to differentiate between the actual vote tally and the rhetoric of the Republican spin machine.

Nancy Moorhead (California)

I worked in Columbus, Ohio in the recent election as a volunteer for Election Protection, a non-partisan organization comitted to making sure that every vote cast was counted. In numerous precincts in Columbus serving the African American community there were waits to vote of up to four hours. I saw them with my own eyes. People left to pick up kids when school was out. Some just gave up. The problem was not enough voting machines. This lack seemed intentional because everyone knew there was going to be a huge turnout and that these long lines were inevitable without additional machines.

Jay Jackman (California)

Not to be a sour grapes loser, but it has become fairly evident through various sources, including those of the right-wing media, that there were widespread voting irregularities on Nov. 2.

Whether this would have swayed the election is almost a moot point now, but what IS important, is that once again, we are answering questions of "every vote counting." When we allow ourselves to live under the shadow of doubt, democracy is eroded.

This is not a Republican or democrat issue. It is an American issue. Our country was founded on the pricipal that ALL votes count! We must ensure that this continues, and must hold our legislators accountable. We must insist as an electorate that there be paper ballots that verify every machine vote.

I find it very sad that we must continue to bring this issue to the table, and trust we as a nation, can resolve it simply and completely. If the people believe their votes don't count, they will find other, less productive ways of expressing their opinions.

Dr. Suzanne Johnson (California)

Why did the exit polls show Kerry winning the election, but the vote showed Bush winning?

The apologia by the exit poll system architects reported in the New York Times Nov. 5 sounds like post-facto reasoning which assumed that the vote is correct, and therefore the exit polls must be wrong. In its own words, it then "theorized" reasons why the exit poll could have been wrong.

Why did these problems occur now and not in previous elections? Didn't the poll architects plan for them? The wrong-exit-poll theories should be tested. At the polls where the reasons occurred, how are the results different from the vote at those polls? If those results are thrown out, do the remaining results still show a difference between the exit poll and the vote, at that polling station?

"The last wave of national exit polls we received, along with many other subscribers, showed Kerry winning the popular vote by 51 percent to 48 percent, if true, surely enough to carry the Electoral College,'' Steve Coll, managing editor of The Washington Post, wrote in an online chat with readers. Assuming that the "last" exit poll covered the last voters, then the last exit poll should have been very accurate if there were sufficient numbers.

It's very scary to think that George Bush & Co created or suppressed 4 million or more American votes. It cannot be assumed that the vote is correct and the exit polls flawed when the leadership of the U.S. and the world is at stake. This has to be investigated in a non-partisan manner.

Tom Trotter

Maybe the reason I'm questioning whether the recent election was real is that (in order to keep some semblance of sanity) I've restricted my television news input to a single program. Yes, the only TV news I trust is Jon Stewart's fake news on The Daily Show.

With input like that, you can see how it would be natural for me to think that the 2004 presidential "election" was not an election at all, but was a pre-scripted event. Before I explain what I mean by this, let me make it absolutely clear that this is a fake news story. No one could possibly believe it is true because that would involve one of those insane conspiracy theories, and intelligent people are forbidden by natural law from believing anything that smacks of a conspiracy, because we all know that conspiracies don't really exist. Just because the facts happen to fit this story doesn't mean it's real. So relax and enjoy my little fantasy.

Many years ago, I was a political activist engaged in the issue of the live POWs we left behind in Viet Nam. As those of you who were also involved know, the issue had almost gained enough momentum get national attention when Kerry and McCain buried it in their disgraceful Senate committee hearings. At the time, many Viet Nam veterans and their families concluded that neither Kerry or McCain could ever be trusted again.

Flash forward to 2003. A hick governor from a small state is all of a sudden whipping up a major anti-war movement and has figured out how to leverage the Internet to overpower the other contenders for the top spot on the Democratic ticket. At the same time, the dark forces in our government hadn't noticed the digital revolution until it was too late, and now pictures of Americans torturing Iraqi citizens flooded the Net. For a moment there, it began to look like the Capitalist Elite were losing control of the political situation.

