I'm on AAR today to explain why Election defenders are dead wrong

[Land Shark]

11 a.m. PST, 2 p.m. EST, thom hartmann's show; on Hackett and the following general idea:

Why is that someone who expresses concern about and is against threats of election fraud is immediately denounced as "tinfoil". As it stands all election data and all election analysis is kept completely secret. We are handed only the conclusions, aka election results.

Based on mere conclusions reported in the media, what rational basis is there to conclude the elections were fair? Or unfair? None. When you can't look at the data (ballots) or how the ballots were processed (trade secret vote counting software) the public is totally prevented from verifying if we have a democracy from time to time, or even at all.

You and i lack the necessary information to be confident this election was free and fair.

Step one: Set up walls of data (ballot) and analysis (counting software) secrecy.
Step Two: Immediately denounce any citizen who, purposely stripped of almost all useful information, expresses curiosity or doubt about the conclusions presented as fact by calling them "tinfoil hatters".

How can we have a system of SELF-government as jefferson intended when we have this kind of nondisclosure and nontransparency at the very point in which the power of the people is transferred to the government, and the government itself administers those elections in secret?

Would you trust anyone to count votes secretly? To either desire this power or to exercise it is, IMO a corrupt act. Having a political enemy count the vote in secret is the image of tyranny. Having your political friend count votes in secret is the image of corruption.

It is time to ask some very basic questions and insist on verifiable democracy. Though it may be a strategic mistake to venture too many educated guesses (aka theories) on what happened behind the veils of secrecy, the secrecy itself is undoubtedly a problem.

[NYCGirl]

1. Good work! But Thom Hartmann is not on AAR. NT

[Rainscents]

5. Thom Hartmann is on AAR on the weekend here is Seattle (Best of)

I'm not sure about other city he is on live on AAR.

[Griffy]

29. no.. AAR is a network that Hartmann is not on..

now many progressive radio stations use alot of AAR programing but mix in other shows like Hartmann and Schultz...

[Land Shark]

38. Parting thought re 'faith based elections' we have now is

that since we can only by faith believe in something for which data and analysis are not disclosed except by huge expense and/or court battle (and then only partially) we ask

what happens to those who question FAITH?

they are HERETICS.

Burned at the stake for being tinfoil hatters or whatever demonic name is attached.

the tinfoil hatter will contribute a bit to their own ostracism because their intellectual curiosity gets them to speculate in an educated way about what's behind the walls of secrecy set up, but nevertheless it's clear who is being burned at the stake and why they are being burned at the stake: lack of pure faith in elections.

[wryter2000]

2. ?

I have Franken then, not Hartmann.

[SteppingRazor]

3. I agree with pushing for a verifiable voter trail...

But just as you say we can't be sure there was no voter fraud, I would point out that, neither can we be sure there WAS. It never helps to jump to conclusions. And in this case, the election results seem perfectly reasonable, given District 2's demographics.

[annabanana]

12. ..not the point..

This isn't a situation of "innocent until proven guilty". This is the point at which legitimate power is transfered from the PEOPLE to the GOVERNMENT. This transfer, like Caeser's wife, must be above reproach.

Everything rests on our belief in the veracity of the system.

[Land Shark]

25. Precisely correct annabanana, the answer is not to reinforce belief in

the system by stamping out questioning but to force the system to respond with disclosure and transparency in order to prove each election worthy of faith (but never allowing faith itself to rule).

[jarnocan]

34. WRONG! there is a great deal of documentation

discrepancies , over votes and under votes etc. there was fraud - you can be sure of that.
Did it abosolutely changed the results - might is questionable. I believe it did ABSOLUTLY!
I'm not bothering with links as proof -there are many on here. Except here is the <http://Vvlobbydays.blogspot.com> has links to voter's rights groups and some info and pictures from the Verified Voting Lobby Days in WDC.. <http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-p/certainwin.htm> in case abyone missed it -PLEASE read- they will do it again unless...

[eleny]

4. Recommended and I'm looking forward to hearing you

[quiet.american]

6. *What Went Wrong in Ohio* gives facts on fraud, not theory

Rep. John Conyers, Jr.'s report on election fraud in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election gives enough FACT on felonious fraud, that any Democratic representative (think: Evan Bayh) who pooh-poohs this subject reveals they clearly have no real interest in the topic of fair elections since they can't even bother to read their colleague's factual report of "what went wrong in Ohio."

[Land Shark]

9. true enough, but the best evidence is still kept under wraps

one may of course explore internal inconsistencies in the results reported, and conflicts with exit polls, as has been done quite a bit by others...

