Should the ERD move towards the '06 campaign?

[FogerRox]

-effort to get candidates to here us on election reform-- its an oppurtunity.
-Crossover from DREs into the '06 fight is easy for folks like us-- we know the basics already.
-Daily Threads-- should we start to include some campaign bits?

Just ruff thoughts-- what are yours?

ROj

[GuvWurld]

1. The only discussion of the campaigns or upcoming "elections"

that I'm interested in are how we will refuse to accept the results, no matter who is declared the winner. As I've always said, the only thing to focus on is the election conditions. Current conditions guarantee inconclusive outcomes. That is, we are certainly not going to have unanimous acceptance of the results and will wind up arguing over what the results really should be. Well, others may have that argument but I always avoid it. It is a futile trap. We can see it in advance and should be planning to side-step it.

The better response is A) before the "elections," demand different conditions that create a basis for confidence and ensure conclusive outcomes; B) after the "elections," prevent power and authority from being bestowed upon people who have really usurped it through a broken process that has not sought the Consent of the Governed.

These are pretty much the only two things I've been talking about and expect to be talking about. Oh, that, and peaceful revolution.

[Amaryllis]

4. Yes, AND Foger's point is good about getting candidates on board

with the need for transparent and verifiable elections. It is a great way to spread the message AND make them aware that they damn well better be paying attention to this issue because it affects them hugely.

And, Guv, I am curious about how you propose doing this:
"B) after the "elections," prevent power and authority from being bestowed upon people who have really usurped it through a broken process that has not sought the Consent of the Governed."s

I dont think doing a Ukraine will work in a country this size.

[GuvWurld]

7. Not sure yet, but this is why I think we should be discussing it

Amaryllis asks the $64 trillion question which we couldn't answer in in 2000 or 2004 - HOW, exactly, do we prevent an illegitimate government from being seated with power and authority conferred upon it. It seemed to me in the past two "elections" that we weren't even capable of forming this question coherently. Now it is everything.

One idea that I like can be put in effect now, consistent with Foger's OP, but also as a building block for the post-"election" stand we MUST make this time. The idea is called the Volunteer Strike. I first read about it hear at DU. When I followed the link it was credited to Mary Kiraly. After grokking on it for a day, I realized I wanted to keep the concept but polish the words a bit. So here is what I came up with:

Withdraw Your Complicity From The Broken Electoral System
THE VOLUNTEER STRIKE
The Volunteer Strike is an individual pledge, not a petition. It is an opportunity for civically engaged citizen activists (the real public servants) to withdraw complicity from the broken electoral system. Across the country, votes are cast on paperless electronic voting machines with secret programming owned by partisan corporations. Such votes are unverifiable; they cannot be recounted. If we can’t recount the votes, we have no basis for confidence in the results reported.

Current election conditions require a blind trust that will never result in unanimous acceptance of the outcome. Without comprehensive election reform, it is folly to devote time, energy or money to supporting political parties or candidates, to registering voters, or to serving as poll workers. Any such effort will have no relationship to the election results. Rather than working to win in a bogus election, we must work to make sure elections aren't bogus.

With no grassroots support for the status quo, the only candidates who will matter are those devoted to a secure, transparent and verifiably accurate voting system. The rest are put on notice that WE DO NOT CONSENT to bogus elections and we are withdrawing our complicity from the broken system.

Please cut along the line below. Edit the pledge if you wish. Sign it and send to locally elected officials, candidates for local office, the central committees of the parties, your local elections department, and to Howard Dean (DNC Chair) and Ken Mehlman (RNC Chair).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Volunteer Strike

I am participating in a national campaign by volunteer activists. American citizens have a right to know that their elected officials and leaders serve with the Consent of the Governed determined by secure, transparent, and verifiably accurate election systems. This is not merely a legislative priority…IT IS THE MOST BASIC TENET OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM.

