Elections Need Fewer Pollyannas, More DEFENDERS; The Death of Democracy

[Land Shark]

One short quote, and a longer one, from Land Shark. ON ELECTIONS. Based on a Tuesday March 7, 2006 forum in Seattle, Washington.

=================

"It's phenomenal how lax and reassuring so many people and elections
officials are about the security of elections. Especially when you
consider that trillions of tax dollars and control of the world's
sole superpower are at stake in our elections.

These lax officials apparently believe that the individuals who are
regularly caught plotting to or attempting to assassinate our
Presidents or Presidential candidates would simply never resort to
undetectable and nonviolent election computer rigging to accomplish
the same type of change in the
Presidency as assassination, even though election rigging has no serious
obstacles like the Secret Service or the death penalty.

Elections have lots of Pollyannas, but could use more defenders."

(Paul R. Lehto,[e-mail])
www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp

++++++++++++++++

Paul Lehto:
"Democracy does not promise us a just result in an election (however one
might assess that) because if the majority votes for the "wrong" candidate,
the wrong or unjust side wins. Therefore, the only way for democracy to
have moral and political justification is when it can deliver a process and
procedure that has integrity, so that we can say that the "consent of the
governed" has been obtained through majority vote, even if the result is
arguably or actually unjust. Provided the procedure is just, if the wrong
side wins, it's kind of a "too bad, the People agreed to it" idea.

So, what level of concern is there today for procedural integrity in
elections?

For example, some say we can't hand count paper ballots with
open observation like Canada a few miles north because we have more ballot
issues to count. Others say we can't get enough volunteers to run
elections, so we need computers to do things invisibly to fill the work gap.
Still others say that "no voting method is perfect" which probably is
true, but then these folks proceed to strongly favor the worst of the
worst voting methods, having given up making any distinctions.

Others like to say that paper ballots have a history of problems too, which
is true, but this history ignores the fact that it is the checks and
balances and transparency of elections that protect us, not the cellulose
from trees that forms a paper ballot.

Regardless of what you think the
ultimate answer to any of these issues may be, it is apparent that whenever
there is any kind of conflict between something and the integrity of
elections, the answer is always to sacrifice the integrity of the election.
This conclusion is reached surprisingly swiftly, especially with elections
officials.

Administrative convenience is now the number one consideration in election
technology choices because administrators themselves review and select the
machines, and if this administrative preference for their own administrative
convenience means that voters have to inconveniently stand in long lines on
Election Day to wait for a $4000 bottlenecked voting computer to open up,
then in that case the administrators' answer becomes one of sacrificing the
convenience of the Voter in addition to the integrity of the election.

Having thus repeatedly sacrificed election integrity as well as sacrificing
the convenience of the voter, the final insanity is realizing that even if
the voting machines worked according to their promoters' dreams, in the
final analysis rich counties or big-spending counties will provide their
Voters with "good" service such as (perhaps) a ten minute service guarantee
that's still unacceptable in a checkout line at a department store, and
poorer or more fiscally conservative counties will see their voters wait in
lines of one to eight hours during busy elections.

But even in the case
of televised pictures of long lines of miserable voters at bottlenecked voting
machines, the elections officials will simply announce how pleased and
slightly overwhelmed they are with the heavy turnout in that day's election,
and pronounce to the media that the instant election results obtained from
the trade secret vote counting software by eliminating the public's right to
know and observe their own elections are an unqualified success.

Later, when some citizens try to get information about how the votes were secretly
counted via hackable electronics, the media is gone, the citizens' requests are
stonewalled by the alliance of the officials with the vendors (both of whom want
very much to create an irrebuttable impression of a totally "smooth
election"), and the citizens are dismissed as partisan "sour grapes" conspiracy
theorists, since any discrepancy in results they would claim or possibly
discover would *necessarily favor* one party or issue over the other, making
it by definition automatically "partisan."

This "partisan sour grapes" attack means that no matter how much damage there is to democracy, there is intense resistance to doing anything about it. It's worth asking the question: Is this situation what "public servants" now consider to be "public service" in our elections?"

If you've suspected that perhaps our elections are in need of repair, your suspicion may well stem from the current operative principles in elections of (1) if in potential conflict, always sacrifice election integrity first, and (2) no matter how much damage our democracy sustains, always attack those who seek integrity on the grounds that they are "partisan sore losers" and that the election results must be "final" and "confidence" in them must be maintained.

