We MUST change the FRAME

[Senator]

As much as I applaud the efforts of those who seek evidence on which to act, I'm not convinced that any of them will give us what we need. Their MO for this theft was very comprehensive, and well-informed by the treason of 2000. Simple recounts or identified "anomolies" may not get us there.

Their parrots are ready to start squawking "popular vote, awk, popular vote!" should any individual state's facade be torn down by reality and justice. But their national "preferred(bush)-ballot" count is pure fiction. It does not represent the consent of the electorate.

But more importantly, we MUST change the FRAME of the issue.

The current frame is:

"Move along now. We've got our "ofishyl" vote count - you have to prove a crime was committed or you'll be ignored."

The NEW FRAME is:

"Your vote-counts are demonstrably false (not just uncertain), demostrably discriminatory (unlawful), both racially and in favor of bush voters.

"You must provide a transparent audit of your election procedures, failures, and data of all kinds OR WE INTEND TO DEMAND that your state's electors be DISALLOWED on Jan. 6th in Congress."

This new frame must be propogated amongst ourselves first. The short version is that "they have the burden of proof." And this goes for ALL states, not just swingers. As I said, they boosted totals everywhere to manufacture the pop-vote propaganda tool.

We must convince, first ourselves, then our supposed "leaders" and allies, of the Constitutional Right we have (equal protection - Bush v. Gore, heh) to demand this proof. And put our leaders on notice that they HAVE THE DUTY to support us in this. It is not optional.

Please watch My Diary at dailyKos as I will soon be posting a "Declaration of Intention" document that we will be attempting to get signed by ALL Members of Congress.

[Fovea]

1. Of course they have the burden of proof.

The cheated and committed felonious behavior in 2000, and again in Georgia in 2002 (Rob-Georgia). After that, there is no doubt they can be given the benefit of. They are criminal falsifiers of the sacred electoral process, our only guardian against tyranny.

So they better damned well *prove* they won it fair and square, against evidence, history, and proclivity.

[Gyre]

24. That's NOT the way the law works.

"We" (the People) would be the Plaintiffs. Since we are the ones making the claim, it's up to us to prove the claim. The burden of proof is a question that depends on what is sought. Civil (preponderance), Civil Rights (much more complicated), criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Gyre

[Cowboy Joe2k]

30. That not what this is about and you Know it. This is our right to Vote

04 Might be lost, But we will take our Election Process Back by 06.

We the People will once again Control this Country. We will end the War Between the Classes, and Come together As the Human Kind.

We don't Care weather or not you Prove you won 04 fairly The only thing you have proved is that We the people Don't Control our Vote.

Stop Hiding the Truth. The one Abundant Truth that Will Save Human Kind. If we don't Fix the System by 06 Humans, All Humans, You can no longer Divide and Conquerer us. We Refuse to give up our right to vote.

This is the only way Democracy will Live. is If we have Audited and Fair Elections. Voter Verifiable Paper Trails. There is to Much at stake to leave in the Hands of the Chosen Few. The "Super Voters" who Control the Fate of your Country.

Take back your rights people. All Humans For the Love of Democracy Come together and Take Back your Rights!!!

[pointsoflight]

2. Thanks, I like this. Here's another framing issue...

"Our current system is so insecure that foreign entities including *terrorists* could tamper with the election and we would never know it."

Make it a homeland security issue!!!

[New Earth]

3. are you really a senator?

:loveya:

[lostnfound]

4. And by the way, where'd these 9 MM new voters come from? Evidence?

No fantasies about 'moral values' or that the 'youth vote didn't turn out' or that the evangelicals really came out this time...

Hey media, answer the question "Where did Bush get these 9MM new voters?" No, don't make up stories out of thin air -- get the data, analyze it, and find out!!

[soothsayer]

5. What the bleep do we know? n/t

[Senator]

6. lostnfound is exactly right

Our mantra needs to be "Show me the voter."

Not your blackbox results -- Show me the Voter.

Not a name on a list -- Show Me The Voter!

Not a signed book -- SHOW me the VOTER!!

And this includes the voters who showed up and were failed by the system and not allowed to cast a ballot. Who are they? How many? Take responsibility for the failure and let them vote now.