As a citizen volunteer, I am a member of __________________________________. To continue doing my vital work it is essential that I have a basis for confidence that this work will be effective. For these efforts to have even a chance at being effective, we must have a secure voting system. Therefore, it is essential that we have a basis for confidence (1) that votes are recorded and counted accurately, and produce a verifiable paper ballot of record; and (2) that all vote counting methods are publicly owned and operated, fully transparent, and secure against the possibility of tampering or manipulation of an election outcome. Until such conditions are proven to exist, it is inappropriate for me to dedicate my time and energy to supporting political candidates, turning out voters, or serving at the polls. The point of this volunteer strike is to withdraw complicity in the broken electoral system and serve notice that WE DO NOT CONSENT.

In the past, I have contributed my volunteer efforts in the following ways: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Signed___________________________________________ Date______________ Address____________________________________________________________

Download the Volunteer Strike: http://tinyurl.com/e4nex
Inspired by Mary Kiraly (see http://tinyurl.com/ck3h3)

I posted this in the GuvWurld News Archive a few weeks ago and have been handing it out at my various speaking engagements. Re-reading it now, I realize it could be more explicit in saying that we will devote resources to supporting those candidates who run on an election integrity platform. But hey, this is an individual pledge, not a petition, and if you want to modify it then go right ahead. The point isn't to get everyone saying the exact same thing, but delivering the same basic message in their own words. Ultimately it is the action that backs up these words that will have the greater value.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. yes, an important topic -- I have to dissent

"Until such conditions are proven to exist, it is inappropriate for me to dedicate my time and energy to supporting political candidates, turning out voters, or serving at the polls."

People need to do what they need to do, but I respectfully, emphatically oppose the volunteer strike. Democrats continue to be competitive -- and to win -- in many local and state elections. I don't think that the premise of no confidence in the system should lead to the conclusion that outright withdrawal is the best choice. I am very grateful that Virginia Democrats did not adopt this pledge in 2005.

I think as worded right now, the pledge seems explicitly to say that one won't support even candidates who commit themselves to election integrity. Which makes perfect sense, actually, if the point is to withdraw complicity and serve notice. But for heaven's sake, we need more people serving at the polls, not fewer, don't we?

All this bears thinking about -- I'm too tired to try to spell out all the parts that I more or less agree with, not that folks are waiting on my nuances anyway.

[Stevepol]

10. Maybe create an org others can join? That way in the blank

where it says "I am a member of ------," we can fill in the name of our organization:

Citizens Organized for Proper Elections (COPE)
Citizen Activists for Proper Elections (CAPE)
Citizens Organized for Democratic Elections (CODE)

etc.

[GuvWurld]

13. Not sure that is the point

I don't have the original DU thread handy but this is the link it pointed to for the original version of the Volunteer Strike. Between the original and my adaptation, I don't think either necessarily calls for or requires the creation of an org. Of course you are free to associate as you choose and I have nothing to say about it. I'm just making the point here that launching an org may not be necessary to achieve the intended impact of this concept.

As I interpret it, the goal is ending "business as usual" by refusing to be a part of it. I am in favor of withdrawing Consent and complicity from anything that perpetuates the status quo or contributes to sustaining any of the many myths in our society. Yes, an honest election needs poll workers; but best-of-intentions poll workers in an "election" only foster buy-in to the big lie.

So the reference in the pledge to past membership, I think, is intended to show the candidates what they are losing by failing to retain the active support of folks who have previously been supportive. This point is made whether all people cite the same previous affiliation or not. Building an org is difficult, to say the least. Don't let me discourage you from trying, but please consider whether it is really worth the effort solely in the name of the Volunteer Strike.

[Amaryllis]

12. I am one of many who have told the Dems they won't get any money from me

till they take election fraud/reform seriously because it's just money down the toilet. (I'm talking about the DNC. In Oregon our elections work well enough that it's a different story for state and local elections.)
But, the problem wtih your approach, Guv, is that if only dems/progressives etc. strike, we will be in worse shape than before.

