NEW DU GROUP PROPOSAL - FOCUS ON FRAUD

[meganmonkey]

Okay, nashuaadvocate brought up something that I have been thinking about for days in the following thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x298329

I was just thinking about this last night. I think we DO need a new group, mainly because there is a lot of talk in this forum about whether or not fraud even occurred, or potentially good threads that degenerate into a debate about whether or not Kerry is a chump in relation to the Election Fraud issue.

These are perfectly valid conversations in this forum, but they distract us from focusing on facts, research, and activism. I really think we DO need a seperate group for a few reasons. I understand the desire to focus THIS forum, but the problem is that whenever we try, a lot people react by implying we are trying to squash dissent here. And while that is frustrating to those of us who WANT to focus on the action and not the debate, those people are ultimately right. This is a big, public board, and lots of things fall into the category of this forum. We shouldn't try to stifle discussions that other people find important jsut because we are prioritizing differently. This forum would continue to exist, and there will probably be an overlap.

THe benefit of starting a Group for this is that we can put in the mission staement that it is assumed that fraud occurred, and topics must pertain to the ongoing effort to expose & remedy fraud. If the mission statement is written properly, then debates about whether or not fraud occurred wouldn't happen. THey can still happen here, and threads about Condi and the inauguration and other election result related stuff would still happen here. But the new group would be FOCUSED.

DU is huge, that is why they started the groups - so people could focus.

I say let's do it.

MISSION STATEMENT:
To those posting in XXXXXXXXXXXXX Group, it is a GIVEN that fraud occurred. We are dedicated to the following: compiling, analyzing and scrutinizing data and evidence of election fraud; discussion of media coverage of election fraud and reform; creating plans of action for media blasting, contacting our politicians regarding election reform, rallies, protests and other forms of action and activism; discussing the Election Reform and voting methods.

Name of Group:

--ELECTION FRAUD AND REFORM ACTION GROUP

---THE WAR ROOM (as proposed by BigBearJohn in the previous thread - my only fear is it sounds like it's about the war in Iraq)

---OTHER - PLEASE GIVE YOUR IDEAS

ALSO GIVE IDEAS FOR CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THE MISSION STATEMENT

IF 10 FOLKS WITH STARS AGREE, I WILL SUBMIT THIS TO THE MODS.

:grouphug:

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!!!

[meegbear]

1. Count me in.

[NickiWitch]

2. I think it's an excellent idea! THE FRAUD SQUAD

I'm for it!

[meganmonkey]

5. Ooooh! Fraud Squad - I love that name!!!!

Maybe once we get a few more name ideas, we can have a poll before submitting to the mods. Do you think the mission statement sounds good?

[keepthemhonest]

6. I like that one

so this would be the name instead of going to 2004 election results we would go to this group ,right?

For the question about Arnheim she and others would just come to this group to post now instead of going to election results.I think that is how it works.

[BigBearJohn]

10. FANTASTIC NAME -- that's the one I ultimately vote for! Yeah!!!

Fraud Squad!!!

[FogerRox]

3. Isnt Arnieheim already doing this?

[NickiWitch]

4. Isn't it a website? n/c

[meganmonkey]

8. I don't think she's doing a DU Group, is she?

She is doing a lot of organizing of resources, but my understanding is that it is a seperate website to get activists together, not a DU Group.

[Jo March]

59. Did I hear my name being taken in vain? LOL

Can we retrain folks to use the Activism forum for things that require action but aren't related to the 2004 election?

That way, the fraud/reform folks could stay in this forum. Work with me on this:

Here is the VOTE deal:

We are starting an organization that will work towards election reform. Believe you me, if thar warn't no fraud, then thar warn't be no VOTE.

Ahem.

I toyed with the idea of a new forum and had even asked for one. I received quite a bit of impassioned pleas not to break off into yet another forum. I was worried that our VOTE stuff would get lost in the sea of stuff that circulates through 2004 Election Results forum.

Skinner recommended that we go over to the Activism forum instead.

I finally decided to have any VOTE info posted to this thread because of this one reason:

Folks that hang out in this thread primarily seem to work extremely well together. They have formed a team and have bonded through the fire of "yes, there was fraud vs. no, you are an idiot and there is NO fraud vs. Kerry sucks." I've seen more activism in this forum than in General Discussion or General Discussion: Politics. It's very odd but this forum has some very passionate people in it.

If you do start a forum for election fraud/election reform, just keep in mind that you are splintering off into yet another forum and you may lose some folks who hang out here.

On the other hand, it would be more focused without the fast pace and the myriad of action threads.

As for VOTE, we want to "bond" with any organization out there that wants to work for election reform and fight the fraud. Even those among us who don't believe in actual fraud still know that something went totally wrong and it needs to be fixed.

(I for one believe there was fraud and lots of it but I digress.)

But, bigger picture, I want VOTE's model of operation to be used for other things as well. If we can sound the alarm to 95% of Progressive groups via our organization in our attempt to bring about election reforms, then we could do this for other things as well - like getting rid of Condi or Gonzalawless.

[meganmonkey]

66. So are you saying that the purpose of VOTE

could serve this need, at least as far as the activism aspect?
I think the ideas being discussed here involve more than straightforward activism, though.

Do you plan on there being any discussion boards or 'comment' areas on VOTEs website?

