the VOTE group: Why yet another group???

[Jo March]

Several people have asked why we are starting yet another election reform group. After all, there are about a zillion groups out there already.

I agree that there are so many groups out there already. What do all of these groups have in common?

DU!

DU's group, VOTE, will participate in the work towards election reform but we will be the link between all of the other groups, allowing us to get "all hands on deck!" so to speak, and get all of the groups working together.

Picture this: An election bill comes up for a vote in the House. We don't want it to die. VOTE springs into action, contacting our list of Progressive groups and sending out the word.

VOTE's media contact people spring into action and start blasting out using the media blasters. They also contact other Progressive groups that are contained in our Media Contacts database.

VOTE's Election Officials contact people spring into action and alert the other Progressive groups, alerting them of the bill. We contact those EO in our database and start calling, faxing, writing and emailing.

We don't just have ten groups here and there working on the same things. We have HUNDREDS of groups working. That translates into hundreds of thousands of Progressive voices!

That is what we need to do.

Also, we will be collecting a list of Progressive groups in a database instead of in a list somewhere. This way we can create custom lists and query for voting records.

We'll do the same for the media.

We'll do the same for volunteers so we can capture who does what so when we need anything, like a graphic designer, we can query our contacts database and see who we have in the database who would be willing to work.

We'll be organized and able to mobilize quicker.

If you have any other questions, please PM me or katinmn or mordarlar. :)

Arnheim

[loudsue]

1. That's not practical. We need to keep it in the 2004 Election Forum

I'm still too wary of the Divide and Conquer motif.

It doesn't help newbies coming into the forums, either. If it's election fraud, voting machines, whatever; the activism on this issue needs to stay together.

Impeachment can be an entirely different forum.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. THERE IS NO NEW "DU GROUP"

It is a new group of people organizing right here in 2004 Election Results and Discussion forum.

Sorry, didn't mean to shout at you, but I thought maybe the shouting would get other people's attention. :)

I feel like I am inadvertently responsible for this misperception, since I started a thread that discussed the desire for a separate DU forum. In case anyone was misled by my proposal, it was mostly rhetorical, to highlight the difficulty I was having in finding 2004 Election information in the 2004 Election Results and Discussion forum.

So I'll shut up now. :dunce:

[mordarlar]

4. Consider...

What will happen trying to push forward election reform in a fraudulent majority Congress. (it is a majority due TO FRAUD. This means the MAJORITY MAY NOT WANT REFORM) Now take away a minority's one weapon in the Senate, the filibuster. Add a "nuclear option".

>>>"At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures. It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices."<<<

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/12/13/nuclear/

Throw into this mix the majority Republican leaning judicial system.

Election reform brought about by the VERY PEOPLE who have used and benefited from it? Not likely. : /

[Amaryllis]

5. It is still lin the 2004 election forum.

[Bill Bored]

3. It's not a bad idea

I have asked myself why there should be another group too. There are already a few too many for most of us to participate in. But if you really want this to be a clearinghouse, it's a good idea. Is that your mission statement? That's the first thing to develop IMHO -- the mission statement.

We must also be careful of the inevitable disagreements that will ensue about various reforms. You will have to deal with everything from Verified Voting, to doing away with the Electoral College, to instant runoff voting, to amending the Constitution, to enforcement of state laws, and the list goes on. And there will be disagreements.

I for example think that Verified Voting is the #1 priority and everything else is meaningless without that. There's already a group for that: verifiedvoting.org. Others may disagree. How will this group handle these disagreements? Is there a danger of division in the ranks? Will it be a disorganized group, like our party, the Democrats? We can't afford that.

The way I see this, we have less than 2 years to get Verified Voting legislation enacted at the federal level, or in all states, or at least in the swing states in time for the Congressional Election. That's less than 100 weeks! This alone will be a huge task.

A full week has passed since the historic Electoral Vote Objection of Jan 6. How many have even written a letter to a rep of any kind, other than to say "thank you" to the heroes of that day?