I'm doing a 30 minute speech to Republicans this week. Suggestions?

[GuvWurld]

I have been asked to speak at no less than six events in the next month. I attribute this largely to the Voter Confidence Resolution being adopted by Arcata, CA on July 20. I will limit this post to the most immediate engagement which is coming up this Thursday, Sept. 8. I have been booked as the guest speaker at the monthly meeting of the Humboldt County Republican Party. I will have up to 30 minutes though I was told it would be cool if I spoke for 15 and took questions.

This particular invitation came about because of a town hall forum that the Voter Confidence Committee held in Eureka on ranked choice voting. This was back in April. After the event we called all the people who signed our attendance sheet. I had the good fortune of dialing the then-executive director of the Rs. He was not in favor of preferential voting but he took it as an appropriately responsible and respectful measure that I would call and genuinely listen to his opinions. Our 20 minute call went so well we agreed to continue it over coffee. That meeting went over an hour and resulted in the speaking invite. I was getting through to this guy, at least in terms of the need for objective review of systemic election reforms. We were beginning to build a bridge.

So why am I asking for suggestions?

Two reasons, really. First, I want to read thoughts about the points and techniques people think can be used best for further building bridges when I'm speaking to a group rather than an individual.

Second, as many have said, Katrina changed everything. The truth is I really don't feel like talking about elections anymore. I've been doing it for a year and a half and it seems I'm just starting to get somewhere with it. But given that I've been calling for peaceful revolution for three and a half years, the government's response to the hurricane has left me with complete tunnel vision. We have to protect ourselves from our government and revolution is all I feel inclined to discuss. I welcome comments on how I should connect this back to my familiar election reform material or how I can avoid that and still focus on bridge building. There is no value to simply having my say but getting shouted down and kicked out. I have to be persuasive and dignified.

OK, DU me.

[Mythsaje]

1. I titled this "Dear Average Republican"

Use what you will...


There is NO "liberal agenda" but the shared interest of liberals who want to see things get better for everyone. You, your parents, and the guy who bags groceries down at the Piggly-Wiggly. Liberals want to see you with enough money to buy groceries, pay off your house, and put at least one gas-efficient vehicle in your garage.

It's not an agenda. It's people hoping for the best for other people.

It's about hoping that your Uncle John, who's been farming the same plot of land for the last 40 years, doesn't lose his farm because he falls off his tractor and breaks his leg and can't pay his doctor bill.It's about hoping that you have some options when your town's biggest employer goes belly-up 'cuz it can't compete with the textile factory in China.

It's about making sure you get paid enough that you don't have to take two or three jobs just to make ends meet. So you can spend more time with your family...so you can play catch with your boys, or take them fishing on weekends, or take your little girl to the local swimming hole and teach her how to swim.

It's not an agenda to want the best for people. It's just humanity. It's about being a good neighbor, even if that neighbor lives half a country away.

Ask a liberal what empathy is...it's about understanding where someone else is coming from. And most of us try very hard, even if we don't agree.

Being a liberal isn't about making fun of God, or your beliefs about him. Most liberals take the Sermon on the Mount to heart. They try to live the teachings of Jesus, even if they aren't sure he's really the Son of God. Thomas Jefferson called him the World's Greatest Moral Philosopher. You'll find very few liberals who'd disagree with that.

It's because of liberals that your ten year olds get to go to school rather than being forced to work in factories for spare change. It's because of liberals that you can trust your workplace to be safe and free of unexpected dangers. It is because of liberals that, should you be injured at work, you can expect fair medical treatment and compensation for your lost work.

That's what we do. We try to look out for everybody. Even the people who hate us.We don't have an agenda. We don't take marching orders from anyone. We do what we do because we believe in people.We believe in you.

All we ask is that you begin to believe in us.

[expatriot]

2. Start w/ "Bush is committing genocide in New Orleans!" & build from there.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. What the Future Demands

It's easier to talk about revolution when you start out talking about the pressures behind the need for one.