Now, recall that since democracy promises no substantive justice in terms of who gets elected, only its procedural integrity gives it legitimacy. Then think about how integrity is rapidly sacrificed by elections officials and vendors (principle 1, above), with the media fully cooperating to attack or never report the "claims" of "partisan sore losers" (principle 2, above).

Finally, consider that the process of maintaining public confidence IN LIES is known as propaganda. Then ask your media and your elections officials to kindly refrain from such "confidence building" activity, since only procedural integrity can redeem democracy from moral oblivion."

---Paul Lehto, [e-mail]
www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp

[blm]

1. Democracy needs procedural integrity. There is nothing that can be said to

argue that point. And it's amazing that they even try.

[Land Shark]

2. "Confidence" is their Key. Ever heard of a "Confidence Man"?

[annabanana]

3. How can we impress on Americans (the 70% who know

what's really going on) that we can FIX this. And that all we have to do is make the election boards PROVE that the ballots are counted correctly. WE can make the world better, safer and fairer. WE can win back America's reputation.

Just count the votes accurately.. It sounds so simple, but I believe it's true.

[Land Shark]

4. Just what you said, make them PROVE the elections correct

the cheapest and easiest way, with good checks and balances, to do that is to open the process up wide open and transparent. EAch public observer is there at no cost to the government but adds significant security to the whole process.

[Tace]

5. K&R

[EFerrari]

6. K&R

[annabanana]

7. EVERYtime a republican voices any doubts about

ANYthing this administration does.. We have to jump on it.. Let them know that 70% of Americans and the whole rest of the world agrees with them. And that all we have to do to fix it is make them PROVE the counting is accurate.

[Land Shark]

8. If they can't PROVE it, what basis is there for any "confidence" in it?

[GuvWurld]

16. Keyword = Basis

"Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections;"

--The Voter Confidence Resolution

[Land Shark]

17. or "rational basis", one could always have "faith" in results

but then without procedural integrity in elections our system would have no moral legitimacy

[GuvWurld]

19. Yes, "rational basis" is stronger

But then, I was quoting from the version of the Voter Confidence Resolution (VCR) actually adopted (.pdf) by the City Council of Arcata, CA last July.

Let it be known that we encourage other communities to follow our lead using our version of the VCR as a template. By all means, make it stronger by including "rational basis" rather than merely "basis," and while you're at it, be sure to add a provision to the reform platform about audits, or anything else you think is needed to create a rational basis for confidence in the results reported. The key concepts that should remain consistent with the template are that the current election conditions ensure inconclusive outcomes and that the Consent of the Governed is not being sought.

See the Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution for abbreviated strategy and talking points.

Also see Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution (.pdf) for the big picture view of what the VCR is about.

[Land Shark]

22. It's known, and noted. The Voter Confidence Resolution (above) that is...

[Amaryllis]

54. I wouldn't limit it to results from Fed. elections. As long as we have

trade secret software programmed by private, for-profit corporations and we are being asked to take it on faith that the results are accurate, we have no rational basis for confidence in results from state elections either. Do you have confidence in Tom Delay winning the primary?

[GuvWurld]

56. You are totally correct

As I recall, during the buildup to Arcata's adoption of the VCR, there was a stated concern about discouraging voting. Also, since at the time there were not specific known issues with Humboldt voting equipment (excepting the general point regarding secret software), there was an interest in not directly condemning local election results. However, if this Council is to be true to itself, it should now reaffirm its support for the VCR and add a statement disavowing the legitimacy of elections held in our county on equipment that is flatly illegal and has been shown repeatedly to be unsecure. I absolutely will go back to them and ask for more.

I bet you didn't think that your post was that big of a kick in the ass, did you?

[Amaryllis]

63. No, I didn't ! but I know that not discouraging voting is a oncern for

honest election officials when they talk about the abyssmal state of our elections.

[GuvWurld]

64. They can't have it both ways...

unless we let them. It is like the utter transparency of the claim that terrorists hate us for our freedoms. Actually, those who hate our freedoms are those who vote for, sign, or otherwise support legislation to restrict or cancel them. Let this enable us to see who the real terrorists are.

