Will somebody explain this to me? UFPJ petition to pledge to protest

[Goldmund]

This came up in a thread earlier today, and it's sunk -- so I thought I'd start a new thread, because I'm really interested in what people have to say about this.


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.

Tell me if I'm reading this wrong: in case of a "fraudulent vote count", we start protesting on Nov 3rd. Even the domain name of the site is nov3.us.

Now, I'm perfectly aware that after the 2000 experience and the general nature of the Bush/Rove cabal, we need to keep our eyes on everything that goes on, we need to suspect everything, and need to make sure everything's being done fairly -- to the extent we can.

But, Nov 3rd? Do we have a crystal ball? If the vote count is fraudulent, it's likely we won't know that on Nov 3rd. And even if that were not the case, shouldn't protests be triggered by fact revelations -- not by dates, especially not a date that is so soon after Nov 2nd that the only thing we're likely to know on the 3rd is the official vote count, fraudulent or not? Why not pledge to take part in a protest triggered by revelations of illegal activities -- and not simply by a date?

This to me sounds almost like a Rovian plot. If there is fraud, and we protest, they will point to this petition and say "see? They were planning to do this before the election even happened!". This petition may make any legitimate protest of fraudulent activity seem simply like sore loser-ism.

Envision this scenario. We wake up on Nov 3rd, and Bush has won by 15 EV. What then? Do we investigate and then protest (if we reveal anything fishy), or do we protest and then investigate? If the latter -- which seems to me what this petition is suggesting -- then we taint all post-investigative protest activity, IMO.

What say you?

[Shoeempress]

1. It's to stop momentum building for Chimpy like it did last time.

As you recall, Chimpy's cousin called he election for Shrub and REVERSED the tide of a Gore Win. If protests erupt every where, perhaps the Supreme Court won't be so quick to re-appoint our temporary administrator. And I will be there protesting.

[Goldmund]

3. I'm not against protesting

And you're right, if millions protested the recount debacle in 2000, maybe it would have had an effect on the legal process.

But the only way that the protests will be effective is if they are triggered by factual, or at least alleged, illegalities. Not if they're triggered by a date -- Nov 3rd -- and a supposed Bush win. This petition provides plenty of ammo for those protests to be painted as born out of the "sore loser" syndrome -- they planned on protesting no matter what the circumstances, on this particular date no matter what the revelations, simply if the official count showed that Bush won. The only political effect that I see from these protests is that they will discredit subsequent protests triggered by actual fact.

[Shoeempress]

8. Think what they mean is that by 11/3 if no winner is announced

recounts are starting, yada, yada, yada, it is time to take action Immediately. And I for one, will. We can't afford to let them get the upper hand.

[Goldmund]

10. I'm not sure that's what they mean

All the say is "in the case of a fraudulent vote count". But I don't see how we'll know about how fraudulent the vote count was only 12 hours after the polls close.

But even if you're right -- recounts are starting, yada, yada, yada. What are we protesting in that case? There are legal procedures that trigger recounts. If those legal standards are met, what would we be protesting?

Once there are illegalities, I'm all for protesting, as I've said. But as long as everything is -- as far as we know -- being done through the legal processes of the system, then I don't see how protests could have any political impact.

Of course, I'm the first to say that BushCo will do everything they can to stay in power -- from allowing a terrorist attack to stealing elections. But once again, protests can't be based simply on suspicion, but on fact.

[shirlden]

2. Just signed up

Number 91289.


Join the crowd.



:argh:

[Goldmund]

4. Sorry, I never join crowds just to join crowds

This is either political stupidity or a trap.

I will join protests if they are triggered by allegations of fraud or electoral cheating. If that happens to be clear on Nov 3rd, then so be it; if it isn't clear until Dec 10th, then I guess I'll be freezing my ass off on Dec 10th. But to protest an electoral result if that's all we have is, in principle, essentially undemocratic.