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. I thought Hartmann was on Sirius Left?

I'll tune in at 1:00 my time. Thanks.

[jillan]

8. And on Sirius aar 144- don't get me started

:mad: :mad:

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. I know...I know. I hear ya!

:grr::grr:

[Talismom]

11. Thank you for making these very important points! I've been

"hollered" at even here for trying to say the same thing! It needs to be said again and again if we are ever to have faith that our elected officials were not "appointed" by corporate interests!

[Land Shark]

17. sorry to nitpick, but we should never allow "faith" that our officials

were elected properly. It should be shown, or proven, by transparency in the system.

[Talismom]

Absolutely! IMO we have never been farther from the ideal. . .

so far because the indications of vote tampering and stolen elections have never been so stark!

[Junkdrawer]

13. Were I on radio, I'd hammer on the "Blackwell has too much power"...

angle and I'd throw my support for Common Cause's reforms.

See this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4257060#4259294

Until elections are trustworthy, they should not be trusted. The attitude of many posters here is "innocent until proven guilty", but that is for citizens who face the overwhelming power of The State.

[Griffy]

30. get on the radio.. everyday Ed Schultz takes calls.,. DU should be on

everyday.. we have the topics and the facts... I have been on his program several times!

[bigmonkey]

35. I'd like to underline this last point.

I find a lot of folks tend to think that "Innocent until proven guilty" is some sort of noble attitude about methods of proof and rules of evidence _in general_. It's not, it's really not. It properly applies only to humans, for the reason stated. Processes, organizations (for me this would include corporations), methods, _none_ of these things merit this protection, which was designed to protect human beings.
I guess, given my convictions, I would extend it to sentient beings, but in no way is a voting method "Innocent until proven guilty".

[Land Shark]

37. funny thing is, it's not even "innocent until proven guilty' with election

matters, it's INNOCENT SO LONG AS THERE iS ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THE CASE FOR IRREGULARITY OR FRAUD. (media/establishment perspective)

there are plenty of cases where fraud could be proved in civil court that don't get pursued by the media because of the above strange standard. Any plausible excuse goes.... in court it's either a preponderance of the evidence standard, or "clear and convincing" depending on jurisdiction to prove fraud. i say this as a business law and consumer fraud attorney, so I know what it takes to prove fraud in a court of law.

[Eloriel]

14. GOOD FOR YOU!!

:toast:

:bounce:

[eleny]

15. kick

:kick:

[Igel]

16. Ohio Boards of Elections are

appointed by the secretary of state, (in this case) Blackwell, and consists of 2 dems/2repubs, with the county Dem and Repub parties making recommendations for who should be appointed, using whatever means they decide on internally. He has to appoint the recommended people unless ...

"(the secretary of state) has reason to believe that the elector would not be a competent member of such board. In such cases the secretary of state shall so state in writing to the chairman of such county executive committee, with the reasons therefor, and such committee may either recommend another elector or may apply for a writ of mandamus to the supreme court to compel the secretary of state to appoint the elector so recommended. In such action the burden of proof to show the qualifications of the person so recommended shall be on the committee making the recommendation...."

Being qualified for such an appt. is a fairly trivial thing.

So before we declare the 2 dems on each county's elections board to be our "political enemies" and purged, maybe somebody should talk to them.

[Land Shark]

19. don't you realize that this means that BLACKWELL controls

on every single disputed issue; tie votes will be common on any issue that counts, and my understanding is that blackwell casts the tiebreaking vote. With 2 Dems and 2 Reps on a board it means DEADLOCK but for a tiebreaking process. This provides zero reassurance. 2 Dem appointments, 2 Reps, 2 at large elected and 10 randomly chosen from registered voters might give a good forum for dispute resolution, but still may or may not provide enough observation ability.

two people in any event (dems or not) can not observe the entire counting process nor are party operatives a substitute for the public's right generally to observe. There are many things both parties agree on that are not necessarily in the public interest: they both agree in closed primaries (in WA state at least) while the public heavily favors open primaries, they are insider-perspective while the public is outsider perspective ------ the whole reason why businesses have to do so much customer surveying and studying is that they simply don't have the perspective to see how it appears from the outside.

[Land Shark]

22. I j,just re-read igil's post, carefully, and am even more amazed

that anyone would think that 2 democrats ACCEPTABLE TO BLACKWELL on a 4 person board, with blackwell as tiebreaker .... IS A REASSURANCE OR A CHECK AND BALANCE ON ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.

If blackwell has any influence on the election board votes of the appointed republicans, he's effectively the election dictator under this scheme.

Are Democrats really defending this 2-2 system?

