Stop Election Thieves NOW!! (legal action or legislation not req. Really)

[pat_k]

Whatever the outcome of efforts to ban machines or add a "paper trail," unless voters can register (or verify their registration) in processes are simple and open; unless the votes they cast are recorded on official ballots that are counted in processes that are open to public observation, the public can and must reject the suspicious election results.

Message to every election official who advocates and participates in the implementation of systems that make it impossible for us to have confidence in our elections:

• Secret vote counting is Un-American and unacceptable. It is impossible for the public to have confidence in elections that rely on computer transactions that cannot be observed. It doesn't matter how many experts vouch for the system, if we cannot make an independent evaluation, we cannot have confidence.


• Your systems make it impossible for us to have confidence in our elections.


• We will not accept the suspicious election results obtained by such systems.


• You can implement changes before the next election or watch your replacements conduct a new, valid election after the results of your suspect elections are rejected by the public.


• We will not tolerate obstructionists who fail to replace suspect systems and processes by invoking deadlines, appealing to legal technicality and cynical misuse of our courts, or "running out the clock."


• We will go after every official who fails to ensure a free, fair, open, and accurate election. We will go after every official who fails to fight for our right to have confidence in our elections personally. We will go after your job. We will sue you personally for colluding with private corporations to betray the public trust. We will not hesitate to call you the names you deserve and subject you to public ridicule. We will be watching you like a hawk and will criminally prosecute you for participating in, or turning a blind eye to any suspicious actions.

Call meetings, pass out flyers. Call on your neighbors to sign on and commit to rejecting the results of elections that do not instill public confidence in the results.

Stop the Elections Thieves Right Now!

For those fighting to impeach Bush and Cheney: How the fight against stolen elections can feed the fight to impeach

[stellanoir]

1. this is a practical approach

since legislation to address this matter never gets out of frigging committee and the media reduces and dismisses provable election fraud as nothing more than a conspiracy theory a grassroots effort is definitely warranted. Could be our only hope.

K&R

[pat_k]

3. It also challenges the fascist view of the law they rely on to steamroll

. . the public and stonewall to violate the intent of our laws.

Their fascist view of the law has infected American discourse. Over and over again, we see "THE LAW" invoked to trump our will. People on "our side" have fallen victim to it, with devasting consequences.

If we are going to resist the fascist take over, we need to challenge EVERY appeal to legalistic technicality and "complexity" used to thwart the INTENT of our laws.

Despite Scalia's Orwellian claim that "Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided 'not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court'" he uses HIS serpentine interpretations of the "the plain text of the Constitution as it was originally written and intended" as a cudgel to bash through decisions that violate the principles embodied in those words.

As they promote their lunatic notion of a unitary authoritarian executive, we are told that it is all very complex -- that the likes of us cannot make a judgement; that we are helpless in the face of their legal authority, when in fact, it is INCREDIBLY simple. You do not need an expert to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

Few people question their fascist fantasy that we are a nation of laws not men, which they seem to invoke whenever are relying on twisted legalisms to justify actions that Americans know must be wrong on their face. Without unquestioning acceptance that madness, they could not have stolen the 2000 election.

In 2000 and again in 2004, too few questioned those who invoked "legal authority" to deceive us and violate our will. Had more of us rejected the results of their cynical misuse of the courts and legal technicality, they could not have stolen our last two presidential elections.

Within days of the 2000 election, it was well-known that more Floridians went to the polls to vote for Gore than Bush. Simple extrapolation of the mysteriously uncounted ballots conclusively demonstrated that Florida elected Gore by tens of thousands of voters (if not counted votes).

For anyone with any amount of morality or decency, that should have been the end of it. The fascists did not even bother to deny that more people in Florida went to the polls to vote for Gore. Instead, they invoked the erroneous premise that the burden was on us to prove their reported results were wrong. They invoked complexity and legal technicality as cudgels to bash through their rationalizations for ignoring valid votes.

An election is not a sporting event or contest of any kind. It is a survey of the will of the electorate. In 2000, the result of that survey had been demonstrated to a level of certitude that would be acceptable in any court that enforced the undeniable intent of our laws.

[infogirl]

2. Another great approach to this is to

donate to vote rigging programmer whistleblower clint curtis! He is running for Congress...go to his website. Give 3.00 it will help!

www.clintcurtis.com

[pat_k]

4. I'm all for actions to expose their past crimes, but my focus is to stop

. . .them from committing new crimes and to challenge the fascist view of the law the fascists rely on as they they consolidate their power.