Suddenly, as if a switch had been thrown in the back corner of a dark cellar somewhere, the Corporate-Controlled Media, as if in lock-step, turned on Howard Dean and practically anointed John Kerry. Something struck me about that as being just a bit too well-orchestrated to have happened so quickly and smoothly. Then I recalled that over a year before the first primary, several party insiders told me that Kerry, without any doubt, was going to be the Democratic Party candidate in 2004. Apparently, as early as January 2001 the fix was in for Kerry. At least that is the story I heard. (Don't forget this is a FAKE STORY, okay?)

Still, We the People wanted change so desperately that we were even willing to accept Kerry as a stop-gap measure. Running an inept campaign. Kerry does his part to help Bush win by completely ignoring the immense amount of energy available from the anti-war movement. But come election day, Kerry was in real trouble. How could he let Bush remain in power if he got too many votes? Kerry knew that the Democrats would be thinking about the 2000 election, the one that was stolen through the massive vote fraud conducted by officials of the state of Florida. So, taking his cue from Karl Rove's Big Lie propaganda machine, late on election night Kerry sent young John Edwards out to announce that the fight wasn't over until every last vote was counted. Considering the fact that a significant amount of voting fraud had already been reported, the nation went to bed feeling secure in the knowledge that this time the Democrats wouldn't fold, and that the election would be fair. No one would have to go out and riot in the streets the next morning. Everyone relaxed.

What a shock it was then to awaken to the news that the Bush people had already declared Bush the winner, and that John Kerry was about to make a concession speech. HUH? Did they really count every vote like they promised? What about the 250,000 votes in Ohio that still hadn't been counted? That was almost twice the size of the current margin in Ohio. There didn't even need to be a recount or a court fight. All Kerry had to do was to simply wait until all the votes were counted. Isn't that what Edwards had promised just a few hours earlier? Instead, Kerry simply folded, gave up, quit.

OK, now remember, things couldn't have actually happened this way. It's simply an interesting series of coincidences that make the facts fit this story so well. If you try, I'm sure you can come up with even better stories about what just happened. But please, don't tell me that the recent election was real. No story should be that sad.

Lorenzo Hagerty

One thing is for certain: the Evangelists, Baptists, and other Born Agains believe whole heartedly in turning the other cheek. You can lie to them, steal from them, kill them in a phony war, take their livelihood from them -- and they still vote Republican. But they are Christians, they have values. Atlas shrugged long ago, now Jesus shrugged.

Milton Baker (Michigan)

Progressive Americans are desperately seeking hope in these dark days following the re-election of George W. Bush to a second term as President of the United States. Hope springs from the fact that 55.6 million Americans voted against Bush's re-election. That "losing number" is more votes than any winning Presidential candidate to this point in American history. It's almost 1.2 million more votes than Ronald Reagan won in 1984 and over 8 million more than Bill Clinton got in 1996. And it's a scathing indictment of Bush's policies.

Bush may have gotten the most votes in history, but he also had more people voting against him than against any other President in history. Even in states where Bush won, if in fact you believe that he actually won, it was close enough to send the message that Americans are unmistakably and emphatically disavowing the incumbent's agenda: forty-nine percent of voters in Iowa, Ohio and New Mexico; forty-eight percent of voters in Nevada; forty-seven percent of people in Florida and forty-six percent of voters in Colorado and Missouri said, "No," to four more years of Bush's despotic prospectus.

The insubordinate 55.6 million weren't necessarily voting for the ductile Democrat, John Kerry, because he was uninspiring and ran a dismal campaign. Kerry never quite grasped the fact that, if you fire-up your base, they become the foot soldiers out there in grassroots America influencing swing voters. Tick them off and you'll lose the election. Kerry wooed the swing voters, screwed his base and lost the election, predictably. On the contrary, Bush wooed his base; they in turn wooed the swing voters and won the race.

Now anti-Bush voters, 55.6 million strong, must get fired-up and hold George W. Bush and his majority in the U.S. House and Senate accountable. Not that Bush has ever felt the need for a license to inflict his policies upon Americans or the rest of the world, but now he thinks his slim majority gives him a mandate to eradicate the right to choose safe and legal abortion; continue to spill American children's blood for oil in Iraq; to protect the rights of zygotes, but not those who could benefit from stem cell research; and to keep ignoring the ever-increasing threat of global warming and other environmental perils.

We need to send George W. Bush a different message. He cannot be elected to another term, but he can feel the constant pressure of unprecedented levels of social unrest during the next 4 years. And those elected to the U.S. House and Senate must face re-election. That 55.6 million that voted against the Bush agenda can make Representative's and Senator's jobs range from slightly more difficult, if they respond to grassroots pressure, to nearly impossible if they do not.

