|
Edited on Sun Jan-02-05 10:08 PM by snot
Only 4 of whom have asked to be taken off my list. Most are grateful because they're not getting the news from the media and they don't have time (as if I do?--but we all have our issues) to comb the 'net for it. I hope other DU'ers are doing this, too. I'd be happy to post my mass-mailing texts here, if anyone else would like to send them to their friends. Here's the one I sent most recently (my readership is pretty informed on the background at this point): Dear Friends: On this Thursday, January 6, Congress will be faced with the decision as to whether to approve the proposed electors based on the supposed election outcomes. Right now, the most urgent action needed is for folks to contact as many U.S. representatives as possible, esp. Senators, preferably by fax but otherwise by e-mail, to urge them to object to the electors from Ohio. The Dean people have made it EASY to fax all your representatives. Pls do this immediately and then forward this message to as many people as possible right away. You can use the form letter provided by the Dean people, or for variety, I’ve included another form letter below that you can paste in (feel free to edit or customize). Also, below the info re- this fax, you’ll find some recent news re- election fraud developments. How to get in touch with Congress re: January 6th 1. Go to http://thedeanpeople.com 2. Click on Here's What to Do - Now! 3. Scroll down the page until you see this section: "Faxing to them would be the next best. Either local or DC office should do, but the DC staff is usually more important to the boss. You can use our Action Alert page to send a pre-made fax that you can customize." 4. Click on the Action Alert Page link and follow the instructions from there. Here's a sample letter letter another DU'er developed for Sen. Byrd; pls feel free to modify]:
For the sake of U.S. citizens both present and future, I urge you to seriously scrutinize and question the legitimacy of the presidential electors on January 6th, 2005.
Verifiable evidence of vote suppression and compelling indications of vote manipulation in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida and other states have been detailed by thousands of witnesses. Given the testimony we have already seen and the over 50,000 voter complaints filed since November 2 in Ohio alone, you have legitimate reasons for challenging the electors.
Whether there were isolated instances of fraud, lack of training, good faith human error, poor planning for unexpected voter turnout, a lack of funds, flawed software, vulnerable computer networks or something worse, Americans deserve to know that reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that every vote is accurately counted. Our nation cannot serve as an exemplar of democracy if it cannot fulfill that responsibility to its own electorate.
In many states -- most widely acknowledged in Ohio, but also in Florida, New Mexico, and other states -- members of the House of Representatives, candidates, independent watchdog organizations, and grassroots citizens groups have called on election officials to take the steps necessary to assure the public that their results are accurate and lawfully obtained. Rather than expediting such efforts in order to restore the public trust, election officials have undermined and obstructed them.
The voting systems and practices used in the conduct of this past election were so flawed that the results in nearly every state were wide open to corruption by systematic vote suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, and consequently, willful fraud. Each day, more evidence comes to light or more "errors", systematic suppression of Democratic votes, and other orchestrated efforts to manipulate the outcome and thwart the true will of the people.
Academics and statisticians can produce estimates (and many have already begun to do so) of the effects of certain kinds of fraud -- such as the estimated 15,000 - 95,000 votes lost to Kerry due to the shortage of voting machines in Columbus. More broadly, the total impact of the various frauds can be estimated by Kerry's 3.2% victory according to the networks' exit poll.
In an honest political system, evidence of widespread fraud is grounds for nullifying an election and holding another one, regardless of the precise quantification of that fraud.
Election fraud by the predominant party is especially poisonous, because it the investigative bodies that alone have the power to determine how widespread the fraud was, and how high up the chain of command it went. That is why it has been left to volunteers to conduct much of the investigation that should be made.
On January 6th, 2001, every member of Congress, save the Congressional Black Caucus, failed to carry out their constitutional duty to independently judge the validity of the unlawful Florida electors.
In his dissent to Bush v. Gore, Justice Breyer noted that the Electoral Count Act makes it the duty of Congress to ultimately resolve such questions. In quoting the legislative history, he stated, "They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes...", and further that, "The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government." Bush v. Gore, J. Breyer dissent (11)
As in those first days of 2001, Congress is again faced with the grave responsibility to make such a judgment. This time, I urge you to take the action, to refute the legitimacy of the electors from states in which the most widespread abuses are known to have occurred.
