I wonder if we shouldn't start picketing around the country.

[Stevepol]

I don't see any way to awaken people to the need to restore democracy in America except by carrying signs and walking around the courthouse or the home of the elections supervisor or whatever every week or every Tuesday or something. At least it would put the issue squarely in the public's eye. Eventually, people will become aware of it even if the local news refused to say anything about it on the TV news.

Some signs:

RESTORE DEMOCRACY, GET RIDE OF ELECTRONIC VOTING

PAPER BALLOTS AND REQUIRED AUDITS FOR ALL ELECTIONS

NO MORE SECRET VOTE COUNTING AND STOLEN ELECTIONS

etc.

At present there might not be enough people in all areas of the country but eventually enough would be recruited I think, particularly among college students once they understand what's going on.

Any thoughts about this?

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Too one sided

Spread out more

" I want MY country back "
" Stop the Warmongoring "
" Enough of lies, Time for truth "
" I want my vote verified "
" Represent me, not the BIG money "

[OKDem08]

2. recent supreme court ruling

would be an issue to gather consensus and create dissension for the 'status quo'

[Oversea Visitor]

3. Yup

that go under the
:Represent ME, not the BIG money " part

[Stevepol]

5. I believe in what you say, but would it work for this issue?

If we make it too partisan, it wouldn't have the right effect on lawmakers. If it's presented properly, I think it would appeal to people of all political persuasions.

I was thinking of a group like this: SAFE, Social Action for Fair Elections.

Make it open to all parties and persuasions and keep the focus narrow, only on getting a fair vote count with either solely paper or paper ballots and random fair audits for all elections counted on electronic voting machines.

Make a commitment to keep picketing until fair elections are gained in your city and state.

If the group got off on partisan issues (tho I agree with the ideas) or didn't welcome members of other parties, it wouldn't have the broad effect it would have to have. And in truth shouldn't a democracy be the hope and aim of all people of good will in this country regardless of party affiliation? How can you have a democracy when the vote is counted in secret by rabid partisans of one side where even the elections officials can't get inside the room and there's either no way to audit or recount the results or where there is, for all practical purposes, no way to get an audit or recount even if it is theoretically possible, and thus there's no way to insure a fair election?

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Its the take back message

Need to be simple.
It also invite people to engage on the statements
Basically you fighting against misinformation or lack of information.

Those area has tons of stuff to talk about.

[Oversea Visitor]

7. Well do one need to be a Dem or REP

on that issue.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Yes, I see your point, Stevepol. This would be a picket aimed at the

MECHANISM of fascist control: non-transparent elections. Not at the EFFECTS of fascist control--unjust war, poverty, mass murder, massive theft, monopolistic control of news and opinion, etc., etc. These EFFECTS would not be possible without stolen elections.

You are suggesting a long term picket specifically targeting election officials and their collusion with private, partisan companies on the installation of unreliable, hackable, fraud-prone and extremely expensive electronic voting systems.

However, let me just argue the other side for a moment.

In general, I feel that we should ignore the minority 40% (or less!) in the country who support Bush. These people are hopeless. A few are just very uninformed. But most are either greedbags or they believe in the "end times"--religious nuts--and many of them would support Bush-twiddled elections.

Opinion polls have been consistently showing, over a long period of time, that the vast majority of Americans oppose the Iraq war, torturing prisoners, theft by the rich, the Bush Cartel's deficit, their assault on Social Security, and Bush's belligerent stance in the world, and support the U.N., environmental protection, and other progressive positions. I think the latest opinion poll stat on Iraq is that now over 70% of Americans disapprove of the occupation and want the U.S. to withdraw. Disapproval has hovered at 60% since the invasion, and only dipped briefly during the major fighting (obviously influenced by concern for U.S. troops in the field), then went right back up to 60%, and is now way over that. I'm also impressed by the stat that 63% of Americans disapprove of torturing prisoners UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. That's the American we know and love--a fair-minded, courageous and generous people--and it's all around us, despite the minority views that are trumpeted by the news monopolies. That's what Americans REALLY think. They dislike Bush and Bushism to an extraordinary degree. And we know that they threw Bush out of office on 11/2/04. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

So, in truth, you COULD combine transparent elections with other issues--especially issues like the Iraq war on which there is broad consensus.