[GuvWurld]

14. I'm not sure there is a worse shape than before

"when you got nothing, you got nothing left to lose"

the "strike" isn't a removal of involvement, it is a re-dedication to election integrity over promoting the broken system. we won't be going short-handed because people have picked up on this, though I think I understand why you would suggest that. it appears that you think such withdrawal will weaken the Dems and that you and the Dems constitute a "we." forgive me if that is inaccurate, but that is how it seems. instead, I think the real way it boils down is that you and I are a "we" and the Dems are "them." withdrawing complicity means joining us, Amaryllis, you and me and this whole board, and leaving the Dems to continue floundering in their own irrelevance. the pledge is actually a way to recruit people into the election integrity movement while simultaneously starving the complicit beast.

[garybeck]

2. the issue is ongoing, affects all elections...

we never stop. the next election is always an issue.

I've created a list of '06 candidates who are supportive of election reform. it's in the left column of http://election.solarbus.org

Kathy Dopp wrote this handy document:

"What Political Parties Can, No Must, Do During Elections to Repair American Democracy"

http://utahcountvotes.org/detect-errors/whatPartiesCanDo.rtf


everyone should contact all their local candidates and have a chat.

[Chi]

3. Predict and prevent

Like the Colombia analogy Tfc referred to, attempting to stymie the fraud before/as it happens.

I think we should foresee the most likely ways the powers that be will try and cheat,
then create methods to prevent it.

whether it means following a pickup truck of ballots to the central tabulator, watching a
ballot storage location for unwanted visitors, checking the dumpsters outside the BOE, or
begging radio stations in Cincy, Cleveland, Miami, and Palm Beach to mention the right day
to cast your vote.

It doesn't look like anyone else is gonna do it, and they will try and steal it again.

[Amaryllis]

5. I think I read something about another forum on 2006 elections starting ?

[FogerRox]

8. SKinner set the campaign 2006 forum in the research forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=358

[Wilms]

6. Sort of.

In cases like an occasional clip about a Blackwell, or a Harris, it seems noteworthy.

And if it's an election for SoS or BoE, it would be very relevant.

Apart from that, and the "management" of the actual election, I think a focus on campaigns might un-focus the forum.

[Amaryllis]

11. I agree. We can still post campaign related stuff that is relevant to ER

here, such as we did with Hackett when he should have demanded a recount, or stuff about Blackwell running for gov. Or Katherine Harris running for a senate seat, or Tom Delay winning the TX primary while there are 100,000 vote glitches on Hart machines.

[Peace Patriot]

15. Focus! Focus! Focus! Focus! I can't say it enough times.

We should NOT seek to prevent anyone from working on campaigns, or in any way dampen enthusiasm for political involvement. Despair and demoralization are bad enough as it is. People are in DIFFERENT STAGES of realization about the fascist coup that took place in 2004 and how it was accomplished, and the fraudulent election system that made it possible, put into place in the 2001-2004, and still in place and even more entrenched now. They are still learning lessons about this fraudulent election system. Some need to see it happen before their very eyes, in order to understand (and were prevented from doing so in 2004 by the complicit news media).

Basically, it's the central tabulators run by rightwing Bushite corporations with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code. Not even a "paper trail" can prevent them from putting their thumbs on the scales--because there are virtually no audit/recount controls (no paper trail at all in some places; and even where there is a "paper trail," recounts are too small and too infrequent--and serious recounts are almost impossible to obtain).

That's the situation. But these fascist corporations CANNOT just manufacture elections. And they also don't want to expose their fraudulent election system too blatantly. The system itself is much too important to them in the long run. (They DID jeopardize it in 2004, because the stakes were so high--but they used war profiteering corporate news monopolies and other means to do it anyway, and to cover it up. Bush/Cheney HAD to be retained in power.)

So there is the CHANCE that an overwhelming turnout can override the fraudulent advantage to Bushites and other war/corporate candidates, in specific cases. In general, I'd say shoot for a 10% margin of victory in order to merely win.

It's not bad to get candidates elected who understand and support true election reform. We need more such people writing the laws, and overseeing elections.