It will also allow you to speak about issues that currently transcend party lines -- like disaster preparedness, which will become increasingly vital in a world with resource shortfalls, resurgent Fundamentalism, and unpredictable climate change. The role of the Corporation might yield some new insights. I'd be interested in trying to lay some Georgist economics on Republicans. (Georgist economics involves raising all revenues from "grants of title" -- essentially, taxes on land, corporate charters, and intellectual property only, formulated as royalties. http://www.henrygeorge.org will get you started.)

My favorite technique is to start with common-ground stuff, then draw them into my point of view. I also take pains to say that I don't like nicey-nice compromise, but value the "dynamic tension" (Charles Atlas aside!) of argument and dialectic. Because actually, I do.

I don't know what you want to accomplish, but there is so much in rhetoric that hasn't been done that you have a lot of room for innovation.

If you have been asked to speak, you shouldn't expect to be shouted down. It would be rude of the HCRP, and they don't want to sully their reputation, especially now.

--p!

[MadisonProgressive]

4. Tell them to go Cheney themselves!

[Usrename]

5. If the first question they ask is what party are you

then you are connecting. May be tricky (difficult) but not deceptive. If you know before you say it that it will flame people then you lose them. If it's Democratic ideals you are talking about then they can be bold. Most people share alot of common ideas. A good joke works,too.

Just be aware that a lot of words and phrases have a way of ruffling people. 'peaceful revolution' is the same as 'uniter not a divider'

I'd pound anybody who said that to a pulp. That phrase is crap but what is really wrong with the idea? get it?

non-violent revolution is better, strength through diplomacy is even better yet, do what I say or I'll nuke you is probably the best you can do.

[MadeinOhio]

6. Its this simple. Point out the fact democrats are stealing elections too.

And this is a national problem with democracy as a whole, because of insecure malfunctioning machines and racism.

http://www.countthevote.org


http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-u-s-presidential-election-controversy-voting-machines


Show him there's no exscuse for these machines being in operation if they aren't HAVA compliant, which they aren't. And it breeds LAWLESSNESS and CORRUPTION.

Always point out the conflict of interest, explain it in terms they will understand and hand out fliers of Myth Breakers.

[Stevepol]

7. It comes down to a simple question: Do you want a democracy or not?

There are two simple facts that we all as Americans have to address. The first is that vote counting in elections is no longer transparent or auditable and is being done by private corporations that have an agenda and are highly partisan. In effect, we not longer have the prerequisites of a working democracy. Is this what we want?

In support of this simple fact here are a couple others. 80-85% of the vote counting in our elections is done by electronic voting machines programmed and operated and maintained by the corporations that made them. 30% of the machines don't even have a paper trail. And those that do, because there is no requirement for auditing, in effect the machines count the votes without any checking whatever.

The second fact is that the exit polls, both the Edisonl-Mitofsky poll and the various state polls indicate that Kerry won the election by 3%. What should we do about this fact? Should we not investigate?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

8. Ask how would they feel if voting software was created by

Teresa Heinz Kerry or George Soros and they refused to file their source code? Or owned by either of them?

Ask, if a rich Saudi Arabian who controls all the oil paid the voting contractors money to tip the election was acceptable to them?

Ask, if they owned a contracting company and were constantly not able to obtain government contracts because Halliburton obtained them all, how would they feel?

Ask, if they are happy with the knowledge the past two elections were stolen and their prez waited until the media placed pressure on him to evacuate the dying?

Ask, why the National Guard was not given orders to report until the evening of the 31st? We all knew BEFORE the hurricane struck what the outcome would be?

Ask, if they are happy knowing this idiot has stolen two elections, controlled members of both parties in congress, almost killed 30,000 people by neglect in NO, let alone all the troops in Iraq that have been killed, let alone all the innocent Iraqi people? Are they friggen happy now?

[Bill Bored]

9. Here's my suggestion:

Cite all the prominent Republicans you can think of who did NOT endorse Bush or actually endorsed someone else in 2004. Mark Crispin Miller has a nice synopsis of this in his Harpers piece.

Also, everyone from the American Conservative magazine, except the asshole Buchanan himself, did not endorse Bush. There were about 5 other endorsements including Kerry, Badnarik and Nader.