Is it because they are reluctant to admit they're co-opted into impotence?

the 2 Dems are not the "political enemy" and I never implied they were. Those 2 dems on the election board with veto and tiebreaking power by Blackwell are HOSTAGES. (slight exaggeration for rhetorical effect).

[Junkdrawer]

28. I've been posting and posting this for the last several days...

As usual, our clue SHOULD have been Blackwell's emphasis of the "Why there's no hanky panky, all Election Boards are strictly bipartisan" line.

Also, check my post for the Common Cause recommendations.

[Igel]

33. I'm in TX, I've only been in OH while passing through,

but I can't imagine the dem parties where I've lived having their candidates rejected, have a second candidate rejected, have a third candidate rejected ... all without raising a ruckus. Again, being qualified to sit on an elections board ... just don't drool ... *too* much.

Oddly, though, some counties that I thought were repub have dem elections board chairs (possibly triggered by a requirement that the director--hired by the board--be of the opposite party).

http://www.electionohio.com/boe.asp gives a really, really outdated list of counties with links to who the commissioners are in each country. Anybody in S. OH that can give feedback on any of the dems involved?

edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Second_Congressional_District_Election,_2005 shows which counties were involved.

[meganmonkey]

18. GREAT JOB!!!!

That was awesome!

Keep up the good work.

I agreed with 99.9% of what you said, which is about as close as it gets

:yourock:

[Land Shark]

20. Thank you, thems high praise! n/t

[meganmonkey]

24. There is just so much resistance to all paper/handcounted

it is hard to convince people.

[Land Shark]

36. try this: there's no resistance to a public-verifiable democracy

with ample public oversight, understandable by the average person.

'understandable' rules out high tech (which has a million problems anyway) and public verifiable provides the disclosure and the transparency and observation.

Now, iF that value takes us to paper, hand counted, then so be it.

But ARGUE THE VALUES, don't argue the solution to a problem many don't even see yet.

after you argue values, you can propose a possible solution

[eleny]

21. I have a new perspective on the vvpb's

I believe that you're right about people not checking a printout for accuracy. Thom's example of people not always checking their grocery receipt hit home.

And the first thing we need to get over is getting election results quickly. Seems like the networks "need" to report first is part of the problem.

Emphasizing the accuracy of exit polls does seem like an easy thing to get across to the public. Spreading that word, at least on the net, should be easy to do. It places a lot of importance on the voter, the public. It puts it back where the emphasis belongs. So if there are huge discrepancies such as what happened in the '04 presidential, the public might be more motivated to demand answers.

I think we keep forgetting that we're actually in charge. We've been bamboozled into believing that we're not.

[Land Shark]

23. AGREED. We keep being told the public demands convenience

when we've already waited years for the election result and can wait another two days if need be..... (and i'm not saying it would take anywhere near that long)

Which values are worth sacrificing the integrity of our democracy?

A. Convenience
B. Convenience of quick result reporting
C. Convenience of administrative officials' convenience
D. Convenience of candidates anxious to order business cards

The implicit notion every time people say paper ballots hand counted won't work is that any difficulty in implementing (or re-implementing) such a system means that the integrity of our "democratic" elections should be sacrificed.

i.e. Surrender to the forces of convenience. The one thing fascists can usually do is make the trains run on time.

[eleny]

31. The Washington State governor's race is a good example....

....of how much patience the public really has. The Republicans, to be specific. They were willing to keep recounting to kingdom come. So we should remember to drag out this example each and every time they start talking about being expedient or saving money for that matter. Recounts cost a lot, too.

[mopinko]

26. you go

if it wasn't fishy, jimmy carter would be telling me so. transparent is transparent. plain and simple.

[Lannes]

27. Great Post

Thats the point I was trying to make on my thread and you did a much better job of it than I did.I posted something that raised some concerns and let Duers figure out what to make of it.It worries me that some were
so hell bent on stopping that.

Its when we stop asking questions that we are lost.Thats what the other side wants us to do.We arent talking about the spice girls being responsible for 9/11 here.They have a proven track record of criminal behavior in elections.

[AmBlue]

32. Saw this on the earlier thread......

Glad you made it a separate topic. Important and worthy issue. Also glad you got it some AAR airtime. Kicked and nominated.
:kick:

[Pooka Fey]

39. Kick.

[Old and In the Way]

40. Good stuff!

Keep swinging that size 36 Louieville Sluggar...

[cyberpj]

41. They can accurately track our tax filings though, can't they?

the point is -- they made voting sloppy and without federal unification on purpose. It's not that hard to fix it but they keep telling US it is.