Tips For Discussing Zogby 92% Favor Transparent Vote Counting

[GuvWurld]

I agree with Land Shark who has been emphatic about saying this Zogby survey is a mammoth opportunity. We are now in position to get some of our most important points clearly heard. Best of all, we can make these points knowing that the super-majority understands and agrees. What we need is for progressive media to start an echo chamber. Please, promote the hell out of this Zogby poll and use these talking points for context.

* * *

Talking Points Memo On Elections (for Progressive media)
Originally published June 11, 2006
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/06/talking-points-memo-on-elections-for.html

Since the start of this month there has been more high profile, corporate media coverage of our "election" charades than perhaps any other period during the Bush regime. Could this be a sign we are approaching a bona fide tipping point, after which things will be totally different? Well, I want to believe it, but I think we first need the progressive media to get on the same page about some talking points.

1. Secret vote counting guarantees inconclusive outcomes. Whether it is paperless DREs or optical scanners with interpreted or proprietary code, votes are being "counted" in secret, without even a chance for voters, elections officials or the media to examine the process or verify the results.

2. Unverified voting means there is NO BASIS for confidence in the results reported. Blind trust is required to accept current election results.

3. The media should not report what it cannot prove or independently verify. We now have faith-based reporting about faith-based elections.

4. The Consent of the Governed is being assumed, not sought, under current election conditions. According to the Declaration of Independence, the "just Power" of government derives from the Consent of the Governed.

5. Here is a partial list (in no particular order) of additional items to which we must say: We Do Not Consent.

a) The lost presumption of innocence;
b) Spying on Americans and an overall loss of privacy;
c) Government lawlessness;
d) Destruction of our environment;
e) The promise of endless war;
f) Free speech zones;
g) Depleted Uranium (Mr. Bush's slow-motion holocaust);
h) Government run media;
i) Secret prisons, torture and war crimes;
j) and We Do Not Consent to secret vote counting machines.

The larger question that should emerge from these talking points is: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET? Presented this way the question takes a tone of inevitability - not if, but when! This is how we pave a path to a tipping point.

Read the rest...

[don954]

1. and the other 8%?

cue Carlos mencia: DEE! DEE! DEE!

[Peace Patriot]

2. We shouldn't obsess on the "other 8%" nor on the 30% of nutballs who

would support Jeebus Bush if he dined on Irish babies. They will always be with us. They go back to Cromwell's time, and, before that, to the people who fomented pogroms and inquisitions. Unfortunately, the U.S. got more than their fair share of European/English nutballs (--rigid, powermongering, patriarchal "puritans"). We should concentrate on RE-EMPOWERING the SEVENTY-PERCENT of progressives and semi-progressives who have the good sense to reject Bush and all his works. There is too much discussion of the extreme right at DU, reflective of war profiteering corporate news monopoly brainwashing that the extreme right is the "mainstream." These corporate news monopolies are giving a big trumpet to a small minority, way out of proportion to its numbers. They make progressives and other common sense people feel isolated and alone--disempowered, demoralized. It is okay at times to focus on what Americans believe in contrast to rightwing fascists, but too much of it only enhances the fascists' already way out-of-balance power. We need to be more practical--as GuvWurld is--and focus HOW to re-empower the progressive/common sense majority that we know exists. (It is overwhelmingly apparent in all polls.)

[GuvWurld]

3. Well said, Peace Patriot. Thank you.

How does the Alcohol Anonymous serenity prayer go? Something about recognizing the difference between what we can and cannot change. Too often, the progressive movement fails because we do a poor job of choosing our goals, pursuing things that we can't really hope to change, at least not in a single giant bound. When we choose goals wisely they should be capable of achieving three things:

1. Create an immediate tangible impact or change.
2. Have a ripple effect that will influence the big picture in the long term.
3. Address the balance of power between We The People and the Government.

At the next meeting of whatever group(s) you belong to, spend a few minutes analyzing your recent and/or upcoming projects to see how they map onto these three points. Re-assess how effective you've been or could be. Consider how your future actions and events might be more impactful and effective in the context of these three points.