FOR INSTANCE: In Calif, we have what appears to be a genuine election reformer, state senator Deborah Bowen, running for Secretary of State against Schwarzenegger appointee and Diebold shill Bruce McPherson. If we follow GuvWorld's advice, and engage in a STRIKE against participation in unverifiable elections, we lose the chance to elect her--a chance we still have in Calif, even with Diebold touchscreens, because it's Calif, an overwhelmingly Democratic state, capable of a huge progressive turnout.

GuvWorld may think that doesn't matter--that all Democrats will act against democracy, if they manage to get 'elected' under Diebold/ES&S rule. But I don't think that's true--it's much too sweeping. I could be proved wrong about Bowen. The Calif Dem leadership has a terrible record on this matter (with the exception, of course, of former CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley). But I've been parsing Bowen's statements/actions pretty carefully and she seems like to genuine article to me.

I simply cannot tell people not to vote for her, not to send her money and not to fight like hell for her election. I think that would be very wrong--when there is a chance that we can put her in that office.

GuvWorld, I love you! You know I do! Your work on the Voter Confidence resolution, and verifiable elections, has been fabulous. But I don't agree with you on a boycott--I don't think the timing is right. We need to establish the facts for more people--and to file lawsuits and challenges, and gather evidence for public education. We can't do that by failing to participate.

While we encourage and support candidates who will, a) fight for election reform (as Bowen is doing now), or b) give us a fighting chance to achieve it (give us a hearing, pay attention to evidence, keep the process open, write and pass good government laws)--we must stay focused on the PRIORITY #1 long term fight for complete election transparency.

One election official in one jurisdiction--or a candidate for office--might agree to a paper trail. Clearly that's not good enough. But it is an "in." It makes monitoring at least possible. It makes monitoring and verifiability the ISSUE. And that IS preferable to no paper trail at all. So next you go for paper ballot status for the paper trail--after you've proven the paper trail's inadequacy. Meanwhile, of course, you are attacking the fraudulent basis of elections--the privatization and secrecy and partisan corporate control--and the insecurity of these machines and the lies of the private vendors in regard to them, and try to knock out these powerful corporations, one by one.

This is in fact what is happening in many local election reform fights. TRANSPARENCY has become THE ISSUE--even if only a paper trail has been achieved. It's a LONG TERM struggle involving public education, and constant pressure. Struggle after struggle. Some successes; some defeats--but we go on. We NEVER GIVE UP.

Focus: What I mean is the long term recovery of our democracy. We may well lose in '06 (not make the gains in Congress that are truly representative of the people). In fact that is likely. What then? How do you PREVENT further demoralization, and consequent depression and apathy--such as occurred after 2004.

I think you prevent it by telling people THE TRUTH, and involving them in efforts to beat the odds against the machines. People need to know WHY the Bush junta is still in power--why we have a war that nearly 60% of Americans didn't want BEFORE the invasion, and that some 80% don't want now; why we have tax theft by the rich; why we have an $8 trillion deficit; why we're having extremist 'christian' religion shoved down our throats, etc., etc. Many people are mystified, and demoralized, and, above all, DISENFRANCHISED. They are much better informed than we give them credit for--but they DON'T KNOW ABOUT Bushites controlling the vote count. The "Iron Curtain" over THAT news has been total (except on the internet), and has involved the Democratic Party leadership (for whatever reasons of corruption, fear or insanity).

If you KNOW, you have hope--you see it from a practical viewpoint, and begin to devise strategies to solve what is, in essence, a PRACTICAL problem with a SOLUTION.

Some problems don't yet have solutions--for instance, the octopus of the military-industrial complex, snaking into all of our lives, and creating an economy based on a huge war machine (ever a temptation to fascists, as we've learned). That is huge and difficult. Election reform is not--at least in concept. You either have transparent elections or you don't. And if you don't, you have to--and can--fix that problem.

TRANSPARENT elections are the basis of everything else--the essential mechanism of reform; the essential mechanism of our sovereignty as a people.

TRANSPARENT elections = good government. (They are proving this is South America!)

NON-TRANSPARENT elections = the Bush junta.

It's a no brainer.