Then cite the fact that the E-VOTING machines can be programmed to force straight party choices to include or exclude ANY Presidential candidate from ANY party, so that a Republican could have great difficulty voting for anyone other than Bush for POTUS or could even have his/her vote switched to a Democrat. Straight party voting is allowed in 17 states, but it's ILLEGAL in the other 33 and in DC. But there is nothing in the software to stop this feature from being exploited. The same technique could be used to keep Democrats from voting for a candidate of another party, or even to cause voters to vote cross-party against their will.

Once you get them to question whether their OWN votes were counted as cast, you should be on a roll!

There is no basis for confidence in the system. That's the key.

[petgoat]

10. Chuck Herrin, a Republican Hacker, Has a Lot to Say About

electronic voting, and about talking to Republicans about it.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/LiberalEmpathy.htm

Some quotes:

"Since the only thing that holds our Representatives accountable to us
is the power of our votes, if that disappears, so does their accountability."

"The world has never seen a group as powerful as those in control right
now, and to think that they are operating with nearly total impunity
should frighten all of us to the very core of our beings. This power is
not rightfully theirs, however. It is ours, and they are supposed to
borrow it for 2, 4, or 6 years (depending on their office) so that they
can represent us and our interests."

"The pieces are in place to steal a great deal of power, but not from
the Democrats. It will be (or has been) stolen from ALL of us...."

"Ask yourself if we can ever come together and really make the world a
better place if we keep following the path that we're on.... Ask
yourself "if our votes haven't been stolen yet, do you have any reason
to believe that they won't be?""

[Bill Bored]

11. If they are a really friendly crowd,

you might bring up the Clint Curtis story. But be careful to stick to the facts: Affidavit, passed the lie detector test, controlling the vote in South Florida, Feeney's involvement, etc., but don't emphasize the partisan nature of this threat; they probably won't want to hear that. But if they ask, WTF, tell them Feeney has an (R) after his name.

A half hour is a very long time to talk to a potentially hostile audience. I wish you luck!

[Senator]

12. Try to plant some Memes

Frames/Memes for ALL reform and reformERRRs

We are promoting 3 themes/frames/memes to be included in any and all election reform efforts. They are intended to change people's thinking about elections in general. (Not least of which, the real target, our own thinking on the left.)

God bless us on the left, but try as we might (and we do), we cannot (and never have been able to) teach/inform our way to success with the general public. There are just too many of our fellow Americans who have been trained to NOT WANT any more information.

Furthermore, our penchant for getting bogged down in process-tinkering battles with the anti-democratic opponents has not served us well. In fact, their side has come to rely on it.

Using these themes will help you break down resistance and more quickly change minds. (We've seen it happen. You will too.)

1st - An election is a survey, not a contest.

Just like the census, an election tries to measure an objective reality: the will of the electorate. There's no reason (maybe cost) why we couldn't conduct them in the same way, with bonded agents going door-to-door collecting private ballots from voters.

The point(of view) being made(changed) is that an election is about the voters (not votes - ever). Candidates, campaigns, Parties, officials, equipment manufacturers, are all nearly-irrelevant. There is only one principle/interested-party/owner and that is the electorate as a whole.

2nd - It's the "ERRR," stupid!

Count every vote! -- ERRR!!! -- Count every vote! -- ERRR!!!

Forgive my stupid illustration, but see how easily we can be nudged away from our most powerful moral position and into their pre-gamed arena of discussing only vote-counts, ballots, chads, etc...

This is not simply a bolstering of the first meme (it may seem so, but only because your mind doesn't need much changing). We must always speak of voters, and never votes, because unless we do, such things as suppression become "separate issues." We can't allow this.

Victims of poll-tax-lines and "missing" registrations are voters. With the same right to be "surveyed" as everyone else.

Note: The Conyers bill has this right -- in the title. The Boxer/Clinton bill has it wrong.

3rd - Election manipulation is a capital crime.

(Ok, ok, stop screaming. The sentence can be commuted, all right?)

Yes, this seems extreme. Even a bit looney. But it gets your attention, right? That's the power. That and the fact that it's a simple, completely serious, moral proposal.

Election theft is far worse than cop-killing. Worse than 9/11 or any incident of terrorism. It is literally High Treason.

