Should the 2004 Election Forum be placed back on the main forum page?

[Time for change]

Poll question: Should the 2004 Election Forum be placed back on the main forum page?

Many DUers believe that we were disenfranchised by election fraud in 2002 and 2004.

Furthermore, we believe that if this is not corrected before too long we may have lost our franchise for the forseeable future, which would mean among other things that we will never again in our lives see a Democratic President, Congress, or Judiciary. We believe that this possibility (or likelihood) makes election reform the most important crisis facing our country today.

The major purpose of the 2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum is to explore constructive ways to deal with this crisis.

The removal of this forum from the main forum page has potentially reduced the ability of this forum to fulfill its goals, by virtue of the fact that new members or potential new members are unlikely to be aware of it.

Consequently, we have developed this poll, in order to ascertain interest in putting the 2004 Election forum back on the main forum page.

Poll result (355 votes)
Yes	(294 votes, 83%)	Vote
No	(61 votes, 17%)	Vote

[rzemanfl]

1. I voted yes, but maybe it should be renamed. n/t

[Tace]

2. Yeah, Like -- Election Forum

This is the biggest issue we face.

[Peggy Day]

16. agreed

because it is really important, but it isn't just the 2004 election, it will keep on happening if something isn't done.

[tommcintyre]

58. "it will keep on happening if something isn't done." DEFINITELY n/t

[Endangered Specie]

21. the last attempt to rename failed miserably and most the

people inthere insisted on the original name.

[MelissaB]

22. It did, and I never understood that. To me the name isn't as important

as what gets done and posted in the forum.

[bookman]

33. How renaming it..

..Election Reform?

[LSdemocrat]

103. I agree. Election reform needs to be about the future, not the past.

Election reform will never occur if it is just seen as a partisan issue brought up by people appearing to gripe about past election results. Reform must occur through a non-partisan, groundswell of concern for the integrity of the electoral system.

[Time for change]

106. Investigating fraudulent elections is not a partisan issue

It is necessary, in order to learn how to prevent future fraudulent elections and to save our democracy.

[WHAT]

134. kick

[tommcintyre]

188. Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News

This name evolved naturally. It's been used for a daily thread in the forum since December.

[tommcintyre]

211. See post #197

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. hoping others will take this poll, so

I am bumping the thread so folks will see this.

Please take the poll, and bump the thread. thank you.

If you aren't sure as to whether electronic voting and elections are a problem, see www.ncvoter.net

[DemReadingDU]

4. I think it should be renamed, Election Forum

and be placed back on the main forum page

[Peace Patriot]

5. The DU "2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum" has been a vital

clearinghouse for information on 2004 election fraud, on 2002 election fraud, and on fraudulent election systems that were installed, or are now being installed, throughout the nation--electronic voting systems manufactured by companies that are owned and run by major Bush donors, and that feature "trade secret," proprietary software for the recording and tabulation of our votes, with almost no auditing controls (for instance, no paper trail in a third of the voting machines in the country in 2004).

This imminent threat to our democracy and to our freedom must be opposed NOW! We MUST throw these election theft companies out of the election business NOW, and reclaim our right to vote!

The DU "2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum" has not only focused on developing and assembling the massive evidence of election fraud, it has also been an Action Center for campaigns to rid ourselves of these fraudulent election SYSTEMS. There is only one way to do this, in the current climate, and that is at the state/local level, where ordinary people still have some potential influence. The power to determine election systems still resides with the states. The federal government, under the Bush Cartel, has done nothing but harm to our election system. They are directly responsible for the corrupt mess that our election system has become. And they are not about to give us back our right to vote.

We post many reports about what is happening in individual states with regard to citizen action to ban these systems or to demand auditing controls (a paper ballot backup, for instance). We answer technical questions, conduct research, keep each other informed, and support state campaigns when it is needed. We also have helped to organize and have acted in support of four different conferences on election fraud/election reform--the national conferences in Tennessee and recently in Houston, and two others in California.