[Jo March]

69. The purpose of VOTE is to unite all groups that are

working for election reform. That's the simple version of things. Election fraud awareness and (hopefully) punishment for fraudsters will also be a big part of it.

We are going to try to become a hub for election reform. If legislation on election reform is pending and we want to act on it and notify our elected officials, then VOTE springs into action and gives the "all hands on deck" call to other groups in the chain. We would then unite all of the groups into one strong voice for change.

Once the VOTE site gets set up, we will have a discussion area but we will never forget DU.

DU is the glue that holds all of these groups together for now. We hope to be that glue - not to replace DU but to organize for election reform. Make sense?

Until we have a website, though, I will be posting VOTE's stuff in this forum: 2004 ER&D. It's full of like-minded folks, like you, who believe that the reform/fraud issue is the most important thing to be working on right now.

So, VOTE is not a new forum within DU. We are just depending on the kindness of this forum and the kick-assedness of the folks who frequent it!!!

[Beth in VT]

106. I think it's best to keep us together in one place.

Fraud and reform are inter-related, and while it's important to pursue the fraud angle it's also imperative to move forward with reform regardless of the outcome.

[Amaryllis]

81. Yes! to this :

Can we retrain folks to use the Activism forum for things that require action but aren't related to the 2004 election?

[BigBearJohn]

7. I agree with your reasoning. And I like your choice of names. A thought:

I love the idea of a mission statement, so the
forum remains focused on exposing fraud.

However, an additional thought --
I still like the idea of WAR ROOM to be used
for still ANOTHER forum that focuses on changes
we want to implement to cause election reform.

[meganmonkey]

12. I actually meant for this Group to include Reform -

I will edit the mission statement to clarify that. btw - a mission statement is required to form a DU group.
I personally think fraud investigation and election reform go hand in hand...

[BigBearJohn]

36. Ok

But I was just thinking you wanted to focus Fraud Squad on
only the fraud.

[meganmonkey]

37. It's just such a catchy name

:)

And it really isn't about what I want in particular, I have just seen so much unrest lately on this forum about what we are really here for, and then with nashua's post I got inspired.
There are a lot of valid concerns about my idea here, and i certainly don't want to cause a split among those who are really trying to be productive. So let's just wait a while and see if there is a consensus, and if the admins get back to me (you can see what I asked them in the ATA forum).

[NickiWitch]

48. I'm not sure why having a seperate fraud forum would be...

so bad. It's just taking *one* subject we discuss on this board and giving it it's own life.

I think it's a good idea to keep that seperate as to keep those interested *focused* on the task at hand.

I'll still going to hang out here, I'd love to have another place to get more serious.

Kisses!

Nicki :)

[Amaryllis]

82. What's ATA and where is it?

[housewolf]

71. What if we re-named the Activism Forum to the War Room?

It seems to me that the purpose of both is the same and the Activism Forum does not get a lot of posts to it.

What if we just re-named the Activism Forum to the War Room?

[minvis]

9. Count me in, too!!!

Whatever you guys name it, count me in. I continue to research info I'm getting from Ohio and would welcome posting in a place I know I'm going to get feedback from in a short time.

[FreepFryer]

11. Disagree strongly. All we'll do is split the effective 'window' in half.

Change the topics here. Drive it here. Here it was born, here it is strongest. Unite, don't divide.

It was already suggested, and agreed by many, that this forum would be renamed, something like "Election Reform and Fraud Investigation" or the equiv.

[keepthemhonest]

13. that may be true

people may not know where to go to find each other,it is a concern for sure.

[abbiehoff]

16. No, I think Megan is right

There's entirely too much "get over it" and "Kerry's the problem" in this forum. I believe fraud is the problem and election reform is the answer.

[FreepFryer]

21. That's not nearly reason enough to abandon our home.

Let it continue, ignore those posters who offend you, and convince those on the fence!

New people are coming to this issue with skepticism and intelligence all the time. Should they be locked out? It doesn't make long-term sense to Election Reform to surround ourselves with only the convinced.

[sepia_steel]

26. My thoughts exactly.

We lose momentum if we cut ourselves in half. I like this forum just as it is. If we keep dividing everything, the 2004 election will become 10 different groups.

[Jo March]

62. PLEASE READ

Can we retrain folks to use the Activism forum for things that require action but aren't related to the 2004 election?

That way, the fraud/reform folks could stay in this forum.

[Amaryllis]

83. Yes! Changing the name to Election reform advocacy and action would

help do that. Makes it really clear what the focus is.

[shelley806]

79. I think that's the best idea; just to change the name of this site; but

2004 Election Results and Discussion, in fact is FRAUD...

[Zan_of_Texas]

14. 2 things

So, are you saying that if the mission is clear that fraud is a given, then the people who just want to argue that fraud didn't occur can be booted out of the thread? Or, those who want to argue about what Kerry did or didn't do, can be told to move along, go elsewhere for that discussion?

That would be helpful.

Second, I think "war" is already way too much on our minds and in our world. "War Room" does nothing for me, except send me running in the opposite direction. War is socially sanctioned mass murder, in order for a select few to gain material advantage or strategic position.

[FreepFryer]

17. The naysayers (to an extent) provide VALIDATION... why silence them?

Look I hate freeps as much as most of us (well, far more than most, actually), and I think we have been continuously under disinfo attack here...