It undermines the only moral principle on which the nation was founded and continues (in theory) to rest -- that gov't power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

So what's so extreme? The truth is that we've been extremely lax in defending our most important of values. We need to be "born again" as Fundamentalist Americans engaged in "refounding" the nation.

That's the way to curb this creeping fascism.

------

[Febble]

19. Are you serious about number 1?

An election is a competition! It's precisely not a survey!

Only votes count. And votes MUST be counted. If one candidate gets one more vote than another candidate, that candidate wins. And vice versa.

If an election were a survey, the difference between 50,000,000 votes and 50,000,001 would not be "significant". However, because the election is NOT a survey, but a competition, that final extra vote does count. It's "winner takes all".

In a survey, even a census where supposedly every person is counted, inferences are made in order to establish the "true" values in the population you are surveying. You might know that the census will miss a few, so you make some inferences to get at the "true" number. And in most surveys you simply have a sample, and use inferential statistics to estimate the "true" value in the population you have sampled from.

But not in elections! They are competitions! And rightly so! And because it's not enough to say that there is a 1 in whatever probability that a majority voted for X - EVERY VOTE MUST BE COUNTED.

Isn't that the point of this forum?

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. well, is there another way to make the point?

I think the point was that an election is (or should be) about finding out what the voters want -- not about a competition between the candidates, or parties, to see who can win.

[Febble]

22. Yes, of course, agreed

(shame, we could have had a fight there....)

I couldn't agree more that elections are about what the voters want. And I couldn't agree more that democracy is about far more than votes. That's what made the "elections" in Iraq such a travesty. Democracy is making informed choices - which means an independent media for a start. It's also about the consent of the minority to be governed by the will of the majority - and the quid pro quo - the duty of the government to govern for all the people, not just for the people who cast their votes for that government. All that needs fixing. Boy, does it need fixing today.

But in a crucial, legal sense, elections are competitions. Different countries have different rules for the competition, but the rules have to be binding. You can't infer, legally, what people want beyond what their vote tells you. Even if you can show beyond all statistical doubt that the people of Palm Beach County wanted Gore, not Buchanan in 2000, because the election is a competition, not a survey, their votes still went to Buchanan and the nation got Bush, God help you all.

So yes, of course, it's the voters that matter - by every means every voter must be enabled to vote for the candidate or issue of their choice and have that vote counted. Foul-ups and fraud mustn't happen.

Because it's a competition.

Because it's not a survey.

[GuvWurld]

13. Thanks for all the comments.

I've had lots of great conversations today with people who I routinely work with on such things, but it has also been helpful to get the input from this thread. I don't even want to write more about how I think this will go, though I welcome continued comments here. I do hope to have the event taped and available online as soon after it happens as possible. Stay, as the kids say, tuned.

[garybeck]

14. visual aids, handouts, CDs, etc...

flood them with evidence and materials

[Peace Patriot]

15. My first thought on reading this was that Republican votes for Kerry

were also stolen. And it may be no bad deal for Republicans who want to recover their party from the Bushites to understand and promote the idea that they, too, have been the victims of a stolen election.

58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion. Feb. '03. Across the board in all polls. Some of that 58% had to have been Republicans--both real old fashioned conservatives (of the kind in Calif who STARTED the environmental movement), and who oppose "foreign entanglements" and foolish, costly "foreign adventures," and progressive Republicans (used to be characteristic of Calif R's) who oppose unjust war and probably also abhor the Bushites' assault on women's rights and mixing of gov't and religion.

I remember a story from a friend, back in early 2003, who had to spend some months with elderly people in a San Diego in a condo complex--retired doctors and military people--very Republican types. And what she reported was startling. They all thought Bush was "nuts" (their word). None of them supported Bush or his war.

I also think that Republican precincts would be the most likely places for the Bushites to steal votes from. I can't recall right now if there is any hard evidence. I believe that Cliff Arnebeck spoke about this, and may have evidence. (He's a Republican--prepared one of the Ohio lawsuits.)

I also think that the notion of ANYONE controlling the counting of our votes with secret, proprietary software, would be abhorrent to all people with a belief in democracy and fair play.