With elections, those officials who may talk about the problems are not being honest if they are simultaneously giving false hope (confidence) to voters. This is another face of the same beast that is election officials who defend current election conditions and deny the problems. They are all trying to have it both ways and they are getting away with it too, but only because we let them.

My response has been: "If you are resigned to the status quo, you should resign your position and make way for someone determined to improve election conditions." See: The Resignation Frame.

For some historical perspective, consider that in the years leading up to the first American revolution, colonists forced the closure of many courts and the resignation of many judges. The beef revolved around submitting to the laws of the King and Parliament vs. locally written Charters. This should bring the Consent of the Governed notion into very clear context.

[Vidar]

9. kick & recommend

[Land Shark]

10. Thanks Vidar, nice to meet ya!

[glitch]

11. "trillions of tax dollars and control of the world's superpower"

Nah, who would cheat for that? Even known cheaters (BCCI, Savings & Loan Bailout etc) wouldn't stoop to stealing votes!

Well said Land Shark K & R. How did the forum go? I hated to miss it.

[Land Shark]

13. Yeah, there was a friendly face i didn't see there --- YOURS

I heard the forum went well, but I guess that's for others to judge! : )

[glitch]

15. With any luck Ed Mays was there filming it and I'll get to see it on SCAN

TV here in Seattle.

[FogerRox]

12. K -n- R,

only procedural integrity can redeem democracy from moral oblivion."

Right on, Brother !

[Land Shark]

14. or maybe I should say

"only procedural integrity can redeem our country from moral oblivion"

[Richard Steele]

18. K & R

[Amaryllis]

20. K and R

[Melissa G]

21. But it is SUCH A GOOD SCAM!!! WE use OUR TAX Dollars to

pay TWO REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST BROTHERS to COUNT 80% of the VOTES in OUR COUNTRY. WE PAY THEM BIG BUCKS to tell us WHO THEY WANT To WIN with very few checks and balances and security holes you could drive a Mac truck through..
(oops, there went democracy..wave bye bye!!).:hi:

Our votes go into the black box and they tell us what they want us to know.. Let's not worry our pretty little heads. They know best. It is Webb County, Texas on a national scale 'cuz the guys they wanted control both the White house and the Congress.. (I forgot, now they have the supreme court, Too) and IT is Such A DEAL! And what have we lost?...

A Repub friend of mine tried to console me in 2000... He said, "Melissa, It is only 4 years, How bad can it be?..."

Well, It has been 5, but let's take stock..

We lost part of the Pentagon and part of New York..

We lost all the budget surplus and Shrub has run up more debt than all the other presidents combined. ( the money has gone mostly to the friends of Carlyle group, but since much of that money is unaccounted for anyway..)

We entered into an illegal and immoral war based on evidence the White House knew was faulty. They lied about War..instead of blow jobs..
Thousands of unnecessary American and Iraqi lives have been lost and ruined. Many More than Osama BTW who still wanders free somewhere..

We lost most of New Orleans and a good chunk of the coastline of two other states. Uncounted American lives have been lost and others live-but the lives they knew are destroyed..New Orleans and New York were touted as 2 of the four unique cities in the the country.. Watch out San Antonio and San Francisco..

Oh yeah, the port deal.. that's okay, it was probably a ruse to get control to go to the Carlyle group or Halliburton anyway...A terrorist tied foreign country was the only comparison that would make either of them look good..

So yes, Two American treasure cities unprotected and damaged, all our money gone and huge debt that puts our security at risk... thousands of lives lost...a military stretched and unsupported...Wait, there is yet three more years to go..

Such a GOOD Deal For THEM that is. Kinda stinky for us silly fools who buy into it though...

edited to add control of SCOTUS, punc

[Amaryllis]

40. Wiretapping, torture

[Melissa G]

42. Yeah, the neocons go off about the symbolic act of flag burning

But when they get in charge they actually take the constitution that they are sworn to defend and shred it into little tiny bits... so much much for the rule of law. Does not apply to dictators Dubya and Dickie..
The Patriot act= More Big Brother rules.

I miss my old Republican Friends.... the ones who stood for fiscally conservative behavior, less government intervention in the private lives of its citizens, did not run around the world trying to start wars.. Wish they would come and take their party back..