People wonder why the Democrats are such wimps (on the whole). They need to know WHY this is so--because, a) the Democratic office-holder is afraid (this is a JUNTA--it has powers to destroy and even to kill dissenters), or b) they are collusive and are themselves holding office illegitimately (may have been 'selected' by Diebold/ES&S, and/or are bought and paid for).

When more people start getting the word--and begin understanding what non-transparent elections mean--the actions of the courageous will then take on new meaning--people like Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, Russ Holt, Ion Sancho, Kevin Shelley and others* like them will become folk heroes--when the American people learn what these heroes have been up against--nothing less than the hijacking of our election system. And they will also begin to understand why the majority views of the American people are so poorly represented in Congress.

We must walk a tightrope. We MUST strategize on the basis of reality and truth. The election system is BROKEN. It belongs to the American people; it is their weapon against the powerful; and THEY must retrieve it. We activists and thinkers cannot do it alone--and it wouldn't be democracy if we could.

And we must at the same time beware of demoralizing people further. The American people are the most demoralized, depressed, disempowered people of any democracy in the world. For many, it is very difficult to see and to acknowledge that ALL of our political systems and "checks and balances" have failed us, all at once. American journalism is a joke--they've become mere war profiteers and propagandists and Bush lapdogs. The Democratic Party leadership is full of the fearful and the corrupt. The White House, the Congress and the courts are in fascist hands. The military and intelligence establishments have been purged, with yes-men and toadies replacing patriots and professionals. Our Corporate Rulers are absolutely out of control. And they've stolen our election system.

It's too much for many people. They shut down. They go into denial and apathy. And it's very hard to get them out of that, while speaking the TRUTH.

But we may only have a short window of opportunity to achieve election reform at the state/local level--to restore election integrity and begin to turn things around. (The Bushites are attacking state power over election systems in Pennsylvania.**) And so, we MUST inform people. We absolutely must--whatever the fallout is in '06. And if we lose in '06, it must be seen as an evidence-gathering opportunity and a battleground for challenges to the election system.

I think the truth will have the opposite effect from what some fear (voters giving up and staying home). I've SEEN IT. I've seen peoples' eyes light up when I tell them about the election system. They are RELIEVED. The country hasn't gone nuts, as they feared. They are not alone in their progressive, antiwar views, as they feared. They are in fact part of a great progressive antiwar majority whose votes have been hijacked.

And THAT is a solveable problem--for the great, practical, let's-get-it-done American mind to wrap itself around. How to restore transparent elections?

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

:think: :patriot: :argh: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :argh: :patriot: :think:


SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS for DU election activists:

1. Pressure the Democratic Party to fund INDEPENDENT EXIT POLLS. It's the least they can do for us--after failing to protect our right to vote. The war profiteering corporate news monopoly exit polls cannot be trusted.

2. A massive effort of close monitoring of election officials and results, quick statistical analysis (see www.UScountvotes.org), documentation, evidence-gathering, FOIA requests, "parallel elections," etc.--in all '06 Congressional primaries and elections. Plan for '07 and '08 lawsuits and other challenges to non-transparent election systems. Also, to provide support to candidates willing to challenge results.

3. Message (bumper sticker): "Help beat the machines--VOTE!". (Big turnout CAN beat the machines in some cases. Get people into the game, so to speak--trying to beat the odds FULLY CONSCIOUSLY, aware of the riggability, even laughing at it--laughter is good--ENERGIZE people, give them hope, give them truth, and get them to start strategizing for local/state election reform.)

------

*(I would be inclined to place John Kerry on this list, except that I don't fully understand what went down between him and Christopher Dodd/Terry McAulife, on the election system. I THINK what happened is that they lied to him, that he had lost--and without Dem Party support, up against a hostile Congress, a challenge was quite hopeless--so he gave up early. Dodd is my chief suspect for Dem Party collusion with Bushite electronic voting companies--with McAulife a close second--and Dodd apparently advised Kerry on the voting machines. It's easy to say that Kerry should have done his own investigation of the fraudulent election system that was put in place in the 2001-2004 period. There were certainly some red flags on it--especially after Kevin Shelley decertified Diebold touchscreens in May 2004, six months before the election. But I'm withholding judgment. Candidates have a lot on their minds--it may have been a "division of labor" failure. He trusted his advisers; they !@#$-ed him over.)