Give them an imaginary scenario: Make up an electronic voting company owned and controlled by George Soros, or Barbara Streisand, which got control of the vote count by lavishly lobbying election officials, and selling them electronic voting machines, while this major Democratic donor kept the programming code for tabulating all the votes as a "trade secret." Wouldn't Republicans be up in arms--having George Soros, or Barbara Steisand, counting all the votes behind closed doors?

Then, you might have to explain why Democrats are not up in arms! Well, some of us are. But Dem LEADERS seem to think it's just fine. Lavish lobbying. Corruption. Like just happened at the Beverly Hilton this August (Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia sponsoring a week of fun and sun for election officials from around the country--see link below). And the corruption of the heady power of brokering these big business deals that our election systems have become, and of lording and ladying it, with computer gobble-de-gook, over the dumb voters, who haven't a clue any more how their votes are counted.

Be down home. Tell them that Democrats are corrupt on this, too. And if they want to help us get rid of corrupt Dem election officials--like Connie McCormack in Los Angeles--we're into it. If a Repub candidate would stand up for paper ballots and transparent elections, he'd have MY vote. I'd vote against Democrats for that. I'd put all other issues aside. --and I've never voted Republican in my life; lifelong loyal Dem voter, 40 years. Tell them that. They come out for paper ballots, they've got my vote.

If some Republican really wants to reform elections--and make them fair again--I'm all for it. Tell them this word is getting around, in Dem circles, and the grass roots is very unhappy with the Dem leadership about it.

I would imagine that there may be a good many Republicans--especially Arcata Republicans--who are feeling damn disenfranchised themselves. Where do THEY have to turn to, as the Bushites implode? I'm sure they didn't think they were voting for incompetence, and looting of the federal treasury for an unnecessary and disastrous war, and a trillion dollar deficit, and out of control gas prices, and dead bodies all over the landscape. They may feel quite injured, and at a loss.

Look for common ground, of course. Really, we're all hurting. We're all worried. We've all been hoodwinked in many ways. And the electronic voting thing is among the worst ways that we've been hoodwinked and manipulated.

There is also all the unnecessary expense of electronic voting--not only the insecure, unreliable, hackable equipment, but also the no-end-in-sight servicing contracts. And voter don't--and many can't--understand how they work. Why not go back to good old-fashioned paper ballots, hand-counted at the precinct level? --at least until these electronic systems are proven more reliable, more open, more transparent, more secure from tampering, and come down in price. What a time for us to be spending foolishly on things that don't work well, and that we can't trust?

And we should also have a voting system that voters UNDERSTAND. We should shelve these new-fangled electronic systems, until voters are savvy about them, and we have open source code that everybody can review.

I remember Republicans in my family who were the most honest, down to earth, and kindly people I ever knew (when I was a kid--people who are gone now). I associated them with security and common sense. And I grew up with great respect for institutions like the Savings and Loan banks, which I thought of as Republican. Republicans are RESPONSIBLE with money. They will PROTECT your money. They think ahead. They have the common good in mind. I'd have some common ground with Republicans if they stood for those things today (and for environmental conservation). And it's those kind of Republicans--the old-fashioned kind, especially here in Calif--whom I would expect to be supporters of good government. Electronic voting is not good government. It's a boondoggle and a waste of money. And it's results are questionable, to say the least. If Republicans want to recover that sense of integrity that they were once known for, they will demand transparent and verifiable elections.

-----

See Amaryllis' post on electronic voting company lobbying at the Beverly Hilton this August--it will burn your eyeballs!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

[Nederland]

16. One idea

Others have given good advice on what to say about elections, so I'm just going to offer up one bit of advice if you do want to mention the events surrounding Katrina. In the interest of "building bridges", you might point out that while Democrats and Republicans disagree on much regarding the role of government, they do agree that one of the most basic responsibilities of government is to insure law and order. In this respect, the administration's response to the disaster was a miserable failure.

Now you might not want to use that phrase because it will provoke a knee jerk reaction from a Conservative crowd, but it would tie things in to the 2004 election given that it was a popular campaign phrase. I guess I think the key is to not talk about the disaster in Democratic terms--failure to provide medical care, etc.--talk about it in terms that you know Conservatives will agree with. Conservatives always love to talk about enforcing the law, fighting crime, making people responsible. Talk about these things and then point out that Bush has failed on all accounts.

