****Re-Frame the Issue: Prove LEGITIMACY, not fraud***

[Carolab]

It occurred to me that the burden of proof in this matter is falling on us and not on them. The problem is that a sizeable percentage of Americans, at least by the polls that have been conducted, have no faith in the legitimacy of this election. Therefore, the issue before our senators is this: instead of making us prove there is fraud, make them prove that the election is legitimate. If they cannot do that, then they have no clear "mandate" to govern.

There are enough facts to cast significant suspicion which warrants an investigation. The investigation will either prove fraud and seek remedy, or it will disprove fraud and restore faith in our elections and in our government.

[Vektor]

1. Very well put -

And absolutely right. It definitely shifts the ball into their court asking them to provide a little evidence to support their claims that Bush legitimately won.

If I knew I was wrongly accused, I'd be itching to defend myself - their silence says a lot doesn't it?

[Carolab]

2. Really, it's a Republican "tactic"

they always shift the blame. So I suggest we give them a dose of their own medicine. We constantly claim "fraud" and they use it against us, calling us "conspiracy nuts", "dissidents", etc. That allows them to discredit us, and insist that we have no proof and can therefore not request an investigation. Yet, without an investigation, we have no proof. Therefore, if we ask for an investigation to prove that the election is NOT "flawed" and the results are legitimate, and they continue to refuse, then it shifts the blame to them: what are they hiding?

[Vektor]

4. It's high time...

...we use their tactics against them, then. :-)

[slay]

3. True. We, the people, deserve to know if the election was legitimate

You would think our elected officials, and at the very least Ken Blackwell, should have to prove the election was fair.

[Wabbajack]

5. "make them"how?

it seems we can't make them do anything. :(

[KansDem]

36. Perhaps a rhetorical question...?

I know that when people say to me "Bush won...", I say "Prove it!" This shuts them up because they cannot prove their statement, especially when reminded that the votes are counted by a private corporation under secret conditions outside the light of public scrutiny. And the fact that these corporations are beholden to the GOP only adds insult to injury...

NO ONE can prove Bush won...

[Brundle_Fly]

6. good idea....

but I think it comes after we prove the elements of possibilities of grand fraud.

Can't have one without the other, so to speak.

[hootinholler]

63. Not necessary to have proof of fraud.

Read the dissenting opinion from Bush V. Gore

Essentially, it says the burden of proof electors are legit is on the States.

-Hoot

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

7. exactly--and if they have to prove legitimacy, their own non-paper trail

chickens will come home to roost. There's no way to prove legitimacy when you remove the ability to be accountable.

[zapped 1]

8. great idea nt

[il_lilac]

9. I will reword my letters

to Senators today! You're right- prove this election was legit! Put all our crazy notions to rest once and for all and we'll gladly hang up our tinfoil hats. Unless of course there is something to hide???

[righteous1]

10. I am sorry but I have to disagree completely

It always rests on the shoulders of the "accusers" to prove their claim not the other way around. It's the presumption of innocence dictum that is inheresnt to our system of jurisprudence

[Jimr]

13. Presumption of innocence is not the issue.

We are asking for a full investigation, which is warranted given the evidence at hand. They are blocking it and withholding information.
What are they hiding?

[IStriker]

24. What "evidence?"

[ClassWarrior]

26. Sorry, I don't do research for folks too lazy to do their own.

NGU.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

14. In court we'll assume the burden. Out of court, the burden must be theirs!

edited for typo

[Pacifist Patriot]

21. But out of court it's generally still the case that you seek evidence

of wrong-doing rather than seeking evidence that everything is alright. I'm screaming for an investigation as loudly as anyone else, but ultimately the investigation will be with the intent to uncover fraud, not the intent to prove everything is hunky dory.

As I said elsewhere, I agree with the sentiment and I've said as much to countless elected officials. But it's simply not realistic. How exactly do you force someone to prove they are legitimate? You need leverage. Which is the evidence that they aren't legitimate. i.e. The burden is on you to collect evidence of fraud and then let them try to defend themselves. You don't say prove there was no fraud. Hell, that's an invitation for a coverup if I've ever heard one.

[Bill Bored]

32. The Proof is that the vote cannot be VERIFIED

The charge is negligence on the part of the states without the VVPBs and mandatory random auditing. I still haven't found a list of them all, but Ohio, FL and GA are among them and there are a bunch of others.

That's enough to cast doubt on Bush's election. Without those he could not have won. Therefor, we don't know that he has won. He should be given a provisional presidency until it can be proven that he won.

Hastert and Delay blocked the paper ballot in Congress. They should be put on the witness stand along with any state officials who haven't enacted legislation to verify the vote.

I wanted to start a thread about this specifically, but I've been so busy with these damn exit polls that I haven't had time. They are ADDICTIVE! Maybe today though.