...but removing dissent removes a crucial layer of validation and accountability. Unlike the Right-wing, we recognize it, and while it poses the greatest challenge to Progressives, it drives our collective voice.

[Amaryllis]

90. I am not hearing this as being about squashing dissent. the sheer

volume of threads in this forum cause a lot of really valuable info to get buried within a few days, plus it is very time consuming to sort thru it all. I think people are talking about efficiency since we have a LOT of work to do pretty fast and having people post non-election related stuff in the relevant other forums would focus it back to election issues and allow us to be more effective in getting the work done.

Part of the problem is people use this forum for a lot of different reasons; some more for community and entertainment, but those of us who are wanting to use it to aid us in the work of reform and uncovering fraud are finding it quite cumbersome to sort through all these threads and not to lose valuable info and ideas that get buried in the volume. There are also a lot of people who are feeling the need to focus more on personal lives which have been neglected now for many months, yet there is still much work to be done, and again, making this forum more efficient would help a lot. It takes a lot of time to sort through all the threads and many are now not related to the topic.

[nashuaadvocate]

15. Maybe we could rename this board "ELECTION REFORM WAR ROOM"...?...

...I like the sound of that, but it may just be me. I think it covers the most territory without being too unwieldy and/or limiting.

--TNE

[FreepFryer]

18. No war, please. (n/t)

[nashuaadvocate]

19. I mean, I vote for keeping this board but renaming it to...

...make its purpose more clear.

For what it's worth.

--TNE

[nashuaadvocate]

20. How about, "Election Reform Advocacy & Action"...?

[FreepFryer]

22. Definitely getting better - I would back you on a similarly-named request.

(n/t)

[meganmonkey]

24. Renaming this board wouldn't do much to focus it

We can't really propose a mission statement for an existing Forum - Groups are different. I'm going to post to the mods and find out if it would be possible to tweak out this board to better fill the need - again, my fear is that those of us who DO want to focus will be taking away from those who use this Forum more broadly...

[FreepFryer]

25. Leaving will do far less to focus it. Use your words to focus it.

[nashuaadvocate]

31. I agree -- there is NOT a need for a new board. The more I think about it

the more I realize that, so long as this board is titled "correctly," it will always be possible to direct people who aren't interested in the election reform discussion to more suitable locales.

But saying that someone must believe there was *fraud*, not just *civil rights-violative irregularities* to participate in this discussion...I don't see that.

(More on this and other thoughts in my post, "Megan, thanks for holding off...", below).

-- TNE

[meganmonkey]

33. Please see my post #30 (i think)

I have asked the Admins about changing the name in here.

Also, for the record, the mission statement was just my quick brainstorm and would definitely be up for discussion IF we decide a new group is necessary. I am not trying to totally rock the boat here and split off, I am just trying to help get this conversation really going because it is clear that for those of us who really are trying to be effective, we feel that we need to focus, as you said.

[nashuaadvocate]

34. Sorry, a bit behind, lol... :-) see my post #32

[meganmonkey]

35. Hee Hee!

Let's call it a 'jinx' and I'll buy you a beer (if we ever meet in the 'real world')

:toast:

[meganmonkey]

38. You make several good points...

Please see my post #30.
I definitely do not want to squash alternate viewpoints - that is not my goal. I am, however, frustrated watching great threads turn into arguments that are no longer productive.
IF a new group starts, I do not mean to say I think people need to pledge their unwavering belief that there was fraud and mayhem in the election. People could post reasonable questions/concerns about specific things. But they wouldn't be able to post things like "Get out the tinfoil, you people are crazy" - if that makes sense. At least, in my vision of it.

Also, reform is the main goal, IMO, but it is too late to edit my original post to clarify that....

[Jo March]

64. FF, I agree with you on that! Great point

We can refocus this forum!!!

[Helga Scow Stern]

51. Yes, KEEP THIS BOARD, but we don't want to narrow too much....

[madison2000]

23. Count me in with bells on!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Nightjock]

27. Great idea.

[SnoopDog]

28. I agree....

[BrklynLiberal]

29. I'm in.

[meganmonkey]

30. Okay, given the responses so far

I have posted in Ask the Admin forum a question to see if we can/should just change the name of this forum and if that would help us narrow down what gets discussed here. I have also asked for their opinion in general given their level of experience.

I understand people's concerns about splitting off or something, and I know that it would be nice if we could just get on better track here. However, even the act of trying to get on track in this forum ends up with a bunch of threads about who has the right to talk about what in here, whether or not dissenting opinions belong. In just the few months I have been here, this forum has changed names (from Campaign 2004 (is that right?!) to the current name), and it has sort of evolved naturally into what it is now. BUt Election results is a valid and big topic. What people here seem to want is something focused more on activism and change and evidence of fraud specifically.

I am not trying to cause a rift, just float some ideas.

Obviously something needs to happen, or there wouldn't be so much talk about it here all the time.

on edit: I also really want to wait until we hear from a lot more contributers to this board. There is no rush, and it will be a while until the admins get back to me, I'm sure...

[nashuaadvocate]

32. Megan, thanks for holding off for the moment on a new board...

...I really think that on a board entitled (as an example) "Election Reform Advocacy & Action" it will be *crystal-clear* to folks what the discussion topic is...

