TONIGHT: Palo Alto City Council Considers Voter Confidence Resolution

[GuvWurld]

http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/09/tonight-palo-alto-city-council.html

TONIGHT: Palo Alto City Council Considers Voter Confidence Resolution

This is a reminder of tonight's potentially historic Palo Alto City Council meeting, starting at 7pm. If you are anywhere in the Bay Area, please consider attending (map) to speak in favor of the Council adopting the Voter Confidence Resolution (VCR). This version of the VCR to be considered tonight was recently adopted by the Human Relations Commission to address the Council's concerns over a previous version. The Palo Alto language is derived from the Voter Confidence Resolution adopted by the Arcata City Council on July 20, 2005. That language was developed on my previous blog, GuvWurld.

The bigger picture plan has always called for a series of City Councils to adopt the VCR. The idea is to repeatedly challenge the assumption that the Consent of the Governed exists or is even sought. While the City Council front has progressed slowly, nonetheless there are many great examples of the VCR's tenets being adopted and embraced by election integrity groups across the country. Click here for a recap of organizations who declared no confidence in the CA-50 race back in June. Notice even attorney Paul Lehto used language from the VCR in his pleading and oral arguments before the San Diego judge.

Look for WDNC exclusive reports this evening from correspondents at Palo Alto City Hall.

[kster]

1. KR..nt

[GuvWurld]

2. Kick (eom)

[GuvWurld]

3. Where is the enthusiasm?

After all this time I've been on this board, and the countless threads about the Voter Confidence Resolution, and the even greater number of threads dissecting "no basis for confidence"...

this is an important opportunity tonight and I can't believe there isn't more interest and enthusiasm...don't worry, I'm not taking it personally...but c'mon, if the Council adopts the resolution, who is going to shout from the rooftops with me and get it into the media?

[Wilms]

4. I'm impressed.

Looking forward to progress.

[Kip Humphrey]

5. Patience grasshopper... We're all busy churning the waters to save our

democracy. This is a significant opportunity to further the "No Confidence" resolution! Fingers crossed!!!

[Febble]

6. Well I really like

the resolution. I wish, ideally, that it didn't say this:

Whereas exit polls have been used to verify the authenticity and integrity of elections all over the world, and yet exit polls in some recent elections in the United States indicated a landslide victory for the candidate that tallied votes registered as the losing candidate; and

because it isn't true. Exit polls have not "been used to verify the authenticity and integrity of elections all over the world" and having it in there dilutes the statement, IMO. This is quite apart from the statement that "exit polls in some recent elections in the United States indicated a landslide victory for the candidate that tallied votes registered as the losing candidate" which is a matter of opinion, although, I would argue, one on which there is no consensus amongst non-professionals, and a consensus against amongst professional survey researchers.

But the first, is, I believe, a simple error of fact, which is a shame.

But I recommended the thread anyway. I agree it is important.

[Febble]

7. Re that point:

some pertinent links in OTOH's post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1328708&mesg_id=1336021

The thing is, I don't see what it adds to the resolution, and IMO detracts. Just a suggestion for future versions of the resolution, which I completely support.

But I'll reiterate what I think I've said consistently: I absolutely agree with the fundamental point here. No government can assume the consent of the governed if they cannot guarantee that the democratic process is electing the government constitutionally. And yours can't, as becomes more obvious by the day.