Fascist thieves only respond to force and threats of force -- e.g., accusation and threats of punishment. They could care less if we end up overturning their fraudulent results. As long as believe they face no personal risk, they will steal every vote they can. And right now they have no fear for themselves because Democrats rarely (if ever) go after wrong-doers personally.

We "investigate," and pledge to "make sure it doesn't happen again." (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.") We limit ourselves to legal action under election contest statutes that view the candidates as the primary stakeholders, when the only real stakeholders in an election are the members of the electorate.

No more. These people are cowards. It is up to us to make sure that election officials in every jurisdiction know that their neighbors are watching and that we will hold them personally responsible if they betray our trust in 2006.

[Burning Water]

5. How do we reject

these suspicious results? Only way that I can think of is to take it to court. What happens if the court turns us down, saying something like, "Suspicions are not enough, you must have some sort of proof"? What do we do then?

[pat_k]

6. Just say no. Threaten the cowards in advance with enough people.

All results are suspect if obtained in processes that cannot be observed.

It does not matter what the outcome is. We must reject results of elections that fail to instill public confidence in the results on principle -- American Principle v. Fascist Principle. The effort itself has benefits that help you and the people you connect with to recognize and exercise your power.

Talk to your neighbors and challenge the fascist view of the law that they invoke to trump reality. You really can just say no.

The election thieves are cowards. It is up to us let them know that people in thier jurisdiction intend to hold them PERSONALLY accountable for betraying the public trust in any way. Threaten to conduct comprehensive polling to catch them cheating. Whatever it takes. Even just threats of public ridicule can be incredibly effective.

The notion that the courts are our only recourse is one of many poisonous assumptions and rationalizations that are allowing them to steal election after election and consolidate their power in others ways (e.g., deceiving the American people into believing that John Yoo's fascist fantasy of an American "unitary authoritarian executive" isn't nuts). For an outline of other damaging and pervasive rationalizations that must be challenged, see http://january6th.org/files/stop_stolen_elections_now.html

Of course, I am NOT saying we should not fight in our courts and legislatures. What I am saying is that we MUST not shrug our shoulders and helplessly submit if we do not win legal or legislative victories before the next election. WE must create the context now to stop them, whatever the outcome of other efforts.

[Burning Water]

9. Well, I heartily approve

of the goal, but I am still somewhat unsure of what, exactly, it is that you are proposing.

Threaten them with what? Comprehensive polling to catch them in the act? And then what? We'd still have to go to court, and there is only one poll that counts.

Who's going to run the country while we are rejecting these results? Somebody will, and guess who seems to be in charge just now and until the end of their terms, at least. Republicans, that's who.

It does not matter what the outcome is. We must reject results of elections that fail to instill public confidence in the results on principle -- American Principle v. Fascist Principle. OK. I think everything that can be done to make elections more open and honest should be done. Now, let's say that there is still some black box voting going on in the 2006 election. Let's say the Dems make major gains. Do you mean that these results should be rejected? Because reading what you wrote, that's what you said.

Not that I'm not on your side, I am. But I think we have to make progress a step at a time. One step at a time. It's taken 40-years for the country to get in this shape, and it won't be corrected next week.

[pat_k]

12. Partial reply

Will respond more completely later, but regarding:

OK. I think everything that can be done to make elections more open and honest should be done. Now, let's say that there is still some black box voting going on in the 2006 election. Let's say the Dems make major gains. Do you mean that these results should be rejected? Because reading what you wrote, that's what you said.

Any election that is conducted in a way that makes it impossible for the public to have confidence that it was free, fair and accurate must be rejected. Any election. This is not about who wins or loses, this is about the principle of consent.

From http://january6th.org/files/stop_stolen_elections_now.html

...
As we fight for trustworthy elections, we must shift our focus from the process details to the inputs and outputs. Input and output requirements do not dictate specific processes, but processes that fail to yield the required inputs and outputs are unacceptable.

A mandatory "output" of an election that subsumes all others is confidence in the results. Our right to have confidence that we are being afforded free and fair elections for our government officials is a right that no other consideration can supersede. The definition of a "free and fair" election describes the mandatory "inputs." A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

These mandatory inputs and outputs are embodied in the single moral tenet on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation, rests -- the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed. We do not need to modify existing election law to demand the enforcement of rights we already have.
...

[Burning Water]

20. I certainly agree with that. n/t

[pat_k]

16. One step at a time.

The first step is to let our leaders know we haven't been happy with the conduct of our elections for some time. Now, they are making things intolerable by putting in electronic voting machines that secretly count our votes.

The "Message to every election official. . ." in the original post is a demand for paper ballots that are counted in a way that is open to public observation and a declaration that "We are not going to tolerate the intolerable and we will do everything in our power to hold you personally responsible if you implement (or have implemented) an intolerable system."