Just my $0.02

[pat_k]

17. The points I find have the most impact

I think you already have the key points, but here the ones I find have the most impact:

The sole moral tenet on which our constitution, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed. (People often argue against this, but after a little back and forth, they quickly “get it” that everything else flows from the principle of consent. Can be a very powerful recognition for some.)

We the People, through our representatives, have set out our election laws to ensure that elections are free and fair and yield results that reflect OUR will.

We have a right to have confidence that we are being afforded free and fair elections for our government officials, A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

An election is not a contest -- it is a survey. While an election in a democracy may well have many of the trappings of a contest or competition, its purpose is quite different. That purpose is to poll the electorate and determine an accurate measure of their choice for a representative or magistrate. Like the census, it is intended to measure an objective reality. A contest is a more limited endeavor. And while campaigns are certainly treated by the media as sporting events, their purpose is simply communication to the only real stakeholders in the process, the voters whose intent an election is simply one method to gauge. While it may be impracticable, there's no reason why we couldn't conduct our elections by hiring (bonded) agents to canvass the voters rather than requiring attendance at a "polling" place.

Secret vote counting is Un-American (and very likely to be found unlawful under state and federal sunshine laws – see link)

Using DREs to count votes is secret vote counting.

The use of DREs to count votes is intolerable.

Related talking points

[YvonneCa]

18. Talk to them about values...

...real Democratic Party values. And tell them why voting is one of the most important.:patriot:

[GuvWurld]

21. Since it is me you're all trying to help (and I appreciate that)...

Please consider where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to accomplish as you formulate your suggestions. For starters, if you haven't read the Voter Confidence Resolution (VCR), please do. I'll settle one dispute right here. The first line says:

"Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people;"

This ball is rolling (see Arcata) and while debate may be intellectually gratifying to some on this point, it is not relevant to this thread. I am bound to the language and proposed reforms of the VCR. Besides, as distasteful as the horse-race element may be, elections do have winners and losers (mostly losers) and surveys do not.

The other important thing to remember is that I'm not trying to brow beat them into submission over their support for * or the war or anything else. As tempted as I am to be confrontational I will not do it. I'm not selling out, I'm being savvy and hope to ultimately be successful at building a bridge. This means improving if not creating the ability to have a working relationship with people who are not obvious ideological partners. They will surely be educated some during the process, but then so will I. Can you be as open in your community?

[Febble]

23. Just to show I can be constructive....

If it was me, and I was giving a talk to UK Tories on electoral reform (nearly happened once) I'd emphasise that the essence of a democracy includes the consent of the minority to be governed by the will of the majority. Heck, in both the UK and the US it sometimes involves the consent of the majority to be governed by the will of the minority, if the minority happened to be concentrated in areas where they are better represented by the electoral system. But whatever.

You can't govern half a people. You have to govern the whole country, and you can only govern a whole country if everyone is confident that the government has been duly elected.

At present no-one in the US has any basis for that confidence, and never will have unless your elections are made fair, secure, auditable and transparent, because at present they are none of those things.

Unfair, insecure, unauditable, black-box elections undermine the legitimacy of any government, Republican or Democrat.

My two pence.

[GuvWurld]

24. This is on the right (correct) track

Perhaps the most important shared lesson that can be taken away from this will be that we can indeed work together. But to prove this we must make it our explicit goal and we must gently feel out where we can find common ground and build trust. I will be talking about national issues, but I'll be speaking to local members of my very own community. It seems to me that we make a lot of assumptions about what separates us and then these notions become self-fulfilling prophecies. We do not typically do the reverse: recognize our commonalities and devote ourselves to making the glue stick. I may seem naive and idealistic to some; I wouldn't contest that. I'll just do my best to get up and prove otherwise because the alternative is more defeatist self-fulfilling prophecies.

[KerryReallyWon]

25. Yes, speak of their repug friend Clint Curtis...

And take the latest news to them...from just a fly on the wall.

www.justaflyonthewall.com