[pat_k]

7. This is critical -- move the game!!

The problems of Election 2004 must be remedied IN Election 2004. Failure to remedy problems must have consequences. On this, I think most of us are agreed. The question is then, "How do we make this happen?"

Members of the press and other so-called "authorities" are so obsessively focused on the number of votes lost or gained to the "glitches" that have been discovered to date, and are so smugly sure that the numbers will not "change the results," that they are completely missing the real story.

It's not the number of votes affected, it's the nature of the problems. And by their nature, the problems have implications that reach far beyond this or that specific instance. We are learning that the software used to record and tabulate votes is seriously flawed, lacks basic internal audits and security protections, and produces results that are prone to undetectable corruption through error or deliberate tampering. The potential magnitude and scope of the impact on the results is breathtaking.

If the incredible problems we are seeing in the processes for recording and tabulating the vote were not enough, we have the poll-tax lines (time is money) and other intolerable and discriminatory barriers that voters faced on November 2nd.

There is ample reason to suspect that the current "baseline" results have been corrupted. Whether the addition or subtraction of votes from an untrustworthy initial total will "change the outcome" is irrelevant. The issue is that the initial total is in doubt. Discovery of isolated problems can do nothing but add to that doubt. Only a comprehensive audit has the potential to remove the doubt.

Clearly, the burden must be shifted to the states to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their reported results reflect real votes from real voters who were given an equal opportunity to exercise their right to vote. Shifting the burden of proof to the states is the ONLY defensible position. Consider these grids if you doubt the logic.

Simple truths and simple moral positions cut through the rationalizations that are blocking effective action in our fight to preserve the American experiment. And make no mistake. The fight for the integrity of Election 2004 is nothing less than a fight to preserve our identity as Americans and our chosen way of government.

To effectively fight this fight we must shift it to reality-based ground. The "legalistic" arguments can be dealt with by forcing people to explicitly assert their immoral positions -- force them to explicitly reject the moral principles set forth in this declaration (e.g, When someone tries to shift to "well, there's no precedent," shift the focus back to reality by saying something like,"So, it's fine with you the poor in this nation must wait 10 hours, while the rich do not face this barrier?").

Fundamental truths have power of their own. The only thing that can block the adoption of a position grounded in a fundamental truth is an appeal to an arbitrary or static authority that can trump the intention of our law or trump reality. The law is not a static authority. The law is as dynamic as the people it serves. Accept or reject the position that the states bear the burden of proof on its own merit. If it is the right thing, the law will follow. We will set the precedents.

If we continue to allow fascist thinking -- e.g., viewing ourselves as subservient to some static legal authority -- to infect us, then we can just kiss the whole "consent of the governed" thing goodbye.

[sce56]

8. The real fact about all of this is if you work to fix the vote in such a

widespread manner it will have a few leaks just too many things that can go wrong as we've seen with 4k votes for Bullsh** from a possible 600 voters. That is one thing we must speak about that it was impossible for them to cover every base totally and they did not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dikes! When they speak of a few isolated glitches that should be pointed out as the proof that there is evidence of the wide spread fraud!!!!
Not to mention that last year they BOASTED about fixing it don't belive me view the following clip, it is taken from Alexandra Pelosi's latest film 'Diary of a Political Tourist'. It's been showing on HBO for the last month or so -- definitely worth seeing if you can catch it.

Anyway, in this scene (some kind of barbeque on the White House lawn), she catches Congressman Peter King making this admission, possibly after a drink or 2, regarding the upcoming election:

"It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."

See it for yourselves:

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater256.html

Downloads:
Original quicktime 621k
http://armyofone.info/welltakecareofthecounting.mov
Windows media 1.3mb
http://armyofone.info/welltakecareofthecounting.wmv
Realplayer 619k
http://armyofone.info/welltakecareofthecounting.rm

[Senator]

11. More on the Peter King admission

While I've seen others cite this incident from Pelosi's film involving Peter King's drunken boast, no one mentions what happens seconds later in the film.

Pelosi tries to get some footage of Karl Rove, but Rove (politely) shoos her away saying that he's having a private conversation. We then see Rove walking away down the lawn with his hand on the shoulder of none other than Peter King. Admonishment for his tipsy tipping of their hand?