[earthside]

5. You Cannot Wait

Look at the news and comments on DU for the past few weeks ... we will know on November 2 if Bush and Cheney are stealing another election.

We must learn from our mistakes of four years ago. We cannot wait one single day to save our nation.

On November 3, we must take to the streets to show our resolve and determination to stop Bush and Cheney from accomplishing a coup d'etat.

Let's hope that this doesn't happen. Let's hope that all these early reports of radical Republican voter intimidation and voter suppression prevent a wholesale theft of our election process. Let's hope and work hard so that Kerry wins by such a wide margin that Bush cheating will all be moot.

But if it is evident that there is questionable behavior that throws the election into turmoil ... don't wait one week, don't wait one day, don't wait one minute to save our country.

SIGN THE PLEDGE: www.Nov3.us

[Goldmund]

7. OK, let me axe you this

Is it possible, in principle, that Bush will get more votes on Nov 2nd -- without voter fraud?

The answer to this question is clearly "yes". I believe it's unlikely. And let me add that if I wake up on Nov 3rd to a Bush victory, my first thought will be "fraud: investigate. And investigate agressively and quickly, unlike in 2000".

Once investigation leads to discoveries of fraud, I'll be on the streets right next to you.

But what are you suggesting? You wake up on Nov 3rd, and Bush has (God forbid and Allah help him in forbidding) won. There are yet no specific discoveries of fraud. What do you do? Hit the streets? What will you tell people when they ask you what you're protesting?

[blondeatlast]

14. We simply can't let them have the upper hand? Remember

the RNC operatives bussed in to interfere with the Florida recount?

DEMOCRACY is at stake here; it's a matter of visibility (we know what you are up to, we will do everything legal to prevent it) and exposing the fraud.

Good God, have you read DU lately? LBN is chock full of stories regarding Republican elected officials finding any excuse they can to disenfranchise every voter they can.

[Goldmund]

21. I don't have many doubts in my heart that BushCo will attempt fraud.

But protests can't be based on intuition or judgement of character (ie, "we know these guys and they would pull off something like this"). My point is not to protect the good BushCo against the bad protesters -- my point is that I would dread to see these protests be made less effective than they could otherwise be, because we jumped the gun. If we protest before fraud is revealed, we give them an opening to paint us simply as "sore losers"; once the fraud is actually revealed, it will be too late; we already will have been tainted.

[sherilocks]

6. UfPJ said to be prepared, not necessarily to start

marching. I was in Tallahassee within days of the 2000 election and the Repugs were already up there in their cars and motorhomes. They didn't fly, they drove, many from the midwest. The Repugs were well organized, press releases, picketing, etc. UfPJ just wants to make sure that we aren't in for another stealth attack.

Another point: all the pro-Gore people were from Florida and a few from Georgia. The Shrub people were operatives brought in from other states like Texas and Oklahoma.

[blondeatlast]

15. Precisely; you are pledging to mobilize if necessary.

And I did. I hope for my son's sake and my job that I won't have to, but I will if necessary.

My country, and my son's future, is at stake.

[meganmonkey]

9. this is how protesters organize

just like before the war started, plans were in the works to get people organized for peace marches. there is always this sort of plan ahead of time. it takes time to get the word out, and to get permits in some cases. if the timing of an event is easy to predict, the grassroots organizations are getting their shit together early.

[Goldmund]

11. I see what you're screamin'

and I guess I'd have much less of a problem with it if it were not associated by a date, especially not a date so soon after the election -- so soon that it's unlikely we'll know many facts. And also, if the petition clearly defined what "fraudulent vote count" means -- and what that means the day after the election. It seems to mean "a Bush win", and that's what bums me out about this.

If the petition said "be ready to protest in the days after the election in case of discoveries of fraudulent activities, stay tuned and we'll let you know what, if anything, is being organized", it would accomplish the purpose you're talking about -- without seeming like it's saying "we'll protest if Bush wins as soon as the election is over".