Unfortunately, :-) we need LAWYERS for such action and most will say that the burden of proof is on us. But I think, as a non-lawyer, it can shifted to the states if we think out of the box a little and show enough holes in the process to prove that they don't really know the true results of any of these elections.

[EFerrari]

11. We keep worrying about "proving" instead of breaking it down

into manageable pieces.

1) In both 2000 and 2004, there was vast disenfranchisement of black voters (as well as poor and young voters). In 2004, we have it on tape. We should start with that. That ALONE makes the OH election illegitimate .

2) The rest of the tampering and 3) the obvious BBV crimes will come out in an investigation because we already know so much about them.

There is more than one kind of crime here. Let's make the strongest case first.

[sagesnow]

12. What IS Blackwell Hiding?? n/t

[ClassWarrior]

15. That's AWESOME Carol. I'm going to use that when...

...I visit Sen. Feingold's local offices today.

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. While I whole-heartedly agree in theory, our system is not set up that way

Innocent until proven guilty and all that goes with it. You don't enter a courtroom asking a defendent to supply the courts with the damning evidence. You collect the evidence and then haul the defendant in front of a judge and jury. While I would dearly love to have someone prove legitimacy to me, it's not going to happen. The onus is on us to prove fraud I'm afraid.

[ClassWarrior]

18. We're not entering a courtroom. We're framing a debate to our Senators.

If it works, what's wrong with it?

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. I understand that and this is exactly how I've phrased

some of my communication with my representative and senators. I have pointedly asked them to prove to me that my vote and everyone else's vote was properly records, tabulated and reported.

I'm just pointing out that our society has developed a pretty ingrained way of thinking. People do tend to think in terms of presenting proof of wrong-doing rather than presenting proof that everything is right.

I said I whole-heartedly agreed with it. I just fear that realistically it will fall on deaf ears. Just an opinion, nothing more.

[buddysmellgood]

17. I like this. We must use illegitimate with Bush and the election over and

over. We need Duers to call in to radio talk shows and public radio and write lettes to the editor and repeatedly say "this illegitimate president" and "illegitimate election."
We say it enough, and they will have to fight back. Once they have to deny it they are sunk because they cannot prove Bush won.

[understandinglife]

20. We Have No Election. Prove me incorrect, Senator ______ (n/t)

[donkeyotay]

22. Faith in government is proportional to transparency, rule of law

"The problem is that a sizeable percentage of Americans, at least by the polls that have been conducted, have no faith in the legitimacy of this election."

If bush wanted credibility he shouldn't have gone to all that trouble to make the results questionable. Why should either party control the companies counting the votes, let alone why should the American people entrust their vote to a private corporation? You can't take steps to ensure a partisan outcome and then complain when not everyone trusts the result.

[IStriker]

23. Ridiculous!

First you investigate, then if the proof backs up your suspicions, you make allegations. I have been trying to figure out how it is that some DU'ers want to reverse the order of things because it's what they WANT. You do NOT start out with a conclusion, the one you want to be, and then try to prove it.

I would like for there to be fraud, but there must be an investigation (something Kerry and his lawyers are saying is not going to happen because they don't even have any suspicions of fraud.) So who are the people who are floating all these allegations (and were prior to the election) that fraud occurred without any proof? And why?

If you want to "re-frame the issue" you are not interested in the truth; you are interested in your agenda.

[ClassWarrior]

25. You haven't read Lakoff, have you? Reframing is phrasing the truth...

...in such a way that your concerns are heard. As for "reversing the order of things," see post #18.

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. My other concern is that by asking to prove a negative you

open the door for a coverup.

[ClassWarrior]

28. We're talking psychology here, not forensics.

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. No "we" aren't.

You may be talking psychology, but I'm carrying it forward into functional reality. As I've now said several times, I agree with this as a tactic for wording a plea, but not as a realistic approach to addressing the problem. By all means urge representatives to prove that the election was legitimate, but be prepared to follow that up with evidence that it wasn't.

[ClassWarrior]

35. Then you're off-topic. Because it's about "Re-Framing."

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. I wasn't aware that topics were forbidden from evolving.

I'll say it again in case you missed it the first four or five times. I agree...to a point. Reframe away, but at some point you're going to have to do something with that new frame. It looks gorgeous hanging there on the wall, but it'll look even better with something of substance encased within it.

[ClassWarrior]

38. Of course. That's granted.

Or are you questioning the substance?

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. Aggghh!!! You are maddening today!

;)

I have absolutely no doubt that we are dealing with election fraud which may include vote manipulation and/or vote suppression. Our system is flawed and needs to be corrected for both this election and future election cycles.