But is King the type of guy who'd resort to the "old ways" of voter suppression and ballot box stuffing?
--------
Newsday; 10/23/2004; J. JIONI PALMER. WASHINGTON BUREAU
3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Lording over a political realm - Peter King is a proud product of the GOP machine who speaks his mind, making the terror fight his focus
WASHINGTON - Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is the privileged son of the once mighty Nassau County Republican Party. He wouldn't be in Congress if not for machine politics and party bosses. He knows it, and he says he isn't ashamed to admit it. "I believe in strong political organizations," King said recently in an interview in his office on Capitol Hill. "I think it was better back in the days when we had strong clubhouses, instead of reformers. I've never been a reformer."
-------


But is there any indication that King went ahead and "took care of the counting?"
-------
Beyond red and blue (again)
By Robert David Sullivan | November 14, 2004
...Nationally, four of the five counties with the biggest GOP gains, in raw votes, were those that make up Long Island. Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties all went for Kerry, but his margin there was more than 250,000 votes short of Gore's in 2000.
--------

We report. You decide.

[GuvWurld]

9. New Frame: No BASIS For Confidence

Senator has it right on. Pat_K has it too though I take exception to one thing:

"There is ample reason to suspect that the current "baseline" results have been corrupted. Whether the addition or subtraction of votes from an untrustworthy initial total will "change the outcome" is irrelevant. The issue is that the initial total is in doubt."

I agree with this but find it incongruent with a call for better accountability of the counting. It is not just the initial total that is in doubt but the methodology. Not to mention the disenfranchisement and loose standards with the handling of absentee ballots. And even this is really just for starters when you think about the two-party system stifling competition of ideas - here we jump to the broader topic of the myth of democracy.

This is why the frame I prefer is: we have no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported from US federal elections. Then what logically follows is a list of changes necessary to create a new basis for confidence. This allows us to stop even having the argument of who won?, would the outcome change?, was there fraud?...we simply reject the whole thing on its face and talk about "what would be better?"

Read more about the No Confidence Movement.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. One of the

compelling reasons why I've urged a politically degenerate populace in the UK to vote for the Lib Dems, is in order for proportional representation to be introduced, in place of the two-party, first past the post system we have now.

But I think that at this *particular* juncture, to aspire to go beyond getting Kerry's victory (as it happened, a landslide) ratified, in the direction that you suggest, would be to play into the hands of the other side - so extremely polarised is the distribution of wealth and power in the US. You need to get your current, effectively two-party system, operational, before aspiring to perfect it in any kind of radical way. Kerry in the WH and rigorously fair elections is plenty to aspire to from your current position. After that many things will become possible. Just my two penn'orth.

[RevCheesehead]

14. I think you make an excellent point.

If we're truly concerned about election fraud, it would only make sense to include Republicans in helping to find out the truth. That's one of the reasons I was glad to see Nader, et al, getting involved. A multi-partisan approach would be difficult to ignore.

So, who are the Republicans who should join the inquest (for the sake of finding the truth and maintaining the integrity of the system)? For some reason, Pat Buchanan comes to mind.:think:

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Yes, Pat is certainly a one-off!

He is his own man, isn't he, (however totally flaky his purported racism and affection for nazism), as evidenced by his honesty re the vote ascribed to him in Florida in 2000, when it must have taken courage for an enemy to spell out that "uncomfortable" truth in that climate of violent intimidation - never mind a fellow Republican. He has also spoken with notable integrity against this regime on occasions, I believe, in the run-up to this "election".

[pat_k]

15. Hmmmm...

I'm not sure I follow what you are taking exception to when you say, "It is not just the initial total that is in doubt but the methodology."

It's the "methodology" (all processes, including simplicity of complexity of the ballot, the method of recording votes, tabulating votes, registering to qualify to vote, opportunity -- or lack thereof -- to exercise the right to vote, etc.) that renders the initial total unreliable. I don't see an either/or anywhere in this. It's not clear to me how this is "incongruent with a call for better accountability of the counting."

I'm not sure whether or not we are just talking past each other in some way, but the point I am trying to make is that we must reject the process in operation at the moment -- i.e., the obsessive focus on piecemeal addition and subtraction from a "baseline" for each "glitch" discovered as if that baseline is meaningful. We must reject the notion that the burden is on us to find enough "glitches" to change the result.