...frankly, if people didn't think there wasn't something seriously wrong with Ohio in 2004, they wouldn't be here. Personally, I don't care whether they think it was fraud or negligence or bias or incompetence -- *whatever* it was, it violated people's civil rights, and that's why we're here. Even if we *can't* prove fraud, this board *must* exist.

We don't want people leaving the board en masse because they think that "proof of" or "a believe in the existence of" fraud is somehow a prerequisite...(!) What if, as time goes on, evidence of fraud is scarce but evidence of other forms of misconduct is legion? Will people then start leaving this board because its "theme" seems antiquated? We don't want that.

Election misconduct is election misconduct. And not all misconduct is "fraud," but *all* of it -- both the fraud and the non-fraud -- needs to be fixed NOW.

-- TNE

[SnoopDog]

39. I like the your group name - Election Reform Advocacy & Action

If all agree, lets get this going.

I think for once and for all we need to compile *our* ways and means to hold elections. Elections are for us - we should decide exactly how our government officials are elected.

Step 1: solicit ideas (again) for our voting requirements.
Step 2: Compile ideas and provide final documents.
Step 3: Send in to Congress.

Our first 'Citizens Congressional Initiative"!

[Raksha]

41. Election Reform Advocacy & Action - great name, great concept.

Count me in! I agree that we're in danger of losing focus here, and this is what I've wanted to concentrate on ever since November 2nd.

[Amaryllis]

80. Great points and I like the name Election Reform Advocacy and Action. I

said this on the other thread but I will say it again here: there is so much that just gets buried on this forum that is really great and useful information, simply because there are so many threads. Having it more focused would help immensely in organizing for action.

There are other forums to discuss things like what Bush wants to do with social security, etc. I understand people wanting to hang together but if you look on the other forums you'll see that a lot of the same people go there.

Thanks again for bringing this up!

[BigBearJohn]

55. You won't splinter ME off. I *like* organization. I also like this board

It would be very nice to have a forum devoted to fraud. Then I don't
have to sift thru a litany of posts to get what I'm interested in.
THIS board is my home and I love it and the people on it.
And I will continue posting on it. But don't forget one thing.
This is the Democratic Underground website. It has many different rooms.
IMHO, nothing wrong or "splintering" about that. When I am anxious to read about the
latest on fraud, it would be great to just click and be there
and not have to sort thru 50 messages (not that the other messages aren't
important too) to get where I want. The whole board is for us
not just this forum.

Ok. That's my 2¢

[meganmonkey]

57. I think that is key - both can exist in harmony

The groups tend to move much slower, and serve a specific purpose.

I want to recommend to those who haven't checked out the groups that they should do so. That way they can get an idea of what we're really talking about here.

It is not an either/or situation. As a couple other posters put it elsewhere on the thread, they would still spend a lot of time in here for faster paced conversation kind of stuff. And I am sure a lot of the meat of the issue would still end up in here too. But the group would serve a specific purpose, and finding info and details would be alot easier - it would almost be like a superconcentrated version of this forum, without so much chitchat. And we all love to chitchat, so we would still hang out in here as much as we do now. But when we don't have much time and need to see the latest Conyers report and a call to action without wading through everything else, it would be much simpler...

[Amaryllis]

85. Nashua advocate brought up a very important point in original post on

the other thread: things are moving VERY fast and we need to be efficient and able to move fast to keep up with it. LOTS of legislation in the works and if there's one thing we have all learned, there is an appalling level of ignorance among our lawmakers. Even the more aware ones like Boxer said she didn't know of problems in any states other than OH and she only kenw about that because Tubbs-Jones wrote her. We need to educate them and do it fast so they don't pass more lame legislation like parts of HAVA.

So we need to be efficient and this forum right now is less than efficient. Would be much more so if it were more focused.

[Jo March]

68. BBJ, what do you think of this?

We retrain folks to use the Activism forum for things that require action but aren't related to the 2004 election

That way, the fraud/reform folks could stay in this forum.

[BigBearJohn]

88. I think we are forgetting why a new group was suggested

FOCUS

[Jo March]

67. PLEASE READ! For the love of Pete, please read!

We retrain folks to use the Activism forum for things that require action but aren't related to the 2004 election.

That would help this forum out a bit, wouldn't it?

So, if you want to work on getting a "no" vote for Condi and Mr. Torture Man, you would go to the Activism forum. For working on election reform/fraud, you'd come here to our newly renamed forum!!

:)

[Amaryllis]

86. YES YES YES. I have been thinking this for several weeks now! This is

for ELECTION stuff!

[housewolf]

72. We currently have these forums

General Discussion
General Discussion Politics
Democratic Party

Plus all the issues groups including
This one (currently named 2004 Election Results and Discussion )
Activism & Events
Campaign 2006 & 2008
Voting Issues

Plus all the state groups

Progressive Democrats of America Group

Maybe we could just make better use of the forums we already have?

[meganmonkey]

73. I'm not talking about a new forum, though

I am talking about Groups:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=206

These move much more slowly than the Forums, and are much more focused. It would not replace this forum in any way...

[meganmonkey]

74. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT A DU GROUP IS!!

I know a lot of you know what I am talking about, but it seems like some people aren't aware of this part of DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=206

Check out 'Frame the Debate' or 'Democracy for America' to see some examples.

These move MUCH slower than the Forums and are very specific. They all have mission statements and are approved by the Admins.
This group would IN NO WAY substitute for the Election Results forum that we are in now...