[Amaryllis]

44. Many of the real, honest repubs wish the same thing -that they could take

the party back. the ones with TRUE conservative values such as you mention.

[paineinthearse]

23. Thank you for this work

Keep on!

[AmBlue]

24. Hi Paul.... YOU'RE RIGHT!

And I so appreciate your work. I, too, have officially surrendered my Pollyanna status. I've formed a non-partisan election watchdog organization called the Voting Integrity Alliance of Tampa Bay ("VIA Tampa Bay") and we're ready to roll.

On Tuesday night, in Pinellas County, Florida, we had a total meltdown of Sequoia during election tabulation. I have collected all the evidence I possibly can from our observer who took very good notes and we are going to publicly document, as much as possible, what's going on with this invisible vote-counting AND express the citizens' dissatisfaction with the process. After it is examined, if there are improprieties found, we are going to hold them accountable.

THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN OUR ELECTIONS IS ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE!!

I'm too buried right now to give all the details, but this will at least add to the body of evidence we have building against these touchscreens. We need to treat elections and election tabulations as crime scene. If we don't collect the evidence we will never be able to prove the crime.

LET'S ROLL.
:patriot:

[Land Shark]

25. Great, except that it sounds like Pinnellas CAN'T PROVE A VALID ELECTION

so the only other logical possibility is an INVALID election, right?

[AtLiberty]

26. *bump*

!

[IndyOp]

27. Thanks Land Shark - Thanks Paul. My sincere appreciation. (n/t)

:kick:

[Land Shark]

28. no problem. Keep it up

[eridani]

29. A relevant quote from David Dill

The election fraud debate frames the problem incorrectly. The question should not be whether there is widespread election fraud. It should be: "Why should we trust the results of elections?" It's not good enough that election results be accurate. We have to know they are accurate—and we don't.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/making_democracy_transparent.php

[Wilms]

31. Good of you to point that out. n/t

[Wilms]

30. I agree that "administrative convenience" is a number 1 problem.

You wrote;

"Administrative convenience is now the number one consideration in election technology choices because administrators themselves review and select the machines..."


And administrative convenience has little, if anything, to do with the integrity of the process.

BoE's (and anyone else with "administrative convenience" on their mind) having the last, or any overly significant word on equipment selection seems a conflict of interest.

The problem here, too, is that it's not an issue of this voting system over that, but one of methodology.

We (ok, not you, Paul) find ourselves in the ugly scenario where we often fight DRE's only to get VVPAT or OpScan. Or, as in the case of the Hursti Hack, wind up with DRE's certified and OpScans not, as is the case in PA.

It's like choosing between being shot with a gun vs. stabbed with a knife.

This is why the suit you brought in Washington is THE most important, and relevant, charge.

[JunkYardDogg]

32. See after the '06 Elections when the Dems don't gain any House Seats

The mainstream Dems Party is going to be hard pressed to explain why they didn't gain any House seats in Nov. '06
Then the gutless schmucks are going to have to face the fact that the machines control Amerika.

Without transparent and accountable elections, there is no Democracy, only totalitarianism.
The BushReich has invested too much in the machines
They are going to control Amerika for a long time now
and they have absolutely NO intention of losing that control.
There is a reason why the Radical Extremist Rethug Congress people have absolutely no limitations in espousing and promoting their outrageous and unconstitutional agendas,
It is because they have absolutely no fear whatsoever of not being re-elected and losing their next elections.
They are operating in a world of complete protection and impunity for their behavior.
Why??
Because they control the machines.
They can do and will do anything unconstitutional they want.
Hence, the reason for the Dept of Homeland Security
This is being used to circumvent Congress and run Amerika.
Homeland Security Dept is the Administrative and Punitive/enforcement Arm of the BushReich
and is in actuality the true shadow government of the Neocon BushReich.
The Bush Reich intends to run Amerika for a long time into the future thru the Dept of Homeland Security,
which is being used to render Congress powerless and impotent.
All the while, deluding Amerika into thinking that we have Democracy by so graciously being given the right to vote on rigged electronic voting machines, and calling this facade Democratic Free Elections.
But at least the incompetent Registrars of Voters jobs are made SO much easier do to the wonders of Modern technology, the only science Our Fearless Leader Herr Bush believes in.