And the goal to me is not to raise the question "What could be better.".

The goal is to have a forensic audit conducted in each state. That is, promote whatever steps are necessary to open and examine as many records as possible though whatever means possible be it civil action, criminal action, civil disobedience, resolutions, or whatever.

The aim of each audit is identify or rule out 1) violations that render the election unlawful (discrimination, fraudulent votes); 2) correctable errors; 3) vulnerabilities that make undetectable tampering or corruption possible. The "What We Require" section of this declaration does a decent job of capturing what I believe we must demand.

If violations, errors, or vulnerabilities are ruled out, great. If any are identified, the aim is to 1) remedy the problems if a remedy is possible, and (2) set the stage to demand that Congress reject electors from ANY state that fails to prove to us it has run a fair and legal election that yielded results in which we can have confidence. If a state fails to have its results validated through independent audit, or if the problems identified are not -- or cannot be -- remedied in some way, the aim it to have the results (the electoral votes) rejected. Actually rejected. By Congress.

Whether or not we achieve the goals outlined, if we fight this fight in this way, we will be making enormous progress in creating the context required to win meaningful real election reform.

[GuvWurld]

18. What would be better - as a useful frame

pat_k - I like the way you reason, and your phrase "talking past each other" would seem to apply. I think this makes our efforts to clarify and find common ground essential.

We appear to agree there is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of US elections as they are currently conducted. We diverge in our sense of the possibility of restoring some legitimacy to THIS election. You seem to think it is possible despite other stipulations that suggest otherwise. My concern is that even if you are right, pursuing this path only serves to reinforce other aspects of the myth of democracy. My aim is "ruthless honesty" where every factor contributing to preserving and perpetuating myths will be treated as the false alternative it is. This has to include recognizing the two-party system as the biggest engine for maintaining a blockade on the competition of ideas (think in terms of free market). Left alone, the Ds and Rs will continue to collude in their simulated competition and we will not have democracy. This serves them and not us.

We agree changes should be made to how elections are conducted. All of your specific suggestions, as well as those found in the No Confidence Resolution, answer the question "what would be better?" The point is never to merely ask this question but to actually answer it as a means of providing a positive, forward-looking frame. We Do Not Concede does this already, albeit without consciously choosing this particular frame. "What would be better?" is not a rhetorical question but an all encompassing invitation to put all ideas on the table, and to then stimulate the competition among ideas.

So as I see it, we are both already using this frame, with a different degree of transparency. The difference is that I am applying it going forward only and you appear to be mapping it onto the recent "election" in retrospect, as if a "better" (more accountable) way of counting can offset myriad systemic flaws already acknowledged to leave us with no BASIS for confidence.

It also seems to me that We Do Not Concede covers almost all of what No Confidence targets, whereas No Confidence covers all of We Do Not Concede, and then some. We are talking about highly nuanced but clear differences on the order of "all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares." These nuances are the heart of the "ruthless honesty" notion.

[pat_k]

31. Belated response

When you say "ruthlessly honest," it triggers a concern for me. I fear that, like many absolutes, ruthless honesty makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

Our effort is not aimed at challenging everything. We are not seeking to catalog everything wrong. We're saying simply that there are sufficient failures in the official results for us to take *action* and seek a remedy. To engage people in the fight we have outlined concrete goals that are aimed at addressing the failures in real time (“Fix it next time” is unacceptable).

Action is the key here. Taking an absolute position that rules out the possibility of restoring some legitimacy to THIS election, rules out useful action. I fear that when it is detached from useful action, an absolute position becomes an impotent complaint that saps energy and leads to disengagement. Just watch the body language next time you are in a group of people complaining about something. If you can shift the discussion to identifying doable actions that help to remedy the complaint, the energy completely changes.

People have a need to be effective. We engage them offering opportunities to satisfy that need and figuring out how to turn complaint to useful action.

Although it may be necessary to engage in a degree of moral relativism to do it, I believe it is possible, and absolutely necessary, to seek a “real time” remedy to many of the problems identified in this election. The remedies we seek may not be perfect, but I believe that our efforts to "shift the burden of proof to the states" and "reject results of a blatantly discriminatory election, no matter what the margin of victory: can restore a measure of confidence help to create the context needed for future reform.