Just want to be clear on that!

On edit: I can't believe I just posted a second thread saying that, especially as a reply to the first! I am doing 4 things at once right now and I don't even remember the first one...Duh!!

[myschkin]

40. Right!

Fraud Revelation

[understandinglife]

42. Maintaining this group but renaming it seems efficient and I vote.....

....for "Election Reform: Analysis, Advocacy & Action."

I think we need to encourage the continuation and expansion of the analysis that TIA, TfC, and others have underway and encourage more.

The more knowledge we have the more informed our advocacy and actions will be. It also affirms that we are committed to strategy and practice based as much as possible on facts -- technical, statistical, epidemiological, legal, ..... .

Peace.

BE THE BUSH OPPOSITION; 24/7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x297064

[BeFree]

43. Yes, a new group is needed

And, for now, lets not monkey around with this board. <grin>

An Election Reform Group would allow important and informative threads to develop without all the BS from those in oppostion. Also, the research would be quite simplified mainly because of the limited number of threads involved.

Let this board evolve as it has. Hell, it's fun to argue with the friends of b***, but it does cloud the stream of clear information.

Any great info that is introduced here can be placed in the Election Reform Group just as if a new file were created on your computer, except it will be there, in the Election Reform Group file, for the world to see and examine without any of the muddy b*** bootlickers.

Did I metion what I think would be a good name for the new group?
Election Reform.

Yes, lets do it.

[New Earth]

44. i am definately for it

but i hope that doesn't mean we can't talk about election fraud in other places though. i don't want to see good topics in other forums constantly being moved here, especially Election 2004 forum - as long as we are still allowed to talk about it there, then i think having the group is a great idea, especially so those who do believe there was fraud can work on the issue without disruption.

and i do NOT think we should diguise the purpose of the group with some politically correct term, like just 'election reform'.

i think Election Fraud and Reform Discussion (or action) Group is good.

[sepia_steel]

45. Well that's the problem

not everyone who wants reform believes there was fraud.

I think this forum should stay as it is. :( I want to talk to EVEYONE here, not just the people who completely agree with me.

Maybe one option we should consider is a group only for taking action; but even that would overlap.

We've taken lots of action here without dividing the groupds. I see the level of action going down a bit if we seperate from eachother.

[New Earth]

46. looks like we disagree then

:hi:

i'm not saying i want all fraud or reform discussion moved to another forum. but i do think there should be a forum where people can work on the issues without disruption. wait, isn't that what i said the first time?

[sepia_steel]

52. Don't get snarky with ME, missy

I know where you live :P

"Election Fraud and Reform Discussion (or action) Group is good."

You proposed this, I proposed 'action only'.

But like I said they will still overlap, so whats' the point?

[RaulVB]

54. 2004 electoral fraud investigation and...

You add something else?

[troubleinwinter]

49. I hate to see us get all splintered up into different groups.

I know there is some extra disagreement going on this way, but I'd rather see it out here for all to see, discuss and learn.

I think we get more power from the greater DU community when we need letters or action to Conyers, etc. I'd rather keep it here, so that all DUers can be kept abreast of these important issues as they are pursued, rather than sending it off to a smaller forum.

By fractioning the community, I think we lose a lot.

Those who are not interested in the issue can just opt to not view the thread. Yes, we will get more disruptors and doubters, but we will also pick up others who have new thoughts and information just because they stumbled on the threads.

I think we need to be FRONT AND CENTER.

[kster]

84. agreed.....nt

[troubleinwinter]

47. Right here seems to be serving us just fine.

We reach the most DUers, and keeps it visible.

[Helga Scow Stern]

50. I vote against starting a new forum, but don't mind if we rename this one.

As I said in another thread, I am afraid that starting another forum for these topics will simply splinter and divide. People tend to void such a group because it seems like all work. I really treasure the creative inspiration that arises here, and I have spent many hours faxing and writing letters, but I would not seek out such tasks in a work-dedicated forum.

I have seen other dedicated work groups start here since the election, and they fizzle. The few who work on them end up getting overwhelmed--we need to keep the tasks available to the larger group.

We need the energy of variety, and we need to stick together, and to have a large influx of people floating by.

If we need more focus, just post threads that are action oriented. They will get attention.

If you do insist on starting a new forum, please post here too, because many won't go looking there. We rely on this forum for action items and news. Many don't like to have to go digging. I have seen over time how the other groups end up getting ignored.

[sepia_steel]

53. Agreed. eom

[Jo March]

63. I agree - Let's just rename this one

After all, this forum is just teeming with folks who want to work for election reform and to punish those who committed fraud.

[FloridaCrat]

111. Very good points n/t

[Terre]

56. If the word Fraud alienates members

then maybe a new word would work?

Irregularities is used frequently. Here are a few others that may be better suited:

Deception, Violations, Abuses

I'm in favor of just changing the name of the group, at least to see how it works out, and then maybe it can be re-evaluated at a later time.

[BigBearJohn]

58. How about Election Manipulation

is that more politically correct?

[Terre]

61. Politically correct?

I dunno - it wasn't my intention to be so. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'alienate'?

My other word suggestions were simply to look for a word that could also be used for the countless other 'events' that took place. Personally, I don't really care what anyone calls the group - as long as it doesn't keep any contributors from feeling shut out.

