Discussion on DU Election Reform forum linked from OpedNews

[Contrite]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=27800

[FogerRox]

1. I was 4th, can we get a 5th?

[Ellipsis]

2. yup.

[BeFree]

8. Link to thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2938484&mesg_id=2938484

[bleever]

3. ERD master class gets some extra visibility.

I'll take that Christmas present!

K&R.

[BeFree]

4. Don't you think?

That the coalition should have presented to the DU, ER at least a draft of the letter?

I do not recall such a letter being presented until they had it ready for our signatures. Seems they should have taken advantage of our collective knowledge ahead of time.

As it was, it came as somewhat of a shock to see that 30 different coalition members had mulled it over before asking any of DU what we thought.

Had they had not only the courtesy but the foresight to run it by all of us first, there wouldn't have been such a disuniting discussion, eh?

[galloglas]

5. I agree completely!

Be Free,

When you stated "As it was, it came as somewhat of a shock to see that 30 different coalition members had mulled it over before asking any of DU what we thought., the word "mulled" jumped out at me.


Some of these "coalition members" may put much less time and thought into the ER matters than do we here at DU (Maybe for good reasons. Possibly because they have other irons in the fire).

It makes one wonder how so many were assembled, in order to gather the necessary input, so that a unified cohesive plan could be forwarded to Congress. And, further, how long they "mulled over" their discussions.

Alternatively, maybe, the whole idea is from a "smaller segment" of the total "coalition membership". Perhaps some "coalition members" were only called upon to (even, rather quickly) "mull over" whether, or not, they would sign onto a plan that may have already been completed when it was proposed to them? Signing onto a "fait accompli", as it were.

You also said, Had they had not only the courtesy but the foresight to run it by all of us first, there wouldn't have been such a disuniting discussion, eh?

And I suspect you are right.

You know that old adage about "Too many cooks spoil the broth"? The corollary might easily be that, "Too few cooks spoil the broth".

Which brings up the question of just how many cooks were actually involved. And when, and where, was the cooking done?

[BeFree]

6. The effort

Who was the author?

Who passed it around, and to whom was it passed?

****************

I just read the letter again, and methinks that if they had not included the: "...or counted by opscans.." my consent could have easily been obtained. As it is.....

Thinking here... has there ever been a similar type of of election integrity coalition letter? Can't remember. It seems a shame that if this was the first, that it has created such controversy, but maybe that's just how the ball rolls?

Next time one would hope that we at DU might be included.

[BeFree]

7. Had DU been included

....any mention of opscam would have also mentioned this:

At present there is no opscan acceptable to the coalition, but we foresee a day when an acceptable opscan system becomes available.

[galloglas]

9. Some questions and answers for Be Free's #6

Well, y'all know how the holidays finally catch up with you?

Even if it's as late as when you look at the TV and see Jimmy Stewart, Donna Reed, and "Zuzu" (the cute little girl in " It's a Wonderful Life") listening to the Christmas tree bell that means Jimmy Stewart's angel (Clarence) has won his wings?? Well, they (the holidays had tracked me down by late Thursday/early Friday morning) caught me earlier than that this year.

Consequently, this thread (which Contrite, thankfully, started soon after spotting another thread being highlighted by, Joan Brunwasser, at opednews) will be slow in coming to a conclusion.

As will, I suspect, the thread (actually two of them) which Joan first highlighted and caught Contrite's attention. It is the thread which Michael Collins started about 7:00 AM last Monday.

Michael's article is about the VelvetRevolution.us-sponsored attempt to have everyone sign onto a letter asking (possibly demanding) a paper ballot for each vote cast, being sent to all Congressmen and Senators.

It seems, at first thought and first read-through, that he author (or authors), make a "no-brainer" case for signing the letter and passing it on to others. But, (and thank God for this fact) there are a number of very bright, and individualist, thinkers at the DU ERD forum. Michael's "wait a minute... wouldn't that mean that "fill in your own blanks," (or copy the ones that Michael brought up by following Contrite's URL to the article at opednews), is a perfect example of that ability to look past the obvious.

By 3:00 PM on Monday, Brad Friedman took up the argument of the VelvetRevolution and began posting counterpoints. I watched, read and learned, and by Tuesday evening, had questions of my own for Brad. So I posted them.

Through some sort of error, Brad did not get to my questions until late Thursday. No problem, as I saw by Friday morning that an answered had been posted.

But, alas, "Zuzu" struck early this year, and Friday found me well caught up in the events of the season. And, wanting to make sure I duly considered the questions I had posted to Brad, and duly considered his responses, I will probably write my reply sometime late tomorrow.

And hopefully, with due care, I can proceed to get to the heart of the matter. End up with Brad answering all my questions, and my considering the clarifications (and ramifications) of all of his answers, in order to make a solid, well-thought decision as to whether this request from VelvetRevolution is, indeed, a "no-brainer".

Or whether (in a national EIR rush to holler at Congress for obviously needed action) we would, instead, destroy our hopes and dreams by giving an inattentive Congress the wrong message. To tell those in Congress (the ones who *wish* to be helpful, at least) less than they need to know to "cure the problem" .

Alternatively, we might be telling those who have *no* wish to help us (among others, the ones who only allow "power" to be pried from their cold, dead hands) some "excuse", or reason, to take the pleas (demands?) that have been sent to them through the Velvet Revolution's efforts, the very tools needed to insure the sinking of our Election Reform boat.