We have vetted the phony, private Baker-Carter "commission on national election reform"--and sussed out its participants and probable motives. We have posted critically important information about bi-partisan corruption in the electronic voting industry (absolutely essential for Democrats to know). Currently, there is an active post on the hogfest to be put on by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia at the Beverly Hilton this August, where they will be wining, dining and corrupting election officials from around the country. We have also vetted the recent DNC report on Ohio--on who wrote it, and why, and what is serious failings are.

We run a continual feature with news reports on election reform activities all over the country. And we have done media campaigns on this issue--and have given active support to courageous journalists and publications who have dared to talk about it.

In addition to all of this, the activists at the Election forum have initiated and promoted campaigns to support those unique and courageous elected officials who have spoken out on the complete corruption of the vote in Ohio--such as John Conyers and Barbara Boxer. We have supported their other efforts as well--such as Boxer's organization of Senate resistance to the nominations of Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales.

We don't just rant. We don't just argue and assert opinion. We don't just pass news around. We ACT! And the organizing happens right within the forum.

This information and this activity is absolutely essential to our recovery of our democracy. Without transparent, verifiable elections, there is almost nothing we can do to change the catastrophic course that this country is on, under Bush Cartel control.

Many of us are convinced that what occurred on November 2, 2004, was not an election but a fascist coup. We believe that the evidence strongly supports this. And opinion polls are also strongly confirming this view. It's becoming very clear that Bush and his Cartel do not represent the majority of Americans. Opinion polls have been telling us this for over a year, on the Iraq war and many other issues. Bush's personal approval rating has sunk to 40%--but it was never very high in recent times! (It was a miserable 49% on his "inauguration" day.)

It is a very great puzzle, how Bush got "re-elected." Whatever you believe about it, the information at this DU forum about our highly insecure, hackable, fraud-prone election system is vital to you as a citizen, and should make you extremely concerned, and determined to do something about it. And it is extremely important that other discontent citizens--the majority!--be able to find this forum easily and participate in it.

Please oppose the burial of this forum in the "back-pages" of DU!

[zann725]

9. Totally agree!

Good post.

And I don't think we should re-name it...unless we want to add something about "Election Fraud." But I see no point in ommitting the "2004 Election" reference in the title. It's like we're trying to do the "keep moving...nothing any more to see" thing by moving it to the back page, and/or re-naming it.

Especially now, since so many other actions of the Shrub Admin. are eliciting "Impeachment" request...we should NOT let it drop that he was NOT legally elected in the first place.

[Time for change]

10. Absolutely

I believe that without serious concern over what happened in 2004, interest in election reform in this country is likely to be luke warm at best. Without that concern, most people look at this as a "potential" problem, and as a result it is not a high priority.

[ray of light]

11. this information needs to be out front

Furthermore, we need a HUGE task force of people willing to go door to door, write LTE, talk at boy/girl scouts, pta meetings, and paper windshields from sunup til sundown!

But we can not sit here on DU getting wiser without taking it to the streets!

BUY the Fritakis book and donate it to the schools or library.

Call the schools and DEMAND they include it as part of the curriculum, even if they only speak about it as "a theory".

[SmileMaker]

19. How about Election Activism, Investigation and Reform

I vote that it stays out front and I suggest that it be renamed something that is election specific. This was what made me discover DU and it's the most important issue. It amazes me that the cons continue to justify every filthy thing they do by claiming that their Ghoulish Girlie-Man pResident won.

[Cookie wookie]

65. Like the name.

Agree this should be front and center.

[Zan_of_Texas]

39. Applauding Peace Patriot's Post.

Yeah!

[loudsue]

51. Nobody could have said it better. It was an ESSENTIAL part of DU

And a critical and CRUCIAL part of our Democracy. If there is going to be a DU ACTIVISM forum, or army, it should have started in the 2004 Election forum.

If we don't act on that ONE ISSUE, anything else we do is just for show.

[tommcintyre]

55. Well articulated: This forum was the nexus of discussion on the web.

Now, with the click of a mouse button, it has been relegated to also-ran status.

I can not speak for others, but I have already began searching for an adequate replacement location(s) to develop, that will treat this issue with the full seriousness it deserves.