I, for one, know WHAT happened - regardless of what word(s) are chosen.

[BigBearJohn]

65. Depends on what we are trying to accomplish

[Melissa G]

60. Fraud Squad and Election Reform

I agree with Meganmonkey. Too many good threads are tag team gang banged by Freeps. I don't mind arguing with them here (kinda fun too see them acting like they think we believe they are Dems) but there needs to be some place we can work quickly and on task without arguing if there was FraWd. There are enough of us who believe there was that we need a place to talk. Count me and my star in :toast:

[consciousobjector]

70. Great Idea! count me in....n/t

[super simian]

75. Agree! n/t

[housewolf]

76. I vote for re-naming this forum

It feels time, to me, to somewhat let go of the 2004 election and move forward with the bigger issue of electoral fraud and reform. Issues related to the 2004 election will remain with us, of course. There is still stuff going on related to the 2004 election and there will be for months or years to come. But it's going to come in drips and drops, most likely, and it doesn't feel useful to me to stay focused on it. I'd rather be focused on broader reform issues.

[troubleinwinter]

77. No particular need to change just now. Give it awhile.

We are still yacking about issues. Lots of activity in this forum.

WHAT is the hurry?

[meganmonkey]

78. Please read my post #30

"There is no rush"

I am in no hurry, friend.

[kster]

91. Not sure if it makes

a difference but has anyone googled 2004 election results and discussion ?

[foo_bar]

87. just call it GD: Venom

[EuroObserver]

89. Election

Fraud, Disenfranchisement and Reform.

I suggest to focus on these.

Then, there'll also be a need for a specfic "Get * & Co. Out" forum;

And, a "Stop Media Cretinization" forum.

My three (euro) cents.

[euler]

92. Would your proposed group....

....'Focus on Fraud' be accepting of those who beleive there was no substantial election fraud ? If the purpose of the proposed group is to ACTUALLY focus on fraud, the forum cannot exclude or berate those who have looked at the evidence for fraud and found it wanting.

[New Earth]

93. Group forums

are for people who are interested in focusing on one specific topic or issue. it depends on the wording of the mission statement to determine who can post in the forum, of course with the approval of an admin.

i still think it's a great idea. people can still use this forum to dicuss it in general, those are focused on exposing can work together without disruption in a group forum.

[frictionlessO]

98. well then why would you want to go into that particular group?

Im a pagan but I dont go into the Christian group and tell them how wrong they are, and how they lack evidence that Christ actually existed as the bible states.

What is the purpose of dissuading those who believe there was fraud? Do you think they make DU look bad? lol

[garybeck]

94. Please NO! Don't divide us!!!!!!

United we stand, divided we fall. Power in numbers. We don't need to create two different places for everyone to check for info.

Election Fraud, election reform. We're not big enough to divide yet.

We don't even have hearings yet.

We need everyone we can get to team together and work together. We need to consolidate, organize, reach out, come together, NOT divide ourselves into compartments!

It's all the same issue:

the election was stolen and we have to do something about it!

[davidgmills]

95. I agree I am wasting too much time

Arguing with the no-fraud people

and too many people are getting bashed.

[meganmonkey]

99. Please read post #97

btw - it wasn't about 'dividing', it was about 'consolidating'! - I feel like a lot of people reacting in this thread don't grasp the difference between a forum and group. It's not a separation or division, they could coexist quite peacefully.

Regardless, read post #97 to see the latest update.

[corbett]

96. Election Fraud Hearing In Orlando, Florida - January 27, 2005

I'm in! Love the notion!

Details about the hearing here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=145&topic_id=3497&mesg_id=3497

[meganmonkey]

97. PLEASE READ THIS POST! Here's the deal...

Please note the use of the word 'proposal' in my original post.
I wanted to stir the pot and I did, and there is a wide variety of valid viewpoints that have been expressed here(and as you can see by my various posts on the thread, I have changed my mind about 5 times ;) ).

That said, the most important opinion of all here is Skinner's, since he runs the site. To see his response to this issue, check this thread in the ATA forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x28686

So it looks like we will probably be getting a name change for this forum. My guess is it will take a minute for the Admins to decide on the name and the 'rules', so to speak (like what topics are appropriate and what topics would get moved). As you can see on that thread, Skinner responded briefly yesterday, but given that it is a Sunday, let's not expect everything to happen right away, he has lots to do. And he deserves a break now and then!

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

[understandinglife]

100. Seems reasonable, but.....

....I think "advocacy" and "action" are to some extent redundant and some emphasis on "analysis" and "planning" would be appropriate in the name, e.g.,

"Stop Election Fraud: Strategies, Plans, Actions"

Glad to see the 'voting issues' being merged.

Thanks for your efforts.



BE THE BUSH OPPOSITION;24/7

[meganmonkey]

101. I see what you mean

although 'advocacy' is a broad enough concept to include analysis and planning...I am hoping that there will be a pinned thread that explains in more detail what the forum is for. I like your recommendation, although lots of people seem to want to be sure to include the word 'Reform'. I personally think the word 'Fraud' should definitely be included in the name, too. Who knows? I guess it is up to admin at this point.

[understandinglife]

103. How about this?

Stop Election Fraud: Reform Advocacy & Actions




BE THE BUSH OPPOSITION; 24/7

[Der Blaue Engel]

104. Well it took me like two days to read all of these responses, LOL

So my response is a tad moot at this point, but I did want to weigh in.