I would argue that promoting an absolute “No Confidence” + “No Remedy” position is problematic. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but to me, it is effectively very similar to the “Move along. Nothing to see here. We’ll fix it next time” position. (i.e., A complaint about the results is registered, but the results stand in absence of an alternative. The complaint could just as well be registered after the fact.).

[GuvWurld]

32. Addressing Misconceptions

pat_k wrote:
When you say "ruthlessly honest," it triggers a concern for me. I fear that, like many absolutes, ruthless honesty makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

I do understand the enemy of the good point and based on what else you've written, I can see how the disconnects we've got could lead here. The top line is that ruthless honesty may not be an absolute in the sense that it seems you are taking it to be. I see ruthless honesty like a BS detector for lesser evils - we hate having to choose between them so let's learn to stop setting ourselves up with them. I know this is where you might be wanting to apply the label of good, and wondering why I'm holding out for perfect. I hope I can bridge this chasm down the page.

pat_k wrote:
Our effort is not aimed at challenging everything. We are not seeking to catalog everything wrong. We're saying simply that there are sufficient failures in the official results for us to take *action* and seek a remedy. To engage people in the fight we have outlined concrete goals that are aimed at addressing the failures in real time ("Fix it next time" is unacceptable).

I agree here completely. It is not necessary to catalog every wrong. There have been more than enough failures. I too have identified what I think are concrete goals, each addressing a relevant wrong by asking "what would be better?"

pat_k wrote:
Action is the key here. Taking an absolute position that rules out the possibility of restoring some legitimacy to THIS election, rules out useful action. I fear that when it is detached from useful action, an absolute position becomes an impotent complaint that saps energy and leads to disengagement. Just watch the body language next time you are in a group of people complaining about something. If you can shift the discussion to identifying doable actions that help to remedy the complaint, the energy completely changes.

As you may know, between April and July, the No Confidence Movement was covered heavily in the local press of Humboldt County, CA. An earlier version of the resolution was considered by the Arcata, CA City Council. They were unwilling to make the principled intellectual stand which now you and I are both doing (though they did pass a meaningless false alternative). Even though we came up short, we raised a lot of awareness and sowed a seed which is now making it easier to rally for another run at it. "Useful" is a judgment perhaps we should save for after the revolution. Still, I think it inaccurate to regard No Confidence as an "impotent complaint that saps energy and leads to disengagement." It is neither that nor an absolute position.

pat_k wrote:
People have a need to be effective. We engage them offering opportunities to satisfy that need and figuring out how to turn complaint to useful action.

Again, agreed. It has been my experience that among progressives the differences of opinion center around strategy - how best to accomplish something. It now seems a proxy debate over defining "useful."

pat_k wrote:
Although it may be necessary to engage in a degree of moral relativism to do it, I believe it is possible, and absolutely necessary, to seek a "real time" remedy to many of the problems identified in this election. The remedies we seek may not be perfect, but I believe that our efforts to "shift the burden of proof to the states" and "reject results of a blatantly discriminatory election, no matter what the margin of victory: can restore a measure of confidence help to create the context needed for future reform.

We are both working on "real time" remedies so again we agree. I am also for forcing transparent systems to display legitimacy rather than uphill battles to prove illegitimacy. Before we can say how perfect the remedies are, we have to be clear that we are correctly identifying the problem. Fascism has replaced democracy in America (and we as a people are willfully ignorant of Peak Oil). This transition is complete. Fraudulent elections are but one component of the situation; outcome notwithstanding, neither a recount nor a new set of standards for state reporting will change the fact that you no longer have rights and can be jailed without cause, without charges and without contact with anyone.

Also, think of an election as analogous to a poker game. One of the players has decided to bow out of the game. After he's gone, another player notices that all the rest of the money on the table belonging to all of the other players has been swapped for phony bills and the departed player has made off with their cash. Recounting a pack of lies to see if you get a different number would be like continuing to play cards with the counterfeit bills. Even if you win, you lose.

pat_k wrote:
I would argue that promoting an absolute "No Confidence" + "No Remedy" position is problematic. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but to me, it is effectively very similar to the "Move along. Nothing to see here. We'll fix it next time" position. (i.e., A complaint about the results is registered, but the results stand in absence of an alternative. The complaint could just as well be registered after the fact.).