**(See: www.votepa.us --well-organized local group of citizen activists in Pennsylvania, where important legal issues are at stake, including state's rights over election systems.)

[GuvWurld]

18. Thanks Peace Patriot

For such a thoughtful, insightful, encouraging and inspiring post. I share your view on all the big picture stuff you fleshed out. And where you may have found disagreement with me, I think the Volunteer Strike (VS) was being construed more broadly than intended. Specifically, I have never advocated not voting.

Also, I am not in any way suggesting people completely disengage. I am suggesting that if one only has finite time to devote to public service, rather than campaigning for someone it makes more sense to spend that time on election reform/integrity. Yes that can be done from within a campaign, such as Bowen's. Clearly the VS is not intended for a candidate such as her.

Having aired your concerns and disagreements, I wonder if there are any redeeming qualities you see in the VS and what those might be?

The message that WE DO NOT CONSENT has really just begun to reverberate and we must make it louder, not only regarding elections. How can the VS idea, the concept and/or the approach, be made effective? We can at least partially define that by saying it won't contradict anything in your last message, and that in withholding support it will only be from those who do not deserve the support due to their denial of election problems or refusal to address improving election conditions.

[Peace Patriot]

19. I think it's just a timing issue, GuvWorld. We are well-informed about

the election system. But most people are not. In fact, it's rare to find people who have more than a very generalized notion that the elections are "rigged." They know don't how or by whom. They are clueless about the specific decisions that are made to purchase voting equipment. And even if they do know something about electronic voting--that it's new, that it's not to be trusted--they don't have much detail on how it actually works and what the insecurity and hackability and partisan vendors, etc., are all about.

The public education aspect of election reform is taking time. It's has to occur almost on a word-of-mouth basis (supplemented by the internet). My gut feeling is we need one more screwed up election with multiple wrong results to really energize people to get knowledgeable and to get active on reforming the election system. THEN I think we start organizing boycotts, sit-downs, sit-ins, or whatever seems right, when a certain critical mass is reached in public consciousness. To start off with a boycott idea...--well there you are, right there. With many people it would be their first brush with the election reform movement, and they're being asked to...? NOT participate? NOT vote? What? I'm not clear. But protest action--of a massive kind such as you are thinking of--should come AFTER people are better informed than they are now.

Recently, the rightwing rich oil elite in Venezuela boycotted the legislative by-elections. Now, these people are kind of nuts. They lie, they cheat, they scream and yell like freepers, and they accept money from the U.S. (illegal in Venezuela) to oppose Chavez. And they had no cause for this boycott. So they are not the best example--but they illustrate a point. Venezuelan elections are among the most highly monitored and the most honest in the world. But they invented a beef--a weird one--they suddenly decided to object to the fingerprinting of voters for ID; when the election commission decided not to do fingerprinting, as a sop to them, they then boycotted the election anyway. Very likely, they just wanted to hide how little support they have. But the upshot of their boycott was that they lost seats in the legislature. Now they have even less of a voice in Venezuelan affairs--and will probably complain about that, too.

My point is that a boycott of the election or political process has to be carefully considered. There are already about 50% of the people in this country who boycott elections. They don't vote. Consequently, they have no chance for their views to be represented. Should we encourage LESS voting? Would we want no Feingold in the Senate? Or no Conyers in the House? That could be the consequence.

Also, who does not voting hurt? The Venezuelan elite learned this, to their chagrin. It hurt THEM. It's not like boycotting a product or a corporation, where you are denying your money to an entity, and can hurt them with your non-purchase. As for the fascists, it's wish fulfillment, for us not to vote, or not to participate. They would just as soon see all of us--the great majority of Americans--to go jump off a cliff, or rather, sew our lips shut, work our butts off at slave labor jobs, and grin and bear it when our energy costs, and medical costs, and education costs and the the taxes on our piddling little incomes sky rocket out of control to profit the rich and to kill Arabs for their oil. They would prefer that more people NOT vote and never express their views.