I see that Skinner said he didn't want to split up the forum...but you didn't propose a Group to him there, you just mentioned the discussion of it here, and I doubt that he has time to read all 230-some posts about it, so he may not have even realized that was your original intention.

I don't see how adding a Group (not a forum) to DU would split up this forum, but it seems to be the consensus here that it would. :shrug:

Regarding the proposed name change, "Election Reform Advocacy and Action" might be appropriate for a Group, but not so much as the name for this forum. Does everyone here want to be involved in action? It seems many are just here to discuss, drawn by the word "Discussion," and while I personally am interested in action, sometimes, honestly, I just want to talk about what's going on. At the same time, I look for the action items here when I'm ready to do that.

I'd like to see something that implies this is still the same group, just more focused, as everyone has been saying; i.e., something like "2004 Election Fraud and Reform Discussion" or just "Election Fraud and Reform Discussion." (I don't see using the word fraud as being exclusive of those who want to discuss other reform issues without taking a stand on fraud, since there's an "and" in the clause. And to leave the word out implies that it's a given that it didn't happen.)

Could we possibly vote on a few options for the new name and get a consensus? (I guess I should ask this question of Skinner.)

Anyway, FWIW, that's my slightly inflated two cents. :)

[meganmonkey]

110. I know exactly what you mean

And if it were up to me, that's what I would want to do - leave the discussion in this forum but have a group for the nitty gritty. But, alas, it is not up to me ;), so we'll have to see what Skinner decides. He hasn't responded to me about it in any way since Saturday.
I would recommend posting your comments in ATA, that may encourage him to read the whole thread and see what we're really talking about. My guess is that he doesn't spend a lot of time reading this forum so he probably doesn't fully grasp our concerns.

Thanks!

:hi:

[Peace Patriot]

102. PLEASE READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS LETTER!

Check out the bottom paragraph of this letter, marked with ****:

ACTION! LETTER OF THE WEEK #2: To Senators & media on Condoleeza Rice

Dear Senator ____:

The war in Iraq is by far the worst and most disastrous mistake that the Bush regime has made, and Condoleeeza Rice, whom George Bush has nominated for Secretary of State, has been responsible for conveying the false justifications for this war to the American people and to the Congress.

We need a Secretary of State whose word we can trust, and who can be trusted by other countries. Condoleeza Rice does not meet that job description.

I oppose her appointment as Secretary of State, and I support the efforts of Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry to obtain answers from her on the matter of misleading America into war. I support their votes against her appointment, and I urge you to do the same in the full Senate.

Thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded, over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and many have been imprisoned and tortured, in this war—a war based on falsehoods, and a war that also holds grave consequences for America's reputation as a just and conservative country for whom the use of a force is a last resort.

The administration is now stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, similar to the one in Vietnam in which over 50,000 US soldiers and over one million Vietnamese were killed—and now the regime is spoiling for war in additional countries.

Nearly 60% of the American people oppose the Bush Regime's war in Iraq. The American people cannot continue to pay for these reckless and bloody policies, and we can no longer tolerate war crimes being committed in our name.

Ms. Rice has also been less than candid about the failures of this administration to protect the U.S. from the 9/11 attack, and supports policies of completely unethical interference in the internal affairs of other countries, such as Haiti and Venezuela.

****A regime that holds power on the tenuous grounds of massive vote suppression against minority voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, on the further tenuous grounds of a non-transparent election system that is controlled by partisans of the regime, and that currently has almost 60% of the American people opposing its war policy, would be well advised not to commit further arrogant acts against the consent of the governed, such as nominating for Secretary of State a person whose lies have resulted in countless unnecessary deaths.****

Sincerely,
--------------

ACTION tools at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=296466#296706

-------------

You see my point! I think we have to keep tying ELECTION FRAUD to what's happening. These arrogant SOB's wouldn't be doing what they're doing if they didn't feel IMMUNE from "consent of the governed."

The LETTER OF THE WEEK will continue to do this--to tie issues such as Rice nomination (liar, warmonger) to Election Fraud and BushCon illegitimacy. It's not just about Condoleeza Rice, it's about NO MANDATE, not even a little one (NOT elected!).

----------

Here's my comment at another posting about this matter of splitting the forum, having to do with how supporting Boxer on the Rice nomination is related to election investigation and reform, at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x300342

Sun Jan-23-05 08:46 AM

14. Election Fraud is an octopus with long arms...

For instance, I got involved in writing and promoting the DU LETTER OF THE WEEK (keeping our "talking points" out there for Congress and the media--a project that began here in the 2004 Election forum ) because I feel it's very important to boost the power of the Senators and Congress folk who are most likely to support investigation of election fraud and election reform.

For instance, Barbara Boxer--one of the great heroes of Jan. 6--has asked for our support on the Condoleeza Rice nomination, and has stated that the 40,000 letters she received about it were a great help in her tough questioning of Rice in the committee hearings. (They may have had a direct effect on Boxer's ability to get extra time for the questioning, and for a full floor debate, 9 hours, over two days, Tues/Wed, this week).

Empowering Boxer IS empowering election fraud as an issue. Her VERY FIRST action in this Congress was the Jan. 6 challenge of the Ohio electors, and she has been assaulted by the fascists because of it.