I don't know where you get "No Remedy" from when I am telling you and everyone that I am directly calling for a peaceful popular revolt, based first on a concrete rhetorical platform of No Confidence, backed up by language and concepts from the Declaration of Independence, and guided by an eight point plan for meaningful electoral reform on an order large enough to reconstitute my BASIS for confidence.

[pat_k]

33. Your remedy is not specifically tied to THIS election

Regarding "I don't know where you get "No Remedy" from..."

Your remedy is not specifically tied to THIS election -- yours is a remedy that could occur before (and was occuring before) or after the election. Perhaps I should not have characterized it as "No Remedy", but to me it is "No Remedy" with regard to THIS election.

Once someone is inaugurated, we'll have a different situation, just as before the election we had a different situation. The analogy does not quite fit, but if you have a dangerous street in need of a light, you fight to get a light before someone is hit. When the thing you are working to prevent happens - someone gets hit - you deal with it. Get the person to the hospital, administer CPR and staunch the flow of blood, whatever you can to minimize the damage. Only after you have dealt with the consequences do you define the next actions. And the "post" actions are likely to differ from the "pre" actions because the feared thing happened.

In a sense, what we are doing now is working to make sure as many people as possible understand that "someone was hit" (that this election is not valid) at the same time that we are working to treat the injuries (restore what legitimacy to the election that we can).

You have indicated that you see no possibility of restoring some legitimacy to THIS election. But we aim to do just that, based on a set of simple truths and simple moral principles. This seems to be our fundamental difference.

On re-reading yesterday's response, I see that it failed to acknowledge the value of your efforts. And they are valuable. As you point out, you have raised awareness and engaged people and I wish my response had acknowledged that. My focus right now is so narrowly on "treating the patient" and trying to find the injuries sustained (specific and provable problems with the election) that there is little room to consider ways to address the broader problems. That does not mean that the broader efforts do not have value. It just means that I am not ready to shift focus to the bigger picture until the task at hand is dealt with.

BTW, the response to your email I sent yesterday bounced. Could you send a follow up email confirming your email address?

[GuvWurld]

34. Oh, But It Is...

I think you very nearly defined the fundamental difference in our positions and I'd like to try to zoom the focus even further. While we agree on much, we are now clearly in disagreement on whether it is possible to restore "some legitimacy to THIS election."

Imagine a CPR class. No matter how perfectly you perform the technique you are taught, blowing into the mouth of a mannequin is not going to bring it to life. It is more than just this election which needs legitimacy restoration, it is the entire concept of American democracy. Until we face the ruthlessly honest truth that what we have here does not meet the definition of democracy, "elections" will only resemble elections and we will not have a say in how we are governed.

Imagine a basketball game between the LA Lakers and the NY Knicks. Imagine another between the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. It is the difference between basketball and "basketball." You could make a fair wager on one of these but not the other. One is a true sporting contest while the other is an exhibition demonstration, aka simulated competition.

No Confidence says we will no longer treat "elections" like elections. To address the subject line of your last message, my remedy is absolutely tied to this "election." There are so many Orwellian paradoxes in the US today, many of which we seem helpless to confront. But to me, the recent "election" seems like our best opportunity to begin "Reclaiming Reality."

When I talk about ruthless honesty I mean first of all with ourselves. You have acknowledged the illegitimacy of the "election" itself, and taken little or no exception to the myth framework I've described. Your understanding and acceptance of these ideas suggests to me that you are informed, intelligent and even enlightened. Your treatment of an "election" as an election, however, suggests cognitive dissonance (which we all have).

I think it is here that we have the most granular view of our fundamental difference: I want to see people refuse to recognize "elections" until we have a BASIS for knowing they are elections; you seem to be calling an "election" an "election" yet thinking it is a fair bet that you can breath life into an inanimate object. This is the "disconnect" I have called "incongruent." With the utmost of respect, this is where you are not being ruthlessly honest with yourself.

[JD Lau]

10. Yes. Very good thoughts. Kick.

[carolinalady]

12. The popular vote is just as fraudulent as the Electoral

We can't but should examine every red state. It has been shown though not as extensively as in the swing states that Bush was given overvotes in those Red States thereby his "mandate". That is where it happened. Swing states were only to be manipulated to swing the EV, Red states to up the PV.---IMO.