So it needs to be carefully considered, and it needs to be the front edge of a big wave, not some small contrary tide that government officials, politicians and the general public can ignore.

I DO think critical mass is coming, sooner rather than later. One evidence is a 30% rate of absentee ballot usage in Los Angeles in this last election. That was a huge jump in absentee ballots. And that IS a form of protest. People don't trust these voting machines.

Actually, I think one thing we CAN DO in the meantime is to encourage absentee ballot or (in Calif) paper option voting. I DO think it's a protest against the voting machines. AB voting is not a complete solution, by any means. (We still have the non-transparent central tabulators changing, stealing and disappearing votes.) But it is a MESSAGE. Voters are unhappy. They lack confidence in the voting system. Lots of them do.

Say we get AB voting up to fifty percent--a level at which the voting machines are threatened with irrelevance. That's a big threat to the voting machine companies and corrupt election officials. And a big message to them, and to the rest of the voters. An alarm signal. It's even a form of boycott. People are already boycotting the machines--in the only way they can.

Achieving big voter turnout is another item--with many things to recommend it. Say, there was a sudden 5% or 10% surge in voting--in the '06 by-elections. Or turnout turns out to be bigger than in the presidential election. Some newsmaking development in the number of voters. This would not only help in establishing fiddled election results, and help overcome the fraud in some cases, it would create political synergy around election investigations and election reform.

The political/war/deficit situation is only going to get worse. If a Democratic Congressional majority is not elected (or rather 'elected') in '06, the deep discontent among the American people is going to start bubbling up. And this discontent is only going to grow when another War Democrat is foisted upon us as our only choice in the '08 presidential race. Personally, I think both things are inevitable. The Dems are going to make only modest, if any, gains in '06, and Hillary has already been selected as our only choice. And I think the fascists are going to put her in the WH for their own purposes (to start blaming the Dems for Bush-caused financial meltdown, among other things). My own decision about this is to try to prevent the kind of center/left fracturing that occurred in Germany in the early 1930s, and to stay focused on the mechanism of power--getting transparency in the election system (which even a War Democrat might consent to). It may be our only chance to do it easily, nationwide (with a Congressional bill). Everything else needs to be secondary to achieving transparent elections. Without transparent elections, our democracy is over. It's not quite over yet--but it's getting there fast.

So I will "support" Hillary, after the primaries, for what it's worth. And it might be worth something to her, to have some leftist support--she does have to raise money, and get quite a lot of votes before Diebold/ES&S kicks in and decides it one way or the other. We need some bargaining chips with Hillary (or whatever War/Corporate Democrat they put in). Election reform is Priority #1. In fact, in my opinion, it's the only issue.

But that's me. The country may be in a state of turmoil by then. Who knows what will happen? It may be difficult to get peoples' attention on the heart of the problem: the mechanism of power that has been taken away from them, their right to vote. But what I HOPE will happen is that it will be perfectly and massively apparent that the elections are rigged--and that having rightwing Bushite corporations 'count' all the votes behind a veil of secrecy is not okay, and IS the source of every other problem.

I imagine that massive war protests, veterans' protests, food riots, old grannies in wheelchairs whose Social Security fund has disappeared, and millions of women whose contraceptive rights have been taken away, will greet Hillary on Day One of her taking office. She'll use rubber bullets, tear gas or worse on the war protesters--and spying and pre-emptive arrests and so on--and she will try to quiet down the grannies and grandpas and the childbearing-age women and their mothers. But I hope that tremendous dam that is about to burst--of American discontent--can be the wave of energy that election reform can ride on. I hope the two things coalesce--massive unhappiness on government policy and economic meltdown, and the obvious need for election reform--and I think they will.

THEN we demand election transparency, or else. The "or else" being some form of passive, non-violent, but highly visible non-participation--by a whole lot of people.