"Hate unjust war? Get rid of electronic voting machines!"

"Want to protect Social Security? Get rid of electronic voting machines!"

"Oppose torture? Paper ballots - hand counts!"

"Worried about the deficit? Paper ballots - hand counts!"

I think that could be very effective.

But I would be careful how I combined the issues--choosing those political issues that have gone beyond politics (like the above). (And, frankly, I think dislike of Bush has gone beyond politics. For instance, no real "conservative" with his/her thinking cap on could support this federal deficit.)

What I'm saying is that this theoretical Bushite voter who might conceivably support transparent elections is something of a myth. There are few if any remaining Bushites who believe in democracy. By and large, this minority DOESN'T WANT the poor and racial minorities to vote and to be heard, and they'd like to put liberals in jail. And if electronic voting accomplishes the disenfranchisement of the people they hate, so much the better. Combining issues MIGHT cause some of them to dig in their heels in defense of electronic voting. That's something to think about--and reason NOT to combine issues. But, on the whole, I don't think it's that much of a risk. Who cares what Bush crazies think?

Either way, I think it's a great idea to target the people who make voting system purchases--our state and county election officials. Once ordinary people get onto this scam, and the curtain is ripped away from the "Wizard of Oz" machines that are creating the ILLUSION of democracy, our election officials won't have anywhere to hide. Electronic voting, as presently designed, is obviously a fraud.

But I would be careful of the wording of combined issues. You don't want to insult people, or inspire stubbornness or stupidity. (That's why I worded the "issue" part above as a question.)

I am also convinced that a huge and broad spectrum of Americans believe that SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. They may not quite understand what or why, but there is a great deal of uneasiness and discontent (generally focused against Bush and his Cartel). The signs could merely speak to this uneasiness.

"What's wrong? Electronic voting, that's what!"

I think you'd get a hell of lot of friendly honks and "V" signs for that one.

[Stevepol]

9. Thanks, PeacePatriot, you have my idea exactly I think.

I can see your point, but as you say we'd have to be very careful not to link partisan issues with something that should have total bi-partisan support. In fact in places where the issues are clear-cut and presented to legislators (I'm thinking of WA state I believe and Connecticutt), the vote for audits was unanimous or near-unanimous.

The last thing the voting machine lobby (Diebold, ES&S, et al.) and the secys of state want is public awareness. This voting machine stuff is taking place in secret, behind closed doors, etc. and a lot of people are enriching themselves with kick-backs, a lot of them legal or on the border between legality and illegality.

And this group I'm thinking of would have to focus on "social action," that is, on picketing and open peaceful demonstration.

[Peace Patriot]

10. Editing correction to my post above:

"Disapproval (of the Iraq war) has hovered at 60% since BEFORE the invasion...".

I remember that stat really well. MOST Americans opposed the invasion outright, or wanted U.N. agreement--in the months BEFORE the invasion. (58%.)

Previous sentence (above):

"Disapproval has hovered at 60% since the invasion, and only dipped briefly during the major fighting (obviously influenced by concern for U.S. troops in the field), then went right back up to 60%, and is now way over that."

Correction:

"Disapproval has hovered at 60% since BEFORE the invasion, and only dipped briefly during the major fighting (obviously influenced by concern for U.S. troops in the field), then went right back up to 60%, and is now way over that."

[jmatthan]

4. Organise to take part in the

WORLD GUANTANAMO DAY

More at:

http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com

and at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3949720

Jacob Matthan
http://MoveTheUN.blogspot.com
Oulu, Finland

[Stevepol]

11. An addenda: SAVE rather than SAFE. Save our democracy.

SAVE: Social Action for Verifiable (or Valid) Elections

I think if we solve the problem of the voting machines, we won't get anybody like GWB again. He wasn't elected in 04. I think the evidence is overwhelming on that score. And if we had valid elections, the Dems would have control of Congress as well. You wouldn't have Saxby Chambliss instead of Max Cleland, etc.

It's the lynchpin that everything else rests on. You can't have a democracy without fair vote counting and you can't have fair vote counting when it's done by private corporations in secret and without any danger of that vote count being checked or audited.