[meganmonkey]

13. i see yours, and raise you...

on one hand i think, hey, we obviously weren't prepared in 2000 - there should have been coast to coast uproar in the streets. so let's get on it and be ready. we know if * wins that there WAS fraud, so we might as well get started right away and let the facts and details catch up.

on the other hand you're right too.

i don't know, i think if * wins, there won't be time for rationality. i may very well be out in the streets myself.

[Goldmund]

17. "we know if * wins that there WAS fraud"

See, that's the problem. I don't know that. I believe that Kerry will win -- I can't even tell you how many bets I'll lose if he doesn't -- and I believe that if the numbers show a Bush win, it will _likely_ be due to fraud. But -- if we are going to protest, we must represent a higher democratic credibility against undemocratic tendencies in the system. Losing is a part of democracy. Fraud is not. Rejecting a fair loss is just as undemocratic as accepting fraud. If our equation is "loss = fraud", then we convey an elementally undemocratic message. We can't allow to be painted as undemocratic -- because if we are, then our very essence -- which is to fight against erosion of democracy -- is compromised.

I'll say two things and they are equally important: We must not protest a loss. We must protest fraud. If we protest before fraud is revealed, then once the fraud is discovered, we will still look like we're protesting a loss. It will give credibility to the fraud.

[meganmonkey]

22. that's the other hand i was talking about

and i definitely agree that there is a slight window of opportunity the * could win legitimately. but last time we waited for the system to make things legitimate and we got screwed. not only did we get screwed but so did much of the world. and i simply don't know that i can put my trust in this system, which is certainly no better than 4 years ago. there have been stories on DU all day about absentee ballots without Kerry's name, computer probs in florida, etc. not to mention that * has appointed all sorts of judges who will be happy to err on the side of * if recounts and fraud allegations get in court.
i respect what you're saying, and i appreciate your defense of democracy, but if we had any sort of reasonable democracy we wouldn't even have to worry about this. but to be dangerously frank (please don't flame me on this), if we had real democracy i wouldn't even be voting for kerry. keep in mind i _am_ voting for kerry and i like the guy and i want him to win and i think he'll be a good president, not just a _better_ president. just not my ideal president. but i will definitely vote for him because, due to thwarted democracy, he is my only choice.

[Goldmund]

24. "if we had real democracy i wouldn't even be voting for kerry"

High Five, sista. I'm totally with you. The other night I said something similar: "I wish I lived in a country in which I would hate Kerry because I'd consider him a reactionary.". No flames here, to the contrary.

I also agree with you that the system is far from being an even imperfect democracy. But if a rejection of the system is where we're coming from -- then let's start a revolution. Let's not even vote in elections. If we're not ready to do that (and the country is obviously not ready for anything like that), then we must work within it.

Now, what does that mean? I'm not saying we have to wait until some court rules that there has been fraud before we protest. I'm saying that we must wait until we have _arguments_, sound arguments, to allege fraud. Then we will accuse BushCo of working against the system -- or at least its democratic principles -- and that is something that can have a political effect. If they can accuse us of working against the system (and its democratic principles, which include accepting a loss), then they will have the political upper hand.

[meganmonkey]

25. maybe we are ready for a revolution

okay, that's probably an overshot, and i won't even try to back it up fully. but people are pissed - really, really pissed. i am, you are too. i don't mean we're ready for a gun-toting violent revolution, i don't think i would ever condone that. but to some extent maybe we're on our way to some kind of revolution. especially if * wins. or if he 'wins'. i'm at a point where i don't care what 'they' accuse 'us' of. part of why i don't think this is a democracy as it stands is that 98% of americans really believe that there are only 2 categories for everyone to fit in. and there is so much darkness and corruption and it is so near the surface. outside of the administration and a few pundits, there aren't many people who are backing up what they're saying. we have old-time conservatives trash-talking the neo-cons. there was a great thread about a 'civil war' in the republican party if * wins yesterday (don't know the link). all this is bubbling up and i really don't think it would take too much to pop it.

honestly, i'm mostly trying to convince myself here. but this is a great dialogue - thank you! now is where we pour some shots.