We MUST support her in her major fights, if there to be anything done on election fraud in Congress this year.

Conyers and other House members must also be supported. Conyers is right now asking for pressure on Sensenbrenner (Repub head of Judiciary Committee) for full investigation. We must support this also--with letters, phone calls, media blasts, etc.

See this thread for ACTION tools and links on Boxer/Rice and Conyers/Sensenbrenner:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=14400#14426
-----------

So....

...although I understand why some want to split the forum--I AGREE that election investigation and reform is our NUMBER #1 PRIORITY, and should be for the whole country--we cannot ignore the fact that other things are happening (and people are dying!) BECAUSE this election was fraudulent, and that the elected officials who are our best bets for election fraud investigation and publicity are ALSO working on other fronts and need our help to keep them empowered, and not marginalized.

I do also see that some posters who are anti-election fraud are a pain in the ass, and we spend a lot of time answering them. But I'm not sure the time is wasted. Some of these posters are well meaning, and some are not. The ones who are well meaning represent A LOT OF PEOPLE-- who are, a) uninformed, or b) in denial, or c) see election fraud as unprovable and a hopeless cause (well-meaning Democratic centrists), etc., etc. The arguments they raise are on a lot of peoples' minds, and if we can give them pause, help them think things through, and give them info., this may help reaching a lot of other people who don't post here and don't even know about DU.

SOLUTION?

Is it possible to split a forum like this into SUB-FORUMS?

MAIN FORUM (the same): "2004 Election Results and Discussion"

MAIN SUBFORUM: "Fraud Squad" - down the middle of the page, as with DU forum page at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

(This main subforum "Fraud Squad" would have the above-posted mission statement, and participants would be monitored.)

OTHER SUBFORUMS (down the side of the main 2004 Election page)

REPORTS, DISCUSSION & ACTION: Election Reform State by State

REPORTS, DISCUSSION & ACTION: Election Reform in Congress

RELATED ISSUES & ACTION: Bush has no mandate to...

DISCUSSION: Election Fraud Skeptics post here

(Note: We don't want to shut down genuine questioning, or skepticism on a particular fact or analysis. If an "election fraud skeptic" is banned from the main forum ("Fraud Squad"), he/she can cut and paste what they object to, and discuss it in the skeptic forum, where election fraud activists can answer, and help educate, if they wish to, and may even discover some flaws in their own arguments--and can also keep track of BushCon "talking points." This way, the "Fraud Squad" gets top billing, and will reflect a consistent message, and won't be bothered with ill meaning time-wasters.)

DU's "2004 Election Results and Discussion" is the hottest forum on the Left--and, if the truth were known (ahem...indeed, IF the truth were known), it reflects WHAT MOST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD THINK *IF* THEY KNEW THE TRUTH! (i.e., the majority voted to repudiate Bush Inc.--they just don't know they won!).

So...to dismantle this forum might send the wrong message.

What's happening here at DU's "2004 Election Results and Discussion" is REVOLUTIONARY. It questions the fundamentals--Bush legitimacy, "consent of the governed," absolutely wrong direction of the country against the will of the majority, the reality of this fascist coup, and the extreme danger this country is in BECAUSE OF ELECTION FRAUD.

This forum deserves more prominence than it is getting, and should probably not be re-named or split into separate forums--if we can avoid it, and still be able to work on these matters efficiently and effectively.

[marions ghost]

112. I agree, do not split the forums

into action and discussion--it's all inter-connected.

How about as name: "Election Investigation and Reform"
(words taken from peace patriot post)

Would be a broader name than one using the word fraud (especially since some will automatically turn off and think "not for me" when if they really looked at the arguments, they can be convinced). Meanwhile continue to hammer case for fraud. "Investigation" conveys the commitment to exposure.

Also agree that maybe we shouldn't mess with success too much. peace patriot is right in saying whatever we've been doing here is working....this group gets things done

Agreed-- "reform" concept on it's own (or as it stands now advocacy and action) is not covering the investigation goal, at least not in the title.

Regardless, keep the focus here.

[meganmonkey]

113. The name has been changed, Skinner vetoed the Group,

Let's just let this thread die....

Thanks

[rdmccur]

105. I'd like to be part of it.

[understandinglife]

107. Suggest renaming it: "Stop Election Fraud: Reform Advocacy & Actions" (nt)

BE THE BUSH OPPOSITION; 24/7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x300279

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82

[understandinglife]

108. check your pm (n/t)

BE THE BUSH OPPOSITION; 24/7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x300279

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82

[mirrera]

109. YES!...NO!...yes...maybe...well

Wow reading all these posts now I am not sure! Everyone makes such good points! I don't think a group would necessarily diminish the 2004 forum and it would be wonderful to move out of the educating, treading water stage more quickly into the action stage. But then again SO much great education and action comes from this forum. It would be nice to be able to move slower in a group and be more focused... BUT I already go to truthout, freepress, fromthewilderness, check my emails, skim this forum, my family is ready to yank the plug. I think we should NOT loose the "2004" in the title. It is iconic like 9/11. I think I am leaning towards PeacePatriot's post. How do you separate out Boxer and Conyers and Rice and Kerry voting no at the hearing? There IS an ideological battle being waged and there are many fronts. So in the end I guess I will wait and see what smarter minds come up with. Where ever the people talking about this issue and fighting to take back our vote, I will be there.