[GuvWurld]

23. You are still attributing to me things I didn't say

I am not saying boycott elections. I am saying to make a point of not supporting those who don't support changing election conditions. It is that simple and narrow and seemingly uncontroversial. It may also be unappealing, and I can accept that, but it is not some of the things that you were suggesting. This really shouldn't be that big of a deal. Would you still oppose the VS if it was suggesting withholding support from those who are silent on warrantless wiretapping or imprisonment without charges or access to an attorney? There has to be some way to determine who deserves backing and who doesn't, and it can no longer be party affiliation.

In considering who should and should not get support, I can't get behind anyone or anything that reinforces or perpetuates the status quo and that includes the idea that Dems in office can help us. The party as a whole is doing nothing if not reinforcing and perpetuating the status quo - a fascist regime that is at best one party rule masquerading as a two-party "system." If there is a system then it is a power-sharing model whereby the two parties pretend to be adversarial while really cooperatively wielding all the power and denying We The People our appropriate role. I do not Consent.

We are not going to fix election conditions overnight. And the gains we make in the near term will not address the destruction of the environment and our rights to privacy; it will not end imperialistic wars that make local budgets unsuitable for sustaining an appropriate way of life; it will not restore the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and forbid imprisonment without charges or access to an attorney; it will not change the fact that depleted uranium is Bush's slow-motion holocaust that has already condemned to death far more people than Hitler ever killed; it will not de-consolidate the corporate media and return control of the public airwaves to the people so we can properly distinguish between peace activist and terrorist.

Election reform, as you well know, has been my number one cause for a long time. But please understand it is not because I think success in this area will fix all things. As I've attempted to sketch out here, we can't expect our lives to improve just by imagining legitimate election conditions. Even if we got everything we wanted (and we can't even get consensus on what that should be), we're still in a situation where peaceful revolution has become necessary, NOW!

So, in sum, election reform is not a goal unto itself, but rather a tactic toward peaceful revolution. Parties or candidates that will continue us along our current path are not people who deserve our support, period. Any such support is placation of the highest order and complicity in our own enslavement. Withdrawing Consent is connected with withdrawing our own complicity in what we are allowing to be done to us. This is what must stop first. We are not going to be able to change the behavior of others toward us if we don't first change our own behavior. That means not supporting those candidates who are not openly addressing election conditions. The VS is merely a way to articulate this such that candidates are put on notice and we all have something shared to rally around in staking out this position.

[Febble]

21. I am delighted to see

this:

So there is the CHANCE that an overwhelming turnout can override the fraudulent advantage to Bushites and other war/corporate candidates, in specific cases. In general, I'd say shoot for a 10% margin of victory in order to merely win.

because I think this is right. I would also suggest that it may even be more right than you think, and what worries me about the conviction that the last election was massively stolen is that it the conviction itself may undermine the chances of the next Democratic candidate. I don't happen to think, as you know, that the evidence suggests massive theft, and this is actually good news if true, as it means that a smaller percentage may do it. But yes, shoot for 10%!

But as for your point about independent exit polls - waste of time and money, IMO. The only poll worth doing would be massively expensive, and still wouldn't give you a decent audit. Much better to spend the money doing what you can to monitor the actual election, as in Kathy Dopp's document linked by GaryBeck

http://utahcountvotes.org/detect-errors/whatPartiesCanDo.rtf

And of, course monitor, any attempts at voter suppression.

Checking the precinct counts match the tabulations, and finding out why not when they don't would seem to be the most important task. i.e. collect real data.

[FogerRox]

16. WOW-- really good stuff

What a got from your posts:

1)dont dilute the ERD efforts
2)focus focus focus
3)'06 is a great chance to get our issue, election reform, before candidates.

[mod mom]

17. I think it should be a separate forum: candidates forums

We need to stay focused on ending the corrupted election system.

[FogerRox]

20. How about #3? We could use the ERD to organize a national education effort

targeting DEM candidates running in '06.

[EFerrari]

22. Prioritize. We can't be everywhere.

Where are the 911s?

CALIFORNIA (And my fantasy is that we contact as many candidates as possible and get their position on election reform. I'm going to try to do that locally.)

Where else?