[Land Shark]

7. Myth: there simply IS NO "8%", plus, a four question FAQ

and only handwringing or bad thinking habits will operate to take yer eyes off the prize, dude. On edit: if you can't bask in 92% in a democracy and must have something like 100% then freedom is bothersome to you, and you'll either have to go with forced agreement or else be very unhappy, lifelong.

FAQ

1. What about the 8% that seemingly don't agree with this? ANSWER: There's no such thing as an 8% opposition. The 8% figure is apparently arrived at by subtracting the transparency total of 92% from 100% and assuming the difference is the opposition to transparency, but this is not so. A big chunk of the voters outside the 92% is undecided or unsure or didn't understand the question. A few surely are just contrarians, others perhaps are highly trusting persons who perhaps know a reputable pollworker and simply "trust" them but don't realize our system is based on checks and balances, not trust. By no means should we focus on the few percent in the negative when we have one of the strongest political values ever measured ON OUR SIDE.

2. Are we sure that the polling question is worded fairly? ANSWER: It simply doesn't matter, though the question is worded by the professionals at Zogby to be nonmisleading and fair. That being said, the point is that if you word it in this "unfair" or "slanted" way, essentially EVERYONE AGREES WITH IT. So, we're looking for a successful way to present what we believe, and this works and gets extremely high levels of acceptance: public witnessing of vote counting and public rights to get information about vote counting.

3. Can politicians run on numbers like 92%? ANSWER: This question should answer itself. Even a bad campaign could benefit.

4. Won't the other side be able to lower these numbers? ANSWER: If they dare to attack transparency, they might make a dent in 92% but in democracy remember that 50.1% is all it takes to win, so there's a huge margin. But they would also pay a high price for attacking public transparency and the public's right to know, so they will hesitate to do so in the first place.

[rman]

4. Election software is trade SECRET

Emphasis on SECRET, as in "we the people are not allowed to know - let alone verify - the method of vote counting".

[GuvWurld]

5. Not for long (eom)

[rman]

13. My point being,

that "trade secret" is an important talking point.

Many people might think it's self-evident that The People should have a right to know the method of counting, to be able to oversee the counting process.

It might be less self-evident to many that we don't have this kind of transparency in elections with the current e-voting systems. After all the voting systems are being audited; experts are making sure it works as it's supposed to... Except that the auditing process to is privatized and secret. But many people don't see a problem with that - if they are aware of it to begin with.

[GuvWurld]

14. That is correct.

Those us of talking about this issue are certainly making your point. Great to know you are with us!

[FogerRox]

6. Great framing Guv, great points.... Knr.. jack this thread up.. please

[bleever]

8. "A mammoth opportunity" is right.

An excellent opening for the entire "consent of the governed" question.

This Zogby survey dovetails so well with the approach you've been taking for many months, Guv.

:toast:

and

:kick:

[GuvWurld]

9. Years, my friend, years.

But thanks. I always appreciate your support.

:toast:

[bleever]

10. I regret

having understated, and insufficiently lauded, your efforts.

Most sincerely.

:toast:


Onward!

[midnight]

11. Talking points about secret vote counting?

I live in Wisconsin, and called a local news station, and asked that they report on the poll. The boy in the news room said it didn't impact us locally because we have transparent vote counting. He further explained that if I wanted to read about the poll that I should go to the internet.

[GuvWurld]

12. Wrong target

Facts, to a TV reporter, are not necessarily going to add up to a story. Give them a story - put out a press release about this and announce that you'll be bringing it to the attention of your County Supervisors by speaking during the public comment period of their next meeting. Then do it. And get others to join you. The meetings are probably televised anyway. This still may not be the thing that gets your local reporter to cover you. But you have to get out there and start making noise and then keep making noise. Well not noise, exactly, but then my suggestions are all at the top of the thread.

[GuvWurld]

15. Kick (eom)