Will you rubber-stamp electoral votes from states that systematically, and indisputably, underallocated resources in a way that disenfranchised countless thousands of African American, elderly, and working poor voters who were unable to stand in lines for hours in the pouring rain, or who were misdirected? Will you rubber stamp electoral votes from states that have obstructed every effort to resolve serious allegations of fraud? Will you rubber stamp electors from states that have refused to allow independent verification or audit of any voting machine or independent inspection of the thousands of disallowed provisional ballots?
If you fail to object to such intolerable abuses of true democratic process, then you too must be held responsible for our descent into the Stalinist perversion of "democracy;" in which "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
I urge you to declare your intent to object to tainted electors by publicly endorsing the following declaration, or making an equivalent public statement.
======================
NOW, FOR SOME NEWS . . .
The good news is, the evidence of fraud has mounted so high that some believe it’s not a question of whether, but only WHEN Bush will be ousted.
The bad news is the media’s continuing, mystifying refusal to report or even look at most of the evidence. It feels like we’ve been trying to kick molasses up a ladder.
And at least some conservatives are apparently so optimistic about their ability to consolidate their power in the absence of media scrutiny, they’ve actually introduced two bills seeking to eliminate the existing Constitutional limit that prevents any person from serving as Pres. for more than two terms!! -- see the second-to-last story included below.
But there’s reason for hope. Among other things, see the e-mail I received from the NYT below.
However, I think this only shows that it’s extremely important that we keep up the pressure on both our gov’l reps and the media, to let them know we’re NOT going to let this go.
I’ve attached to this message two extremely useful documents which I urge you to send to friends, media, and gov’l reps. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=221594&mesg_id=221594 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=219264&mesg_id=219264.> The first is a summary of the evidence of vote fraud in Ohio, and the second is another statistical analysis.
======================
From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=221594&mesg_id=221594:
Smoking GUNS - Please FAX Election Fraud Briefing to Senators
You can use the following cover letter (please note that in all your e-mails and letters, many media and gov’l reps won’t take you seriously unless you include your name and address):
Address
Phone
Date
Dear Senator Someone:
I am writing to you neither as a constituent, nor as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a citizen of the United States. I am gravely concerned about our democratic process, especially as it has been compromised in the national election of November 2, 2004.
Representative Conyers will be formally raising similar issues concerning the state of Ohio when the Senate meets on January 6 to accept or reject the electoral votes for President. Therefore, I send you a citizen's summary of irregularities only in that state. To fax the evidence from other states would be an effort I am not prepared to undertake, as it would take hours.
Please review these materials and those from the findings of Rep. Conyers most carefully. I am sure that if you understand what is presented, you will have no choice but to stand with the other Democratic and perhaps Republican Senators on January 6 in support of Rep. Conyers' request for an honest investigation of the vote.
There are clearly only two reasons why you would not stand. Those would be either that you have not taken the time and trouble to familiarize yourself with the matter, or that you do not consider it your duty to defend the constitution and the right of the people to have an honest election.
Please help make us proud members of a great democracy once again.
Sincerely,
http://www.bpac.info >, which is also attached to this message. Table of contents is as follows:>