After all, there is a good argument to be made that we EIR folks, in our attempts and suggestions to better things, allowed the creation of VVPATS.

And, since this debate is sooo important to all of us who wish for democracy, we dare not get this wrong. So tomorrow, I will attend to my end of the matter.

But tonight, before I trundle off to bed, I wanted to post something at DU. A TouchStone, for good luck, if you will.

And, Be Free has asked several questions, recently, that have nagged at me... mostly because I can't find those answers, not because of what the answers are.

Since the "coalition" of disparate groups making up this "alliance" which is attempting this all-out get a "paper ballot for every vote cast" attempt, seems to be lead by VelvetRevolution (I believe. So, if you are in that "paper ballot for every vote cast" vanguard, but not connected with VR, then sing out, and inform me"), I would like to know what the VR is.

Who are they? Who controls them? What is their structure? What is the financing. Perhaps, most of all, who were the members of the drafting committee who wrote the letter (though I understand the petition site allows modification) and how, and whom, decided upon the final poInts included.

And, if any other points were excluded from the final cut, what were they? And in what order did they fail to make the cut? And why?



In Be Free's post #6 to *this thread*, it is written:

Who was the author?

I think this is an important question. Is this a group effort (at the letter drafting) or is this the brainchild of one or two people? If so, whom?

If so, were alterations made to accommodate other groups in the "coalition?"

Who passed it around, and to whom was it passed?

This is also important. It is the "selling job", necessary for any effort (we had to do it with our own Constitution!).

But what is worrisome is this fact. Many of the groups who signed on have many, many members who are quite unsophisticated about the entire process of Election Reform.

While many (or all) of these folks might be quite sincere, and hard workers, it is, frankly, disconcerting that many actually know so little, or whose information is so dated as to be obsolete, if not catastrophically dangerous.

Anyone here who takes the time to see the cross-chatter in some of the different groups newsletters (as I do), with the endless posting and reposting of data they don't even understand, and the endless forwarding of emails, is totally scary.

When I read one poster ask another (from one of the coalition "sponsors" Yahoogroups),

"What is the percentage of audits it takes to guarantee no cheating? I thought I had it here, but can't find it. Was it 1% or 2%? Or more?

And is that for DREs only, or do you have to audit Opscans, too, cause the Opsans have paper ballots?"

It scares the daylights out of me to read things like that and know (or fear) that someone is out there "selling" these worried citizens on what to say to Congresspersons. Particularly if the idea is to have a tidal wave of "paper ballots for every vote" letters sent so that D.C. is awash in these requests.

That would seem a clear signal to those "Enemies of the Republic" currently infesting our Halls of Power, those who have given us HAVA, to take a too "simplistic idea" being screamed for by idealistic, but poorly informed citizens, to quietly and quickly find a way to turn that "paper ballot for each vote" PR campaign into legislation that would guarantee a further entrenchment of corporate control over elections, and enfranchisement, and send our "EIR Life Boat" to Davey Jones' locker!



****************
Be Free's comment:
I just read the letter again, and methinks that if they had not included the: "...or counted by opscans.." my consent could have easily been obtained. As it is.....

As for myself, I could not sign with the "...or counted by opscans.." present.

Thinking here... has there ever been a similar type of of election integrity coalition letter? Can't remember.

Actually, at the opednews.com site that Contrite found, there is another petition available. It calls for all machines to be banned by 2008 and is directed to Dennis Kucinich. There were just short of 400 (or 500?) signatures the last I checked.

And there are many impressive EIR persona signed on. And this was done with no real effort put into it. And, when I checked last, the VR petition had about 2400 signatures, I think, with "Big Push" effort.

And, personally, it takes many, many, many "concerned citizens of the coalition" to equal one "Nancy Tobi", "Paul Lehto", "Sheila Parks" (I could go on forever) signature on the petition which shows at opednews.com. Just IMHO.

It seems a shame that if this was the first, that it has created such controversy, but maybe that's just how the ball rolls?

I certainly hope it is not "how the ball rolls".

There is a damned fine proposal out there already. One, that if implemented, would largely (if not totally) solve our problems. But some say, "That's unrealistic! The EDs and Congress would never allow that!! Be reasonable, you dreamers!!"

We have the option to sign the one, as opposed to the other. But, being realistic about it, there are those out there who are flogging this effort as if it were the culmination of some great Constitutional Congress.

But, I fear that is not the case.

So, until I can address my questions with Brad (a member and, I believe, co-founder of the coalition) I would like to be better informed about the whos, hows, and why of this coalition.

Even the legal structure of the members would be helpful, and other alignments with other causes, and the principal players in each. For, though they are said to be "non-partisan" (and, the need for corrective legislation, leading to free and fair elections is, indeed, a nonpartisan issue, the fact is that many are decidedly left wing. Democratic if you will.

I have no problem with their politics but, if these are our "non-partisan" who will write to Congress, we could have a real disaster in they line up, en massé, to testify.

Next time one would hope that we at DU might be included.

One would hope so! Was it our "Democratic" name that disqualified us? Or, are we not "up-to-speed" on the realistic issues on the table?

And, if the openness that we would like cannot be had, is it because the "people" with whom the "coalition" is negotiating are members of Congress? Or is it because, for journalistic reasons, Brad must not disclose his sources.

If the latter, who could be speaking only "off the record", about legislation which will be discussed publicly within the next few weeks.

After all, it is not a National Security issue, is it?