There are two key tasks in this first step:

1. Talk to others in your area, let them know what you are doing and ask them to a) sign on to the declaration, b) help in efforts to hold local election officials personally responsible if they conduct an election that does not instill public confidence in the results, c) help spread the word.
   
   Note: The message, "We are watching and will catch corruption" could be delivered in a separate action if you want to keep your demand for confidence focused on electronic voting (or whatever intolerable condition you anticipate locally -- e.g., discriminatory poll-tax lines.)


2. Find out who your election officials and local administrators are and pay them each a personal visit. Deliver your declaration and let them know that it doesn't matter where they are in the process or what legal authority they invoke. You and your fellow residents -- the people they were hired to serve -- are saying "No Way!" Tell them you will be visiting again as your numbers grow.

That's basically it for the first step. As you engage people you are challenging the belief that we are powerless and you are reminding your election officials (and yourselves) that they are there to serve you. It is all part and parcel of reminding ourselves that this is OUR government; that the administrative and legal institutions of government are NOT alien things we must passively submit to (alienation of the governed from their government is something the fascists cultivate and capitalize on).

Next steps are dependent on the first step -- how many people you engage, what skills they bring to the table, and so on. Might also be dependent on what else is happening in your state or locality. It could make sense to coordinate with people who are pursing a legal strategy on possible "post-election" actions.

[mom cat]

7. We could start a pledge drive: I will work against any candidate who does

not support verifyiable elections.

[pat_k]

18. Thanks mom cat! Would love to raise visibility and dollars.. .

. . .I'm thinking more along the lines of local groups focusing on local election officials (A variation on Howard Beale's call to action keeps popping into my head -- 'WE'RE AS MAD AS HELL, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!').

I do want to set up some way to promote action like this and connect people who decide to throw down the gauntlet and organize others in their area. When I get something off the ground, will definitely be promoting heavily (and looking for help) on DU!

[mom cat]

19. Here is a suggestion: Ask all upcoming candidates to take the pledge to

support HR-550.( I think that is the right number, but you could ask sfexpat2000 for the correct info) Meantime, start a pledge drive to collect signiatures of people who will work to promote candidates who support vvpt and to strive with all their might to defeat those who refuse. The drive could be started on DU, but I wouls also include PEN the Peoples Electronic Network, Democrats.com and all of the organizations now working on election reform. It could be an acid test: No support of clean elections+ no support from party faithful who do the bulk of the work for free.
Also run it by the election reform forum here.

Keep me posted. I could spend some time on this one.

[Senator]

8. Kickin' & Rec'd (nt)

[happydreams]

10. KIIIIIICK!!! and recommended of course.

[ReadTomPaine]

11. Well said.

Like water for parched lips. K&R

[drm604]

13. Any candidate or public official who fights against open verifiable

elections should be constantly greeted with pickets. Pickets outside their offices. Pickets outside their homes. Pickets outside their churches. Chanting, singing pickets night and day, day and night. Peaceful but constant, annoying, and embarrassing. No violence, no blocking, no trespassing, just constant peaceful pickets. It only needs to be a handful of people at a time but it has to be constant. If I properly understand the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of abortion protesters (keep in mind I'm not a lawyer) it works in our favor for this. You can't be charged with racketeering simply for protesting.

[pat_k]

14. Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!

It doesn't take many local people to have a HUGE impact on local election officials. A couple neighborhood groups really can turn things around in their own jurisdictions.

[BeFree]

15. Good stuff

Everyone should know that DU started as a reaction to the theft of the 2000 election. But we've since lost that heritage. Instead, only a handful of members take this most serious of all issues seriously. This thread should hit 10,000 responses, but it won't. We as a group are failures.

Failures, Befree? How can you say that?

Nov. 2, 2004. they stole another one and there was hardly more than a whimper on these boards. Even now the Oscars seem to be more important to members. The DU election reform forum was kicked around like a red-headed step child and some of the strongest most passionate fighters for this most crucial issue were tombstoned for expressing their passions.

Yeah, there are a lot of words expressing that it is bad thing, but what the hell do we do as a group? The many members active on election reform are not enough. I can't believe DU is letting this slide away. I just can't understand how we as a group pay such scant attention. It is extremely dis-heartening, to say the least.

Oh well, i busted the balls of my local election officials, and participated in my states passing of laws to exterminate the threat of yet another stolen election. But it is not enough and it does not get the attention it deserves.

They Stole two elections and what do most of us do? argue about who we should nominate to have it stolen from in 2008.

[Independent_Liberal]

17. Kick!