I. Voter Suppression
A. Overly Restrictive Registration Requirements
B. Incompetence in Processing Registrations
C. Challenges to New Registrants on Insufficient Grounds
D. Misinformation About Voting Status/Location/Date
E. Voter Intimidation
F. Voting Machine Shortages/Malfunctions
G. Overly Restrictive Rules & Incorrect Procedure Regarding Provisional Ballots
H. Poorly Designed Absentee Ballots Caused Voters to Mark Incorrect Candidate
II. Access to Voting Systems Before Election Violates Protocol
III. A Third-Rate Burglary in Toledo
IV. Suspect Results
A. Registration Irregularities
B. Exceptionally High Voter Turnout
C. More Votes than Voters
D. Exceptionally High Rates of Undervotes
E. High Rate of Overvotes Due to Ballots Pre-Punched for Bush?
F. The Kerry/Connally Discrepancy
G. Discrepancy between Exit Polls & Tabulated Votes
V. Restricting Citizen Observation & Access to Public Documents
A. Warren County Lockdown
B. Restricting Citizen Access to Election Records
VI. What Went Wrong with the Recounts/Investigation of Vote Irregularities
A. Chain of Custody of Voting Machines & Materials Violated
B. Failure to Follow Established Procedures for Recounts
C. Failure to Allow Recount Observers to Fully Examine Materials
D. Secretary of State Blackwell has Failed to Answer Questions
VII. Recount Reveals Significant Problems
VIII. Methods of Election Fraud
A. Stuffing the Ballot Box
B. Touchscreen voting machines appear to have been set to “Bush” as Default
C. Computers pre-programmed to ‘adjust’ vote count in Bush’s favor?
D. Tampering with the Tabulators: Evidence of Hacking in Real-Time?
IX. Additional Observations
A. Irregular/Impossible Changes in Exit Polls over time on Election Night
======================
Here’s a great page w/ 20 facts about the election:
http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html
======================
Here’s the text of the e-mail I received from the NYT (after having e-mailed them at least a dozen times about this issue):
Dear Ms. Sortor,
Several hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. Mr. Okrent asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over; please stay tuned.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
======================
RE- THE LATEST STATISTICS: Nearly two months after the election, Mitofsky has finally released the exit poll data—with a critical omission. From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x219264:
Simon: To Those Awaiting Prelim Analysis of Exit Polling....
....Data Released 12/31/04:
It's a lot of data to wade through but what has been released is more or less in line with what we had. What is curious and potentially very misleading is that the data from the 12:20 - 12:25 a.m. time of updates (which I was able to capture on election night, but which otherwise apparently would not exist anymore) is missing from this otherwise complete set. This is crucial, since it shows that (to take the full national sample), Kerry maintained his 2.6% lead (rounded to 3%) when 13,047 of the eventual "13,660," rather than the 11,027 from the last pre-"adjusted" batch released here (7:33 p.m.), had been counted.
From the data released it would look somewhat plausible that a late Bush swing (between 11,027 counted and 13,660 counted) could have accounted for the shift in the EPs from Kerry51/Bush48 to Bush51/Kerry48; but the missing sweep (the 12:20 a.m. timeframe) shows that this was not possible.
So my question is, where is that group of data; or did whoever released this stuff forget that I printed out the missing link? It appears that a partial set of data was released (missing a crucial piece) possibly in the hope of creating the impression that all was according to Hoyle. It is critical to examine this newly released data in conjunction with the screenshots which I possess and have distributed to certain recipients who (for obvious reasons) will not be named.
Among these screenshots, the national sample at 12:23 a.m. is public and can be referenced as Appendix A of the Simon/Baiman paper at:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1054
It reproduced a bit fuzzy so I'll recap: 12:23 a.m.; 13,047 respondents; Male(46%) 52%B/47%K, Female(54%) 45%B/54%K; Total 48.2%B/50.8%K.
It is also very much worth scrutinizing the breakdown by party ID for that 12:23 a.m. sample:
Dem 38% (B9%/K90%), Rep 35% (B92%/K7%), Ind 26% (B44%/K52%). Compare that to the "adjusted" sample from 1:24 p.m. Wednesday: Dem 37% (B11%/K89%), Rep 37% (B93%/K6%), Ind 26% (B48%/K49%). Remember: the # of respondents barely changed, so the changes are due almost entirely to "renormalization" which, if it is without justification, can better be called flat out fudging.
What we see is that the sample shifts from 38%Dem/35% Rep to 37%Dem/37%Rep (because of the huge effect of party ID on candidate preference, this shift in weighting is very much more powerful in altering the overall results than any reweighting by gender) and Independents lurch over to Bush by 7% (from B44%/K52% to B48%/K49%). Without the missing screenshot from 12:23, an argument might be made that the 2500 or so late exit poll respondents (after 7:33 p.m.) account for these shifts—anyone analyzing just the data released today would be excused for drawing such a conclusion. The missing 12:23 a.m. data shows that such a conclusion would be erroneous (it was data manipulation to match the "actual" vote counts, and not an increase in the size of the respondent group, which produced the pro-Bush shifts).
Edison/Mitofsky must present a legitimate reason for skewing their own polls to overrepresent Republican and underrepresent Democratic voters (remember the controversy over some right-wing pre-election polls which did essentially the same thing?), while throwing a substantial share of the Independent vote from Kerry over to Bush. The only arguable reason for doing so is what has been dubbed the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis—the assumption being that (against all logic and observational evidence and against the evidence of the polls themselves) Republicans won the turnout battle in virtually every state across the country but that this implausible Republican advantage was masked by their innate comparative reluctance to participate in the exit polls.
No EVIDENCE, however, has been advanced to support the reluctant Bush responder hypothesis other than the tautology that the vote count had to be right and therefore the exit polls must have been wrong and this is the only way to explain it.
We still await release of the missing late exit poll data and, of course, of the raw data which would permit independent analysis of the raw numerical facts of the case.
—Jonathan Simon
(source, private email forwarded to me)
Peace.