[Land Shark]

37. OK, Junkyarddogg, but remember, every casino's gotta allow some winners

if a casino wins every hand or too much of a lion's share, it goes out of business. The effective scam is the guaranteed margin of winning 55 or 60% of the time

If machines are controlled, expect the controlling party (under present political circumstances) to LOSE a little control but not the critical control

There's also the inference of widespread "malfunctions", which is really irrelevant in that the damage to demcoracy is the same. Intent to alter election results is relevant mainly only to criminal charges, not to harm to democracy

[JunkYardDogg]

65. They don't even seem to worry about criminal prosecution

Allowing winners
They cede the blatant Dem regions as givens- such as parts of Californee and N.Y.- otherwise it would be way too obvious
However they feed off of the 2% to 3% difference areas, where they can manipulate the totals and go un-noticed
Look who they will run for Prez next- Bill Frist- what American Mainstream party in their right mind would even consider running this extremist for Prez unless they knew they could get away with it.
People who operate beyond the boundaries of legal non-criminality behavior- usually do so as discretely as possible - out of a reasonable and justifiable fear of being caught, prosecuted, and put in prison.
These guys don't even try to hide their criminal behavior,, they are so convinced that they will not and cannot be prosecuted
They were probably shocked senseless that Fitzgerald is prosecuting Libby and Abramoff is being prosecuted.
But the BushReich has carefully and deliberately constructed a system whereby they feel that they control the justice system of America and are immune from prosecution. And they are close to accomplishing this goal. It is the rare exception that they are investigated.
Just look at their Anthrax attack.
The head of the Dept of Justice (DoJ) investigation was Chertoff. And look at his reward. For making sure that the investigation went nowhere. All of the targets were strategically selected. The first target was the media entity who publicized the drunken behavior of the Bush Cyclone sisters. Second Tom Daschle and Congress, the legislative obstacle to the BushReich, etc, etc.
The Anthrax was traced to a U.S. BioWeapons lab in Maryland and there were two different types used.
They got away with that and they are getting away with manipulating American elections and making a charade out of American Democracy. Sure, America will always get Elections, but they are meaningless 'cause they can manipulate and change the vote .
And they can count on incompetent RoV's into blind acceptance of the E-voting machines and by controlling the Secretaries of State. And they can bludgeon non-E-machine using States with the DoJ.

[MissWaverly]

33. Progress can be made

Here in Maryland, we are starting to get real election reform thru the governor and the
State Assembly. I hope we are not too late for 06.

[Land Shark]

48. It is starting to change, i agree

[MissWaverly]

52. I think we will progress now

when they are beginning to spend money to no longer use Diebold, we will win eventually

[Land Shark]

55. It's just a feeding trough/train wreck, too much fed money, but it'll

collapse the second the money runs out or sooner

[MissWaverly]

60. I've been thinking about this

after 2004, there was little accomplished here in Maryland, why, they did not want to
get involved, now the mid-terms are on the way, everyone knows the system is vulnerable
to hacking, now their jobs are on the line, look out.

[EFerrari]

34. It's good -- a big relief -- to see the response this thread is getting.

Go, DU. Take it to them.

:kick:

[understandinglife]

35. K&R. "... since only procedural integrity can redeem democracy from ...

... moral oblivion."

Well stated.


Peace.

[Land Shark]

36. could only have been written better by ... Understandinglife! n/t

[NVMojo]

38. EXCELLENT! IMPORTANT!! Keep it KICKED!!!

[EFerrari]

39. kick

[Amaryllis]

41. Very encouraging to see such response to this!

[suffragette]

43. Thanks for posting this recap of the forum

Sorry I missed it, but a bad cold has knocked me down.

K&R

[Amaryllis]

45. This is pertinent:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2508077&mesg_id=2508077

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. So tragically true - the blindness to even the possibility of deliberate

election fraud is the single biggest single obstacle we face, I believe. As a believer in MIHOP for 9/11 and LIHOP for Katrina, this public blindness, this shying away from terrible truths to take refuge in comforting (and constantly broadcast) lies, is both frustrating and puzzling to me. At what point is the fear of the truth less than the fear of the consequences of ducking the truth?

My suspicion is that if the tipping point ever arrives, it will come when something new is so outrageous that the usual smooth blinding moves can't conceal it. (Maybe the ports deal, combined with Katrina and Iraq?) I am hoping that once eyes are opened, they will see much, much more.