As somebody else pointed out recently, in every election now the corporations and the Dirty Tricksters have the Means, the Motive, and the Opportunity to rig the machines.

If you knew you could rig an election for the candidate of your choice and there was absolutely no chance of ever getting caught (unless somebody squealed on you), what would you do?

[bitchkitty]

12. You're assuming that the media would report it -

I say picket the media.

[Peace Patriot]

13. No, I don't agree with that, bitchkitty! We cannot address the problem

of corporate news monopolies until we have restored our right to vote. Picketing election officials would shine the light of day on a specific set of decisions--the purchase of election system equipment--over which we still have potential power and influence as ordinary citizens. Picketing as a tactic should be targeted to a specific purpose--decision, negotiation, action that can be influenced. A general picket would just peter out--what is the goal? A general picket of news monopolies would probably be a waste of time until we have the power back to bust those monopolies.

I'm never against citizen protest. And if someone wants to picket a news monopoly--go for it! But we also have to think strategically, and martial our resources carefully with specific goals in mind. A picket of election officials is well-focused in that regard. Even better would be a picket targeted to a specific state election official decision or state legislative bill. Within that protest, you could have signs that said, "Why aren't the corporate news monopolies covering our fraudulent election system?"--and other related matters. But the action should be well-focused on exposing these covert decisions, embarassing officials, and getting them out of office if they won't respond.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

14. July 5th Hocking County BOE Meeting

Why not utilize this meeting as the first event? This is the elections board that voted for Diebold and voted to fire whistle-blower Sherole Eaton. This will be their first meeting since those actions. They were told there was National support for Sherole, it would be a great way to show it, by attending the meeting at 12:30 pm at the Hocking County courthouse. The courthouse is located on the corner of Main and Market Streets. The meeting will be in the Board of Elections office inside the courthouse, but will have to be moved to a different location to accommodate all in attendance. There is another thread about this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380223

Perhaps we can plan a rally preceding this meeting?

[GuvWurld]

15. Election and Media Reform Are Not Separate

Peace Patriot makes some good points but I would add this re-frame: we can't prioritize election and media reform. They have to be addressed together, along with a host of other issues. Otherwise we'll end up with false alternatives.

Another re-frame: it is not a picket that we need as much as the intent of what the picket represents: non-compliance, aka civil disobedience. We need to be looking at how to do this in new ways. It has already begun in the form of municipalities passing resolutions against the Patriot Act. Utah has also put its state education laws ahead of No Child Left Behind.

The union of these two re-frames is the election reform platform presented in the Voter Confidence Resolution. Here in Humboldt County, CA the Voter Confidence Committee has already issued a press release announcing we will not accept any results reported from Arnold's special election this fall because it will be held under conditions that ensure an inconclusive outcome. This position is based on the resolution and the resolution is coming up for a vote at the Arcata City Council on July 6.

[Peace Patriot]

16. I really didn't mean to dis protesting the news monopolies!

But we could protest them on so many issues--the Iraq war certainly comes to mind--not just on election fraud. How many picket signs can you hold?

The news monopolies are a huge problem, no question about it, right up there with electronic voting. The filthy compaign contribution system is also major. I'm only talking about strategy. How can you CHANGE election systems by picketing the news monopolies? You can make a point, for sure--which they will loftily ignore. Even if it was a big picket, all over the country, what is the likely result? Election reform? Not likely. And so where is your POWER to bust the news monopolies? They are ABLE to BE monopolies BECAUSE we have no elective power.

(Also, which ONE of them, or TWO of them, would you picket? There are dozens--both print and TV/radio. At their headquarters in New York? At subsidiaries? It's a huge and complicated organizing effort--perhaps worth doing, but it's not going to get election reform. It's not going to give us a mechanism for reforming the air waves. A boycott might, though--and supporting alternative media. Did you hear about this new non-profit TV news station, based in Toronto--International News Network, some name like that? Will be serving the U.S. via cable sometime soon.)