[pat_k]

23. Every state -- not just every red state!

Validate the vote

By Ian H. Solomon

November 26, 2004

MOST MAINSTREAM newspapers have already dismissed stories of voting fraud and voting rights violations in the November election as baseless or irrelevant. Sen. John Kerry's concession is supposed to demonstrate that there is no story here. Give up, go home, it's all over.

But it's not over.

The legitimacy of our democratic process is an issue more important than Mr. Kerry's future or the results of 2004. That legitimacy has been called into question repeatedly over the past few weeks, and doubts will linger as long as credible indications of error, negligence, disenfranchisement and fraud are not addressed.

We would like to believe that voting irregularities were identified and corrected, that participants fulfilled their duties appropriately, that the machines performed reliably and that the total discrepancy between voter intention and recorded results was less than the margin of victory in relevant contests.

But that conclusion must be reached on the basis of evidence, not blind faith. My own observations as a volunteer poll watcher in Florida do not give perfect confidence.

As many experts had warned, the electronic voting machines used across the country were vulnerable to glitches and possible tampering, including the over-recording of votes and the "disappearance" of valid votes.

We experienced a troubling number of memory card failures where I was based in Volusia County, for example, and we tried to minimize the disruption to voters even though data security was compromised. In Franklin County, Ohio, a machine error resulted in an extra 4,000 votes for President Bush. In Guilford County, N.C., a machine error cost Mr. Kerry 22,000 votes. Similar problems were experienced in Nebraska, Indiana and other states. These glitches that we know about have reportedly been fixed, though a re-vote is necessary in a different North Carolina county.

Disturbingly, several Web sites have demonstrated the ease of hacking into the AccuVote TS machines made by Diebold Election Systems, the company that for $2.6 million recently settled a lawsuit by California over voting machine problems. Another major manufacturer of electronic voting machines, Election Systems & Software, has also been subject to criticism for machine breakdowns and vulnerability. There is no evidence of fraud, but neither manufacturer has assuaged widespread concerns about inappropriate partisanship and unreliability.

There is also reason to question the competence of election officials in resolving registration and voting problems. Many voters were denied the opportunity to cast a regular ballot or to vote within a reasonable period of arriving at the polls.

At one heavily black precinct in Volusia County, for example, more than 10 percent of those turning out to vote were unable to cast a regular ballot. Many of these voters simply departed after waiting in line for several hours and then being told by poll workers that their provisional ballots "would not be counted." Knox County in Ohio reported voters waiting in line for over nine hours. In Warren County, Ohio, observers were barred from monitoring the vote-counting process.

How can we expect voters - especially young, disadvantaged or newly registered voters - to have faith in our voting system? How can we expect our allies to take seriously U.S. efforts to hold elections in Iraq and elsewhere? How can we be confident that the most fundamental principles of American democracy - one person, one vote; rule by the people; transparency in government - are not in jeopardy?

American legitimacy demands that the news media, the parties and all political leaders take seriously the challenges presented by the 2004 election: We need an audit of the election process, validation of the election results and corrective measures to ensure the legitimacy of future elections.

To begin with, that means supporting the audit efforts already under way. Recounts are expected in Ohio and New Hampshire, and election results may be contested in Florida, New Mexico and other states. Grass-roots organizations have requested voting data from precincts across the country, and scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California, Berkeley and other universities have begun to analyze surprising voting patterns.

This should be a priority for Congress, with vigilant participation by independent news organizations. The complete process - from registration through vote tallying, including all equipment and procedures - must be thoroughly and publicly assessed.

No reasonable argument can be offered against disclosure and accountability. We can afford whatever expense, inconvenience, distraction and possible embarrassment may be caused by an election audit and congressional investigation. What we cannot afford are unresolved doubts about the legitimacy of our democratic government.


Ian H. Solomon is associate dean of Yale Law School.



Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun

[glitch]

16. kicking this excellent thread

:dem:

[pauldp]

17. Kick!

[stella2cat]

20. Yes!!! n/t

[slay]

21. We DEMAND a recount into this fraudulent election!!!!

If they have nothing to hide, we are they so desperately trying to stop us from even looking? :mad:

[Helga Scow Stern]

22. This reflects what I honestly feel in my soul....

and out of desperation today--mainly as a symbolic act since I don't expect anyone to read it or care--I wrote to the Office of Civil Rights, which I found on Colin Powell's SofS website:

[e-mail]

"Subject: My Voting Rights Have Been Violated

Dear Office of Civil Rights,

As a citizen of this country in good standing, I do not feel confident regarding the way the 2004 National Election was conducted. The civil rights of many voters were compromised, and I am not at all confident that my vote was counted or that the will of the people was even heard.

Please investigate this with all of your power. Our very democracy is at stake."


This is something that I honestly feel, and as a citizen of a democracy I have a right not to feel this way. There is no argument required.

[anamandujano]

25. excellent read, great ideas

[dzika]

26. Newsweek - "Four More Years to Finally Get It Right"

This article is mostly about the technology of election reform but he makes a good case for allowing recount and other election investigations.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6595385/site/newsweek/

Newsweek
Dec. 6 Issue
Four More Years to Finally Get It Right
By Steven Levy

-snip-
"After the 2000 debacle, one might have expected that our leaders would move mountains to make the next election an exemplary one. The fact that we cannot convince the doubters proves otherwise. Don't call them paranoid, but recognize their passion for fairly run, accurately tabulated elections. If only their zeal were more contagious. "

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. In essence: Prove My Vote Counted

There's no reason in the world why they wouldn't or shouldn't be able to do that. It's that simple. And when they say they can't do that, ask WHY NOT?



http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[lawladyprof]

28. The easiest, clearest (but narrowest) frame for changing 2004

is vote suppression by means of discriminatory mis-allocation of voting machines in Black precincts in Ohio. Plaintiffs would be voters in Black precincts denied the right to vote by such mis-allocation (which would not have to be shown to be intentional). Remedy would be the right to cast a late vote if he or she has signed an affidavit that he or she attempted to vote but was unable to do because his or her precinct was given fewer voting machines than White precincts.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GuvWurld]

36. WTF? - Cowboy Joe2k >> need working links

I see you kicking the No Confidence thread so I want to know what you are breathless about here...please check your links above

[gorbal]

37. Hey

You must have listen to Tho Hartman's show yeaterday. I agree, we have to not only "engage" the argument, we have to change it as well!

[pat_k]

38. Declaration of Intent

The diary at dailyKos referenced is worth watching. The Declaration of Intent has been added. Repeating here in case of link problems.

Declaration of Intent

As a Member of Congress it is my sworn duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Being mindful of that oath, I believe that the single moral tenet on which that document, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

Consequently, the right of the People to have confidence that they are being afforded free and fair elections for their government officials is a right that no other consideration can supercede. 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.

I choose to make this declaration at this time because it has now become clear to me that several states have, to this point in time, failed to fully provide for what would generally be regarded as a free and fair election for their citizens. And consequently, they have generated an insufficient level of confidence in their official result.

There can be no arbitrary point in time; whether it be a date scheduled for appointing electors, electoral voting, or electoral vote counting, that can limit the right of the People to have their consent justly measured and expressed. An election is a survey not a contest.

With these principles in mind I would urge the duly authorized election officials in each and every state to make every effort; whether it be ballot recounting, independent auditing, reopening voting, or even judicially-sanctioned statistical adjustment of results, to assure that their election truly reflects the will of the citizens of their state.

I wish to recognize that efforts are ongoing in some states; by candidates, election officials, the news media, and citizens groups, through recounts and other means; to clarify and adjust the official results in order to increase the level of public confidence. These efforts are necessary, however they cannot be sufficient.

This is true because by far the most disturbing circumstances that have occurred in this election are the confirmed cases of disparate treatment being afforded to certain classes of voters. If systemic barriers to exercising the franchise existed that correlate to a citizen’s age, race, religion, gender, socio-economic status, military status, partisan status, absentee status, immigration status, or other identifiable characteristic; the election was neither free and fair, nor lawful in the absence of any corrective remedy being applied.

Therefore, in keeping with my oath of office, I publicly declare my intention to act on January 6th 2005 and object to any presidential electors that I believe to have been unlawfully appointed. To do less would make me complicit with a violation of our shared democratic principles.


____________________
Member of Congress

_____________
Date