Like the very, very obviously stolen elections and the fact that the stage is set to continue stealing them while the public sleeps on, reassured by their comfortable fictions.

Thanks, Land Shark!

[Junkdrawer]

47. Couldn't agree more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=579149#597503

[Land Shark]

50. good point in that link junkdrawer; time and "vision" have advantages

[Kurovski]

49. Kick (nt)

[kster]

51. Kick..........nt

[Amaryllis]

53. kick

[eridani]

57. Kick for Sunday

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Wilms]

58. kick

[Senator]

59. This is why we must IMPEACH over Both Stolen Elections

Yes, I said launch a campaign right now to impeach the bushkid for stealing both elections.

Karl Rove Fears This

Democrats, Rove said, "are dominated today by sort of the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party, you know, the Howard Deans, the Dick Durbins, the MoveOn.org, the Michael Moores, and saying outrageous things. . . . " Rove said "there are a lot of Democrats who have not gotten over the last election. They're rage-filled. Look, they thought they were going to win. . . . They have never gotten over 2000. They will not get over 2004. And they are just letting their rage work its way through. And that's not helpful for them or for the system. . . .

"We ought to let elections be elections, and then, once the elections are past, there ought to be a time where we try and find common cause." - Scarborough Show, June 2005

Nice to know what Karl thinks is "helpful."

What would really be "helpful" is if all those currently working on other issues, election reform included, would turn their attention to demanding impeachment. Removing this cabal is a far more effective way to advance any issue (again, ER included) than the methods we are currently engaging in.

Impeachment would cripple our opposition, on each and every front.

Q: As much as I'd like to terrorize Rove, are you nuts, we can't, nor could never, prove they were stolen?

Proof is not necessary -- in any sense. Just who are you imagining we would need to prove it to, and under what circumstances? We're not talking about a criminal court of law here. We're not even talking about a civil court, bound by rules of evidence. We are talking only about the court of public opinion.

Consider the ports controversy as the model. We all know that the stolen elections, and the continuing conditions that made them possible, are a far worse threat to our (once-great) nation than that deal could ever have been. Our task is simply to get enough of our fellow (former) Americans to believe it.

We already have a large community of activists nationwide, working diligently for election reform. We need only transform it into an election revolt effort, similar to the revolt against the port deal.

And all that requires is adding "Election Theft" to the list of impeachable offenses. And before you say it, an impeachable offense is anything that congress (urged to act by the public) says it is -- including accepting the "benefit" of ten-hour poll-tax lines and/or scrubbed voter rolls, etc...

No, we don't need a "movement," we just need to move.

I recently posted a RoadMap to Impeachemt, for those who wish get going.

---
www.january6th.org

[Land Shark]

61. Question is why "impeach" if you believe not elected in first place?

Lack of alternatives, I suppose, but the burden is not on you to prove the election proper. (Not even proof in the court of "public opinion". Just demand THEIR proof of it and watch them fail.)

[Senator]

62. Not sure of your point.

Or if you're really making one.

Or if I'm being semi-deliberately obtuse just the kick this great thread :)

[BeFree]

66. I think, the point is...

...if they were not elected, then why impeach.

It's looking at two sides of the same coin. If they weren't elected- no impeach. The other side- impeach and they are unelected.

Its a quandary I think a lot of us are in.... how do we get them out? In ER, it is a forward motion predicated on the past. Impeach is a forward motion also predicated on the past.

In my reality, once we get elections back, then we will be able to impeach, but if we don't get the elections back, no way can we impeach. So, election reform is first, and requires my priortizing as such.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Thanks for this thread, people.

[Senator]

67. Well, still not quite clear on the quandry

But the only way to get them out is to impeach. And it's not "unelecting," but rather accusation and punishment.

We don't need to "get elections back" to do it. Just convince enough people of the truth.

Accusation and punishment, when warranted, are very effective methods of producing "reform" by creating deterrance.

In fact, the mere threat of accusation and punishment has brought about a rash of "reform" proposals (from bush enablers themselves) on the practice of unlawful spying on one's fellow Americans.

If they thought it would avoid an impeachment trial, we'd have election procedures that are more accurate, auditable, and confidence-inspiring than our banking procedures in place before the mid-terms.

You can (re)count on it.

--