I'm just saying, we've got to focus. Reforming elections is an enormous task all by itself--but it's something that can be broken down (and is being broken down) into local/state movements. We have specific venues to address--county, state. And specific people who are making quite specific decisions about this matter, as we speak. It's not a big generalized problem--except for how it got started (in Congress with HAVA). It's local. And it manifests in specific local/state ways that we can target (and are targeting).

Every other problem that we have is directly connected to the public's loss of control over election systems--something that we still have some power and influence to correct.

How do you correct the problems at ABC-NBC-CNN-CBS-Fox-Clear Channel--Time/Warner-Newsweek-NYT-LAT-Wapo, etc., etc., etc.? --if you don't have any power to bust them up because you can't get anybody elected who will do the peoples' will? Can you do an effective boycott of all of these corporations and conglomerates? Maybe. But it's kind of like saying we need to picket the oil companies. Where? When? What is the goal? How do you maintain such a picket without a strategic objective?

Once again, I am only talking strategy. How do we GET BACK the power to control our country's resources and decisions--a power that has been vastly eroded in many ways over the decades, but that has now come down to our very right to vote? We're down to the bottom line. How do we get it back--to be able to then start reversing all the disempowerments and disenfranchisements?

You mention the Patriot Act. How have those rebellious resolutions of local jurisdictions in any way influenced what is occuring in this Bush Cartel regime on those issues? If we had a representative Congress--fairly elected--the Patriot Act would be long gone (or severely amended toward civil liberties) as a result of those resolutions. I think the LACK of impact of those resolutions is sobering. It means that there is no democracy at the federal level. They don't care what we think. And why is that? Because they now have assured election. We cannot vote them out of office. Why? Because their buddies control the vote count with secret software.

So we need to start there--while our state/local jurisdictions still have the power to choose transparent election systems.

[GuvWurld]

17. Yes, Good, Let's Talk Strategy

First, as I said before, it is not the picket that we need. You have clearly illustrated the futility of this tactic.

Second, I didn't think you were dissing the need for media reform. I was merely trying to put this need in context.

Third, you accurately address the shortcomings of the various anti-Patriot Act resolutions, with one exception. From my view, what prevented these resolutions from having a meaningful result is that they didn't have a macro frame to enable them to build cumulative impact.

Since I first started writing about the Voter Confidence Resolution I have used the anti-P. stuff as a "lessons learned" building block. We must recognize the social phenomenon of the Tipping Point AND grasp how it works. The subtitle of Malcolm Gladwell's book is: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. The Tipping Point is not merely a time when a big change occurs or begins. It is a dynamic by which a series of small changes swell, often unnoticed, until that last straw breaks the camel's back - the Tipping Point.

As architects of social change we must use this knowledge in making our strategy. I will consistently call it peaceful revolution, but you are welcome to term our mission however you like. The aspect that transcends terminology is the basic fact that we will stay oppressed while divided and we will overcome this tyranny when we have sufficiently brought people together. Any strategy that doesn't contemplate this is wasting time.

So, back to the Voter Confidence Resolution. The idea is that we can most easily build bridges on the local level. It is the lowest hanging fruit. And so with a group of neighbors for starters, we aim to see entire communities grasp the notion that election conditions currently ensure inconclusive outcomes that will never lead to unanimous agreement about election results. The resolution also makes the case that the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. While certainly true as a result of bogus elections, this argument is also supported by: unconstitutional jailing of citizens without charges or access to an attorney; placing pollution for profit before a sustainable environment for future generations; and quite frankly, the spending of our federal budget dollars without We The People having a say ("taxation without representation").

Our Consent is a self-evident truth from which government derives just power. This Consent is no longer sought and is instead only assumed to exist because we haven't stood up and said otherwise. You want to have a picket? I suggest you target your City Council, though that won't necessarily be the most effective way to get their support. You might start by simply asking them during open "public comment" if they will look at the resolution. Depending on their response you can determine how best to proceed. Regardless, they are the ones to pressure for passage of this collective declaration which comes with the macro frame: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?

When we see the resolution passed in town after town, this macro frame will do what the anti-P. resolutions couldn't accomplish which is to establish cumulative impact, registering that swell that leads to the Tipping Point.

[Stevepol]

18. I agree totally, PeacePatriot. n/t