I have been working on this issue, way more than full-time, since November 2nd; and I can't afford NOT to use my time wisely. (I have noticed at least one other person who has dedicated themselves full-time to this issue (gave up a business of 17 years) has indicated similar intentions.

If the current situation persists, I will certainly quickly "drop by" to post an article, or make a quick comment, but, again, I must go where I can be most effective, and that won't be here anymore.

[WHAT]

80. Yes...

I hope there is another site central to election fraud and reform developed with an eye to ego-divested organization and activism; also, inclusive of general discussion, news, and everything else. If I were a computer person, I would try to do this myself. As it is, I'm keeping my eyes open.

[Griffy]

6. so some people here ACTUALLY believe Kerry lost..if votes were counted?

how many lies and crimes do you need to prove this.. how many elections need to be stolen before you believe.. I dont get it, the big lies are always hard to grasp... work on it!

[The Magistrate]

7. A Number Of People Believe That, Sir

And have every right to do so....

[Time for change]

12. It is unfortunate that some people are attacked for believing that.

We should no more condone such attacks than we should condone attacks on ourselves for believing that Kerry is the rightful winner of the election.

One major purpose of the Election Forum is to explore this issue in order to find answers. This can be helpful not only in generating public interest in election reform, but also in identifying the ways in which election fraud might have occurred.

[The Magistrate]

15. Well Said, Sir

It is always unfortunate, and detrimental, when persons conduct a "debate" by shrieking their opponents are disinformation agents, dupes, provocatuers and sundry other unwholesome things, as if such abuse settled the matter somehow, or proved the points they attempt to make themselves. Such behavior greatly influences the popular perception of a forum, and tends to restrict participation in it. Gresham's Law applies beyond its origin in monies....

[Jim Sagle]

24. Yeah, but they're kinda stooooopid.

[Cocoa]

25. I'm not stupid

[The Magistrate]

26. Do You Think Me Stupid, Mr. Sagle?

[Jim Sagle]

27. What? Are you actually saying you thhink Kerry lost?

[The Magistrate]

28. It Certainly Seems Possible, Sir

Things do not always turn out as one would wish, but rather as someone else would rather, and where a prediction proves false to a subsequent event, my inclination to accept the event rather than seek to rescue the prediction from it....

[Jim Sagle]

30. To answer your question - no. But you may be too far removed from

the situation to be able to tell what actually happened.

[MelissaB]

31. Out of curosity...do you think our elections are conducted fairly or do

they need to be improved? This forum isn't all about the 2004 presidential election.

[The Magistrate]

34. The Process Needs Great Improvement, Ma'am

It seems the "fix" usually comes in the preparatory stages, in the weeding of voter rolls, the location of stations and allocation of equipments, and in various sorts of suppression techniques. Some of these, particularly the last, are certainly illegal, the others may be so, but in many cases cannot be established as crimes.

The electronic matter is quite beyond my capacity to comment on; there are certainly in this world trained chimpanzees with a better working knowledge of that subject than mine....

[MelissaB]

36. Thank you for the reply.

We have a lot of work to do across this country in the areas you listed. The ER&D forum has been educational for many of us in these matters.

[Griffy]

85. So you dont fully understand the electronic fraud..but you think bush won!

I dont get it.. I dont have all the facts about Iraq either, but I can tell he lied us into this war... I am no economist but I can tell you his SS plan will not help, and is in fact designed to eliminate it..

What shocks me is not the disbelief in Kerry's victory, (since part of the problem is votes that cant be counted) but your belief in the results as reported by a complicit media from a lying administration that has a record of fixing election!! Do you disagree with these points?... if not, how can you support the default that bush won, I truly dont know why you think bush won.. what numbers do you trust?!

and i do respect others opinion, but I challenge them and hope they challenge me! Your media is broke, it is hard to get to the truth!

[The Magistrate]

95. Nothing Yet Put Forward, Sir

Obliges me towards the conclusion the numbers reported are incorrect, or incorrect by any substantial degree. The skullduggery generally occurs before the votes are cast, and there certainly was a good deal of that in certain states. But it is far from demonstrated, even so, that that was necessary for the other side's success.

