November 3rd Pledge of Action: No Stolen Election

[deutsey]

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2607

We all remember the votes that were never counted in Florida 2000. So, while we are all working hard for a positive outcome on November 2nd, we also have to be prepared for a repeat of a 2000 stolen election. Below is a pledge for people to sign, supporting efforts to mobilize and protect the vote on November 2nd and making a commitment to protest starting on November 3rd in the case of a fraudulent vote count. By signing this pledge, you will be joining with thousands of others in the November 3rd Urgent Response Network. Please sign the pledge at www.nov3.us and pass it around far and wide.

MORE...

Sorry if this is a dupe.

[Goldmund]

1. How will we know as early as Nov 3rd that the vote count is fraudulent?

[deutsey]

2. I learned about people being denied their right to vote

on the day after the election in 2000.

[Goldmund]

3. That's just sloganeering.

If we're going to have any credibility, we're going to have to base our suspicions on more than that -- as in, facts. And those won't be knowable (to use Rummy's word) on Nov 3rd, chances are. Furthermore, if they do steal an election, and we start protesting without any facts, then they will just paint us as "sore losers", and it'll work. If I didn't know better, I'd think that this was a Rovian plot.

[deutsey]

5. Sloganeering?

I was reading about in news sources.

:shrug:

[Goldmund]

7. That's not what I am saying.

I'm saying that "we know the election has been stolen in 2004 because it was stolen in 2000" does not a good argument make.

[deutsey]

8. The point is to be prepared

especially when you hear about all the crap GOP operatives are pulling with voter registration already.

Or we can just sit on our asses if they try to steal it again and do nothing until it's too late, just like four years ago.

If it does happen again, I want to be ready to take action and UFPJ is providing me with an opportunity to do that. At least that's how I read their call to action.

[Goldmund]

9. I'm with you as far as justified suspicions

There is more than enough reason to expect some kind of fraud. But my point is that we can't act pre-emptively. We have to be on the lookout (unlike in 2000) and we have to quickly react to any indications of fraud (unlike we did in 2000). But to say "let's protest Nov 3rd" -- I don't get it. My opinion isn't set on this, I'm just looking for somebody to explain to me how we can predict that we'll have enough information to react not even a mere day after the election. Do we start protesting simply if the results are unfavorable to us? Or do we protest specific fraud allegations? If the former, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot. It will just look like we're being whiny losers, and we'll give credibility to the fraud (if one exists). If the latter, then where did we get the crystal ball to know that we'll have the information to allege fraud 12 hours after the polls close? It doesn't make sense to me.

[deutsey]

11. The way I read the UFPJ post, they're saying we have to be prepared

to protest in case something happens. If it doesn't, so be it. If it does, we have people who are committed to taking action.

"...we also have to be prepared for a repeat of a 2000 stolen election. Below is a pledge for people to sign, supporting efforts to mobilize and protect the vote on November 2nd and making a commitment to protest starting on November 3rd in the case of a fraudulent vote count."

I read reports the day after the 2000 election that thousands of people had been disenfranchised in Florida on Election Day. I was appalled as we all just had to sit by and watch these thugs steal the election in the days that followed. Although we had no reason to suspect that such a thing would have happened (and therefore had no reason to be prepared for action), if we had been better prepared to hit the Busheviks back during the recount phase, maybe we wouldn't have had four years of Bogus Bush. The GOP was certainly prepared at the time, as evidenced by the "Brooks Brothers Riot" during the recount.

Before I had read about what had really happened in Florida and thought that Bush had prevailed on the day after the Election, I can honestly say that I was ready to recognize him as president. Why? Because I thought that he had been elected through a legitimate, democratic process. Once I found out what his goons did in Florida, though, and as I watched what they continued to do in the days that followed, I wished I could in some way do something to defend the democratic process. Instead I just watched the whole mess unfold on TV.

I'm not going to let that happen again. If I see credible evidence that they stole the election again, I want to be out doing something about it. Not just whining about it here on DU or in front of a damn TV.

[HereSince1628]

4. What does the count mean if several 100K are denied the vote?

Getting the count right is only one problem. It is probably the easiest to get right on review. And counting the votes caste is of a priori importance.

But, how in the hell do we (as a nation and as a party)incorporate the votes of people wrongfully denied access to the polls because of voter registration fraud?

If anyone knows any jurisdiction where a vote can be caste after the polls close to correct a wrongful disenfranchisement I would be interested to know it.

[deutsey]

6. Very good question

That's actually my biggest concern about this election.

[gauguin57]

10. PA may have its hands full with THIS mess ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1104311