:toast:

edit: i totally thought you were a girl this whole time. just checked your profile. hee hee

[Goldmund]

26. Hey, thank you too

Let's drink some Bushwackers (http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink5814.html).


:toast:

[meganmonkey]

28. i'm glad i'm only 'virtually' drinking that...

no dairy in my shots, man. no way.

the rest of it looks great!

[Goldmund]

29. Hey, I've never tried it

but I'm having an election night party at my place and we're going to drink those, just because they're called "Bushwackers". I'll let you know if it makes me sick.

But hey, you can send just as strong a message to Bush by drinking this: http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink3684.html

[meganmonkey]

30. LOL - Now that's my kind of drink!

[blondeatlast]

16. It's hardly a knee jerk reaction; read this, from the site:

We are setting up a Fair Elections Advisory Council made up of US and international elections experts who will give us their assessment on election day itself. If they find significant fraud, we will activate the Urgent Response Network on or immediately after November 3rd, calling on people everywhere to engage in protest, including non-violent civil disobedience, in front of their local federal buildings and other appropriate places. We will also be asking those who can to converge in the states where the most serious fraud occurred, as well as in Washington DC.

All emphasis mine.

[Goldmund]

19. OK, that definitely helps

Good find. That helps with a lot of my worries. I still, though, would like to hear more about who this "fair elections advisory council" is, what their credentials are, and what exactly defines "significant fraud". Also, the Nov 3rd date bothers me -- both by its exactness (though, granted, here it says "on or immediately after") and by its proximity to the date of the elections. But this is definitely something I missed. Thanks for pointing it out.

[intheflow]

12. UFPJ is getting fringe, imho

On a power trip, maybe. Or maybe just grew too fast.

Just sent me 40 (!) high gloss 24x28 posters I didn't request and cannot use with some wierd Abu Ghraib graphic and a vague, senseless message. Not a "Uniting for Peace" message but more of a "Dividing by Shock Tactic" theme, imo.

This is the same group that solicits me for money every week. These posters were not cheap to print or send to people out of the blue. I shudder to think how they're spending the donations they get.

BUT I do agree that plans have to be made for Nov. 3rd, just in case. There are just too many freaky things happening this election cycle to not plan ahead.

[sherilocks]

18. I belong to UFPJ and I've contributed

I get a rare email from them and no posters. Are we talking about the same group?

[intheflow]

20. I'm afraid so, but like I said

they may have grown too fast for their own good. They must have about a million members with all that's been going down with Iraq. I joined waaaaaaaaaaay back in October 2001 when few people had ever heard of them. Now they are THE organizer for protest events, heading up the NYC Repub protest. It's a lot to handle in a short time for a small grassroots group. I can see how mistakes are made having worked at small non-profits--if any of those places grew at such a rate we would have all gone crazy.

End analysis: I think UFPJ's heart is in the right place but mistakes are being made.

[sherilocks]

23. Leslie Kagen (sp?) organized the march

and she's no novice. The march was once of the best organized I've participated in. So I'm not going to complain since I've not gotten excessive emails, posters, or have anything derogatory to say about them. I was a little pissd when they agreed to march on the West Side Highway, but they listened and changed plans when the complaints started rolling in.

[kohodog]

27. The Dems never responded in 2000 and look where we are.

We figured truth would win. Just as MoveOn, DU and others requested responses to instant polls after debates to quiet the spin machine, we must be prepared to make noise if the election is disputed by the Republicans.

Scenario 1: Bushies win by stealing or repressing votes ala Florida 2000. We must protest immediately and in numbers so the corporate media takes notice.

Scenario 2: Kerry wins and the Rove machine goes into legal overtime. We must celebrate and organize. Our response will mute the spin machine, and I think we need to act either way, whether by dancing or protesting.