The basic position most of this boils down to, Sir, remains: "The event did not match my expectations of it, my expectations have to be accurate, therefore the event must have occured in conformance with them, and reports to the contrary are fraud and lies."

It does not much impress me. Many political events during my lifetime have turned out contrary to my expectation, and even more contrary to my desire, which is of course always bound up in any expectation, even when one attempts to discipline one's mind against the possibility of such overlap in analyzing what is likely. It is an unfortunate fact that the other side enjoys a good deal of support among the people of our country, and my view that most of those people who do give it their support are extremely misguided does not alter the fact that they do support it. Certainly for the last forty years or so, any candidate from the Democratic party faces an uphill battle in any election where a great mass of the people feel that matters of miltary decision and national security are at stake, as was the cvase in the '04 election. A preponderance of the people in the country view the left as incompetent, even otherwordly, in such matters, and as a species of brand loyalty, prefer rightists to deal with them. This great fact of our political life is a very large portion of the reason the current regime invaded Iraq in the first place, so it could be taken advantage of at the polls that year.

[Time for change]

96. Whether you believe that Kerry won the election is not the main point

An election in a Democratic country should provide reasonable assurance that the winner really won. That was certainly not the case in the Ohio election, and therefore was not the case for the winner of the national election.

An assurance to the citizens of this country that fraud played no major role in the outcome of this election should be based on a full investigation. A fair, lawful and transparent recount of the votes, as mandated by Ohio law would be the first step in this process. Yet, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell did everything in his power to prevent such a recount.

Samples for the recount were chosen in a non-random manner, contrary to state law, and every effort appears to have been made to ensure that results of the 3% sample recount would match election day results, so as to prevent the occurrence of county-wide hand recounts. Perhaps the most flagrant example of this was Sherole Eaton’s testimony that a Triad technician in Hocking County modified a vote tabulator prior to the recount and advised election officials on how to manipulate voting machinery to ensure that a hand recount would match the machine recount: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml Ms. Eaton was fired from her job as a result of this transgression. How many others witnessed similar events but did not possess enough courage to risk their livelihood in order to make their observations public, as Ms. Eaton did?

Furthermore, Mr. Blackwell has steadfastly refused to testify under oath with regard to the numerous “irregularities” associated with the Ohio election, and has made every effort to bar the public from access to essential documents that might shed some light on what happened on election day. Under these circumstances it is best, in the interest of attempting to preserve our democracy, to maintain a stance that the winner of the 2004 election has not been determined.

In addition, there are numerous specific instances of evidence for fraud in the Ohio election, which have not been fully investigated because Mr. Blackwell has refused us access to the necessary documents. Under such circumstance, the burden of proof should lie with proving that the election was valid, rather than vice versa.

For all these reasons, and many more, the Election forum provides a vital service in attempting to deal with this national crisis -- whether or not definitive evidence exists that Kerry won.

[The Magistrate]

97. That May Be So, Sir

But it was the point the gentleman chose to engage over, and he was willing to go to some lengths in expressing incredulity someone held another view than his.

What you state of Ohio is true, and serious. It looks like the Republican Party machinery in that state is on the verge of being caught up to disaster in the coils of its own money corruption. It is unlikely, given the common patterns of such corruption, that an official like Blackwell and the bureaucracy he controls will be unaffected. It may well be many details emerge to the light of day in the next couple of years, as people try and save themselves from jail time. Every conceivable pressure should be applied to hasten that shaking out. Well publicized proofs would be invaluable, and could alter our political life for a generation.

[Time for change]

104. Agreed -- "Every conceivable pressure should be applied..."

That is a major purpose of the Election forum.

Many thousands of people believe that this is the most serious crisis facing this country today.

Many of those people browse web sites hoping to find a way to contribute to this cause. As noted by numerous first hand testimonies on this thread alone, many people belong to and contribute to the DU only because they found the DU's Election Forum while browsing around. They would never have found it if it wasn't on the front page.