I support approaching representatives with positive verbage requesting they prove the legitimacy of the election....i.e. Reframing The Issue.

Now here is where I think we diverge. Despite "reframing the issue," the onus is still going to be on those seeking to prove fraud rather than those put in the position of proving legitimate elections if anything is to change.

[ClassWarrior]

44. Then I don't think we diverge at all.

Proving fraud is granted. Isn't that's what so many here are doing? And isn't that the purpose of Thursday's protest - to get Congress to investigate, or at the very least consider, the tens of thousands of voter complaints?

I took this thread to mainly be a "talking points" discussion, and I saw your comments as negative toward that. If I was wrong, I apologize.

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. You're both right and wrong.

Getting back to psychology:

I like the idea of communicating the the issue from a different perspective. I have found it to be a natural way of communicating with elected officials. It's also framed in a way that the "common voter" can probably swallow a little more easily.

On the other hand, I think psychologically it has the potential to engender a "no longer in my hands" approach to the subject if the burden is perceived as being shifted elsewhere. Am I making any sense?

[ClassWarrior]

49. Are you making any sense? Not really.

Iron clad proof is needed to frogmarch Bush**, Cheney**, and their Radical RW puppetmasters off to the federal pen in leg irons. And when the challenge happens on Thursday, we can start working with our friends in Congress to nail down that proof.

But it's not needed to stand up and challenge the electors. All that's needed is legitimate questions. And we have those coming out the wazoo. That was the original intent of the thread, IMHO.

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. Then I think we are saying the same thing.

I think.

[ClassWarrior]

55. That's what I said in #44!!

Now who's the maddening one??

<LMAO>

Well, at least we've kept the thread kicked.

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

57. Hey, what's a little clarification between conspiracy theorists?

[ClassWarrior]

62. With the slime that oozes through this criminal administration**...

...one hardly has to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe that fraud was committed here.

NGU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. You must have missed my post where I defined both

conspiracy and theorist and proudly claimed the label. My theory is that there was a conspiracy, ergo I am a conspiracy theorist. If the fraud was coordinated by more than one individual than you too my dear are a conspiracy theorist. Wear it with pride, not a tinfoil hat. Reframe! ;)

[Pacifist Patriot]

43. Oh and as an aside.....

I posted one of my letters to my elected officials and my local paper in mid-November which used exactly this tactic. I've seen it mentioned a handful of times over the last two months. It's actually not a new suggestion. Several people have brought this up even more overtly than I did.

[Carolab]

58. If trying to prove that this election was legitimate isn't seeking truth

I don't know what is. * won? Prove it. I can't believe the results otherwise. There is too much data, too much suppression, to accept the results are fully credible. OTOH, if we claim fraud without specific, irrefutable evidence to back it up, the argument is turned on its head. You say there is fraud? You can't prove it; therefore, none exists and the election is legitimate. You say you don't trust the election? What will it take to prove that it is legitimate? That is the argument.

[Bill Bored]

29. You got it!

Haven't even read the rest of the thread yet, but you are right! There is no way for the states to know with reasonable certainty that our votes were counted as cast, and this should be pursued in court including the court of public opinion, until it is corrected!

SUE THE STATES to make the vote auditable!

[IStriker]

31. When you finish with 2004, how many other elections...

are we going to go back and demand that the gov't PROVE were legitimate? Maybe we should start with Washington's and move forward. How many newspapers spent how much time on 2000 and came to the same conclusion? The whole purpose of all this stuff is the Green and Libertarian agenda that none of our elections are legitimate. (Maybe because they can't win one for dogcatcher) so therefore, they will destroy our system (or get you to do it for them) and maybe they'll have a chance to win something (anything) with the new system we set up after the whole country has lost faith in the one we have.

[Bill Bored]

34. The Glibs have their own interests of course but...

the fact is the vote is unverifiable and this hurts everyone except those who control the technology that runs the election. Three guesses as to which party that is.

Oh and forget the feds. The states control the elections! They must be held accountable!

[renate]

39. this election is different

because this time there were PROVEN irregularities, such as precincts with more votes than voters. (The butterfly ballot was bad luck, the closeness of the Florida vote that made hanging chads an issue was bad luck, but problems with counting votes gets at the very essence of democracy.)

Admittedly, these irregularities aren't an indication of deliberate fraud, but it certainly proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there were problems with the data collection and vote counting. Proving fraud would be great but it'd be almost as good to investigate whether the election was irredeemably flawed.

So I think that in this case the onus really IS on the people who are saying "move along, there's nothing to see here."

[IStriker]

47. This election is the same...

Do you have any idea how many precincts in Philadelphia have more votes than registered voters every single election? The population dwindles, the number of registered voters grows, and every election some precincts have more votes than registered voters. I'm sure Philly is not the only big city this happens in (it used to happen in Pittsburgh too) but I live in PA and see the numbers. I'm not going to complain or make any noise because it looks to me like PA would have turned RED about 3 elections ago if it weren't for this.