======================
From http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/bush050703a.htm:
Worrisome Move To Remove Presidential Term Limit from Constitution
See also:
- Letter from Peter Coyote to Senator Barbara Boxer
- Jim Crow revived in cyberspace
- If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines
In recent months two proposals have been introduced to the House of Representatives to amend the Constitution of the United States and repeal the 22nd amendment. The 22nd amendment was put place to limit the number of times a president could be in office to two terms.
The first, HJRES 11 IH, was introduced on January 7, 2003 by Representative Serrano. On February 25, 2003 HJ 25 IH was introduced. These appear to be identical.
======================
Finally, here’s a wonderful statement posted recently on the DU site, at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x224438:
Link: Conyers "prepared" to contest Ohio Electoral Vote (Keith Olbermann)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240 /
Anyone can read 3 U.S.C. §15 and several links provide background info and context on it. For instance:
http://www.caef.us/objecting.html
One comment at DU contains text from as well as excerpts from the Constitution including the 12th and 20th Amendments:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
I’ve been reluctant to post on this matter for several reasons including: 1. I’m not a Constitutional scholar and 2. I am a scientist, a quantitative systems biologist. In other words, I know what I don’t know and I know a bit about how complex systems evolve or not. By the way, inflexibility is one of the traits that ensures a ‘not’ outcome.
That said, even a brief reflection on 6 Jan 2001 and what Congressman Conyers and some of his colleagues experienced on that day and all that he has experienced and learned since that day is likely to influence what he does on 6 Jan 2005. I view Congressman Conyers as an example of a robust complex system. I doubt if he is enlisting support from other members of Congress and recruiting co-signatories from the Senate merely to have a two hour debate or to create an opportunity for the HR to vote along party lines or … .
I don’t think so.
Why? For starters, because I accept him at his word: “And we understand the law as well as you.”
Why? Because the scale of the threat to our American franchise of democracy will require not just courage, knowledge of existing law, exposition of existing evidence of illegal election activities, and more, but it will depend on how robust, how creative, flexible and committed each member of the 109th Congress is to preserving that franchise and protecting the rights of the citizens whom they represent.
At this time, other than for a few individuals very close to Congressman Conyers, I think none of our fellow citizens know what will be the nature or the number of the challenges. I see little reason for Congressman Conyers or any Senator to announce strategy before they step forward on the afternoon of 6 Jan 2005 and challenge.
If the challenge is a clear and concise list of violations of federal and state laws, including charges that involve violations of Constitutional rights of citizens, and one Senator signs along with Congressman Conyers, then the 109th US Congress will indeed face a situation it has never faced before (especially since some of the putative Constitutional rights violations involve Amendments that did not exist in 1877). In other words, one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives is all that is required to set in motion something no member of Congress, or any other person on this planet, has ever experienced.
Do not underestimate how large an encounter of a complex system with an unknown variable that represents.
In my opinion, based on a very limited understanding of history and our Constitution, I think we face one type of Constitutional crisis if those who we elect begin to defend the franchise and the Constitution that is its basis -- that crisis, while it may get really tense and ugly, is one that is tractable. It could result in a stronger and more perfect union.
Given what will likely be in the clear and concise statements of illegal actions to disenfranchise our fellow citizens, those members of the 109th Congress who ‘sit on their butts’ will effectively be aiding and abetting crimes against those whom they are elected to protect.
I think if we do not see one Senator join Congressman Conyers in a challenge we are a different country than what is described in the Constitution. In other words, the Constitutional crisis we face if they do not act on 6 Jan 2005 is tantamount to setting the clock to 6 Jan 1774 and starting over.
Either way, when Scalia did what he did on 9 Dec 2000 and Senators of the 108th Congress sat on their butts in Jan 2001, the consequences were inevitable, vast and potentially lethal to our democracy. From the moment the electors were accepted by the 108th US Congress the core of our Constitution came under attack and at some point either the franchise is going to perish or the citizens are going to save it.
6 Jan 2005 is not just another battle with those clearly committed to a different form of American government.
These are the opinions of a concerned citizen who has probably less knowledge of the issues than most, if not all of you here at DU, and many others, so I have no pride or 'agenda' or special standing in stating them; it's just the way I see the situation.
What I do know with absolute certainty, however, is that I have no intention of relenting to those seeking to destroy our franchise of democracy, and on 6 Jan 2005 I'll know which members of the 109th US Congress prove their commitment to the Constitution and the rights of every citizen to vote and have their vote counted accurately. |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