We may not be the majority, but we're an historically unprecedented minority! We represent half of the voters of the world's only super power. That makes us a mighty influential block of people. If we are organized, our voices cannot be denied. Our mouths need to be as big as our minority. Jam the streets, phone, fax and e-mail lines. Flood the U.S. Postal Service with resistance.

Hope springs infernal because our mandate is to use the democratic process to bring the fires of hell to bear upon those who think they have the green-light from God to take away our rights.

Karyn Strickler (Washington DC)

[Editor's note: We received many other letters sent about the election outcome, and apologize for not including them all. As represented by the group here, roughly half cried foul about the election's result, and the rest called for renewed political activism. Only one writer cheered Bush's election and called for Americans to unite behind him, and that letter is not presented here because it also appeared in many other newspapers across the country and on multiple Internet sites. We do not knowingly use "astroturf" letters that are sent in bulk to media lists.]

Bush Sends Anti-Feminist Group To Iraq For 'Women In Politics' Project

Thank you for shining the spotlight on this poisonous group of wealthy, politically well-connected conservative women. I've written articles about them, but no one I've talked to -- even progressives -- seem to know or care much about their existence. The name "Independent Womens Forum" is a joke, since more than 90 percent of their funding comes from such organizations as the Owen Bradley and Scaife Foundations.

Thanks for telling the truth about so many issues.

Beth Grimes (California)

Bush Wants Aggressive Nuke Program

Soon the Senate is slated to take up the funding of President Bush's request for research into new nuclear weapons, so-called bunker busters and "mini-nukes." Despite his claims to the contrary, President Bush has no "mandate" from the American people to build new nuclear weapons. According to a recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, 59 percent of Americans believe we shouldn't develop new nuclear weapons. Even Republicans in the House of Representatives have rejected funding for these weapons. The Senate must do the same -- new nuclear weapons put America at risk and we don't need them.

Sean Baron (California)

How Will Gays Cope Under Bush's Culture War?

Perhaps author Sandip Roy feels the need to visit the churches of the 'red' states to understand the vicious hatred of gays that they feel, but I and many other Americans do not. We came from those evangelical churches, those bigoted families. That hatred is deep and is not based on considered reflection of Christian Values and Morals, but simple hatred of anything not fitting the mold. Mr. Roy wonders what would have happened if he had opened up to his benefactors -- surely if they knew that this nice young man was gay, that they would accept gays as okay, not unknown, frightening strangers. Wouldn't that humanize gays? Again, those of us who came from that world know better. They will turn-on and turn-out those from amongst themselves who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual. I know, I saw it and experienced it.

First was my Uncle Charles, who I met exactly once in my life. I heard very little about my father's brother while growing up, knowing only of his existence from stories of my father's childhood. I wondered why I had never met him -- until the day I did. He came to the door unannounced with another man in tow. My father was visibly upset and wanted him to leave. Unable to get rid of him politely, my father ordered his four children to our bedrooms. Being then a teenager, I pretended not to hear him. I had to introduce myself to my uncle. I knew then that my uncle was cut off from his family for the simple 'crime' of being gay. Then, it was my turn. I came out to my parents as transsexual not long after, and was effectively kicked out and disowned. Though they live in the same region, I too am a stranger to my nieces and nephews. I have only been able to meet one of them.

Wanting simple acceptance, we found that tolerance only means that they avoid us. We were banished from our towns, our churches, our families. If these good evangelical Christians can treat family and neighbors in this ugly manner, is it any wonder that they would feel easy, even righteous, denying equal rights to millions of gay strangers?

We can't win their hearts with an open dialog -- not if we can't even reach our own families. We can only build safe and strong communities of our own where we can find safety and equality with our straight -- but not narrow -- neighbors.

Kay Brown

Sean Hannity, Talk Hunk

Hey dumbass, Sean Hannity didn't win, he came in second place. Sean Hannity didn't advertise 3 hours a day during the entire campiagn. I listen to his show every single day and he mentioned it ONCE. Bill O'Reilly wasn't nominated, so he wasn't snubbed. You're a dickhead. Why don't you try actually attempting at good journalism?

Tiffany Cramer