[ClassWarrior]

41. And when's the last time the Tooth Fairy visited you?

<LMAO>

NGU.

[IStriker]

48. He's too busy visiting you to have time left for anybody else.

[IStriker]

51. Just realized reason some on here are anxious to get on the Glib bandwagon

Some of us must be thinking just like the Greens and Libs to join their agenda of destroying our system. You believe that the Democrats can no longer win another national election without undermining the system we have always used and replacing it with another. Some of our Senators think that too. Dianne Feinstein wouldn't be proposing an amendment to do away with the electoral college if she thought the Democrats could ever again win a national election. That's a lot easier than to appeal to more people and grow the party and takes a lot less work. Sorry, but I happen to think we're not some little kook party like the Glibs and I think we can win again with the right candidate and right message.

[Bill Bored]

64. We can't win if it's rigged

and there's no proof that it wasn't. That's the problem.

The Glibs are doing our "dirty work" for us and it's kind of a shame that we as a party are not standing up for ourselves. I respect them for that.

[fooj]

33. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING??????

Keep the faith!!!

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

46. you got it, and fooj is right.

Can I get a hallelujia from the choir?

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

[renate]

40. A+ for your suggestion to re-frame the issue

If only the leaders of the Democratic party were as on the linguistic ball as you are!

[Yupster]

50. It's impossible to prove legitimacy

Ta a conspiracy believer there will always be one more level of conspiracy. It's impossible to prove something didn't happen.

If the recount comes out fine, it will only show the recount was rigged.

If the actual ballots are shown, it will only prove they changed the ballots.

If each voter signs an affadavit, it will only show they aren't the real voters.

People who believe in conspiracies will die believing in them. There's no way to convince them otherwise.

If the leaders of the conspiracy change their mind, it will only show that the conspiracy got to them too.

[Verve]

53. That's baloney! If this was a TRANSPARENT election it could be proved or

disproved. However, it's not. And until elections are transparent no one should have faith in our election process.

BTW, I think most people on DU are fairly intelligent and educated people. If the secret source codes in the tabulators were made public; the full exit polls made public and numerous suspect tabulators inspected by competent, unbiased individuals than many DUers would get the answers they need to make up their minds about fraud. Until then, I'd rather be skeptical than blindly believing that election fraud couldn't possibly have happened in the U.S.

CAN YOU PROVE WE HAD A FAIR ELECTION?

[donkeyotay]

59. Thanks verve, and thanks to Carolab for the OP

It's a false frame to say this is about proving a negative (ie, they didn't steal the election.) It's about transparency. Why are people called vile names like "liberal" and "conspiracy theorist" for pointing out that we don't know who won the election because it took place in (republican-owned) black boxes.

I want a paper ballot that can be counted and recounted just like god and the constitution intended. Without that, I question the legitimacy of the results.

Thanks for putting in a kind word for DUers who doubt.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

56. It's a RHETORICAL device, not a moral issue or evidentiary hearing,

or a philosophical argument about whether or not you can prove a negative, or how we should go about convincing each other best, or an opening to reveal the psychology of conspiracy buffs. It's about a message for middle of the roaders. It's about developing a meme that eventually swarms MSM, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything other than chosing an unflattering way to begin to paint your adversary. So, make it known they're the Party of Fraud until they can prove otherwise, and hammer it effin' home.

[Verve]

52. I love your insight Carolab! Thanks! n/t

[mzmolly]

60. EXACTLY. Some of us have said this for some time.

It has to be properly framed so that one can't say no, frankly.

It's about "voter confidence" :hi:

[Carolab]

61. .

[GuvWurld]

66. no BASIS for confidence; no REASON to believe...

This whole thread is dancing around the core argument I've been making since April. Fraud is not the issue; proof is not the issue.

The issue: conditions do not exist for elections to be beyond question.

Said another way: we have no reason to believe the results reported from US federal elections.

And another: there is no basis for confidence in US federal elections.

See: The No Confidence Movement.

If nothing changes, we will continue to have "elections" that are not universally accepted as legitimate. The changes necessary are systemic and must be able to create a new basis for confidence.

[madbelgiancow]

67. wholeheartedly agree Carolab

To my own shame, I referenced your thread as "Stephanies" in my own post on this subject ("conclusive evidence not needed").

Sorry !

:hi:

[scottxyz]

68. Bingo

I totally agree.

The legitimacy of the election must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We have no evidence that these numbers are correct. Hence, we must reject them. That's how they do it in banking and accounting - the same principle applies in election vote tallying.

Fraudulent until proven legitimate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!