[The Magistrate]

107. Just To Make One Thing Perfectly Clear, Sir

My various comments here are not in any way directed towards where this forum should be placed, nor would any view of mine on the matter have the slightest influence on the proprietors....

It has been a pleasure to make your acquaintance, Sir!

[Time for change]

108. Same to you Magistrate

Let us hope that you are absolutely correct about Blackwell and his cronies.

[Griffy]

145. I ask you again ..please.. WHY do you believe bush won..

I understand I cant prove Kerry won without at least an open investigation, but do you really trust the numbers from Diebold and friends?.. cause the ONLY numbers("modified" exit polls too.. I guess you can say) I know of that show bush winning come in part from those machines, closed software, paperless....

this is hardly my position.. and find it a little insulting...
"The basic position most of this boils down to, Sir, remains: "The event did not match my expectations of it, my expectations have to be accurate, therefore the event must have occured in conformance with them, and reports to the contrary are fraud and lies."

and it is not the position of most, we dont deny we wanted bush out, but that doesnt change in anyway the fact that NEITHER side can PROVE who won... I'm just asking why you believe 1 set of numbers over another. The notion that simply adding the word "offical" has your faith is unlikely.. so I humbly ask again...

Why do you believe bush won...

perhaps you can ask yourself this.. if you know some fraud occured... but the extent is unknown, how can one conclude that the results are correct? Logic says you can not!

My focus is based on the idea that we wont get a fair election till the population knows its broke (at least know that it is unverifiable and hackable)... and if the right guy won.. it aint broke! Gore won, Cleland won, Kerry won.. and the system is rigged now like never before! I fear for '06 with the masses of people unaware of how easy the system is to hack and who owns it.


...he counts the votes has all the power! yes?.. no?

[The Magistrate]

151. It Does Not Seem, Sir

We are having what would be refered to as "a fruitful exchange of views" here.

Victory by the other side does not require explaination by fraud in the tally of votes. It was not an implausible outcome, though certainly it was an undesireable one. Such fraud may have occurred, but that it is possible a thing might have occured does not constitute evidence it did occur, no more than does the fact that someone benefited from an occurance constitute proof that person contrived that occurance.

"Some days you bite the bear, and some days the bear bites you."

[Griffy]

164. your dancing... I'm asking WHY.. this is fruitful.. I REALLY want to know!

BOTH a Kerry victory AND a bush victory were "plausable" outcomes. Since you PERSONALLY could not count the votes.. you must have gotten the information you believe from somewhere! This is what I am talking about.. you continue to focus on motive and prespective, I am not. I am asking what your facts are.. perhaps there is no fraud, they are just lying about it, look how easily they fool the nation, many cant tell bin laden from saddam!... ever think of that? Is it possible for you to address in terms of sources? Like .. CNN reported it.. saw it on DU... friends told me... all news comes from somewhere.. unless you personally witness it, agreed?

Common knowledge isnt common...

[Sterling]

207. It is easier for some people to not see the crime before their face.

It makes it easy to do nothing about it.

[tommcintyre]

49. Some points you may wish to consider...

To Believe that Bush won.....
By: TruthIsAll
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Part 1 (Thu Nov-04-04): To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:

1- That the exit polls were WRONG...

2- That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH, FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

3- That Harris last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

4- The Incumbent Rule I (that undecideds break for the challenger)was WRONG.

5- The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling)

6- The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)

7- That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disnfranchised in 2000.

8- That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.

9- That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.

10- That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

11- That Kerry did WORSE than Gore agains an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.

12- That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.

13- That Voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election

-------------------------------

Part II (Mon Nov-15-04): To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe...

1. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.

2. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio. That accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states.

3. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.

4. That the University of Pennsylvania Professor (trained at MIT) who calculated the probability of Bush gaining votes beyond the exit polling margin of error as ONE out of 250 million, does not have any credibility.

5. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.

6. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.

7. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.

8. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.

9. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.

10. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.

----------------------------

Part IIIb (Tue Dec-28-04): To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe....

1. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.

2. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.

3. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.

4. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 Trillion.

5. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states.
The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.

6. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry.
The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.

7. That Bush could overcome Kerry’s 50.8% - 48.2% lead in the National Exit Poll Sub-sample (13,047 polled) and win the popular vote: 51.2% - 48.4%, a 3.0% increase from the exit poll to the vote tally, far beyond the 0.86% margin of error.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 282 Billion.

8. That Kerry would edge Bush by 15 votes in the additional 1000 votes uncovered in the Oshocton County OH recount, when Bush had previously won 57% of the 16,000 votes initially counted. Oshocton was the ONLY Ohio county which did a FULL recount.
The odds of this occurrence: Less than 1 in 4 million.

9. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.

10. That Mitofsky, with 25 years of exit polling experience, has lost his touch.

--------------------------------------

Part IV (Wed Mar-23-05): To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe...

1. That the Final National Exit Poll (FEP) of 13660 respondents, which was matched to the recorded vote and had Bush the winner by 51-48%, had to be accurate. And you must also believe that the Preliminary Exit Poll (PEP) of 13047 which had Kerry the winner by 51-48% had to be inaccurate.

2. That if the FEP re-weighted the PEP percentage of Bush 2000 voters who voted in 2004 (from 41% to 43%) and also adjusted the corresponding Gore voters (from 38% to 37%), then the re-weighting accurately reflects the final vote count - which Bush won by 51-48%.

And it would, if Bush 2000 voters did in fact comprise 43% of all 2004 voters (122.26 million). But they didn’t, because the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM percentage of Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004 was 41.3% (50.45/122.26). This is the same 41% (rounded?) as given in the PEP, which Kerry won by 51-48%. And so even 41.3% is too high, for it assumes that NOT ONE Bush 2000 voter died prior to 2004, and that EVERY Bush 2000 voter also voted in 2004. Knowing this is impossible, why would you believe the FEP that said Bush won by 51-48%, since this very result assumes an impossibility?

3. That the 43% (52.57 million) of Bush 2000 voters who voted in 2004 must be LESS than the total Bush vote in 2000, since it is obvious that a certain percentage of Bush 2000 voters have passed on. And we can also assume that other former Bush voters either could not or would not vote in 2004. But it wasn't LESS, it was MORE, so why would you believe it?

4. That the 43% statistic is accurate since Bush won by 51-48% and this weighted result assumes 43%. But for this result to be true, then you must also believe that Bush had at least two million more votes in 2000 than the 50.45 million he was credited with. But we know this is not true, so why would you believe it?

5. That the published U.S. annual death rate of 0.87% is incorrect, because if it were true, then it follows that about 3.5% of the population dies during each four year period. Therefore, Bush must have received at least 54.3 million votes in 2000 (52.57+1.75), if we assume that 1.75 million (or 3.5%) of Bush voters in 2000 passed on. This is a necessary condition in order to believe the 43% statistic. But Bush only received 50.45 million votes, so why would you believe it?

6. That Kerry won only 51% of the female vote, although the PEP had him winning by 54-45%. Gore won 54% of females in 2000. So why would you believe the FEP?

7. That the FEP Party ID weights were 37% Democrat/37% Republican/ 26% Independents, while the PEP had it 38/35/27 - virtually the same as the final exit poll Party_ID demographic in the prior three elections.

8. That even though Kerry won at least 4 million more votes than Bush among the 17% (21 million) voters who did NOT vote in 2000 (Kerry led 57-41% in the PEP, 54-45% in the FEP), he would still lose the election. Why would you believe it?

9. That even though Kerry won the new voters and those who did not vote in 2000 by at least 4 million (12-8 million), and that the Bush 2004 vote based on the 43% Bush 2000 voter stat was at least 3 million too high, Bush still gained 12 million votes from 2000 (from 50 to 62 million). Why would you believe it?

10. That the Reluctant Bush Responder (RBR) theory is true. Otherwise, how else could one explain the PEP exit poll discrepancies which had Kerry winning? But if you believe RBR, how can you also believe that 43% of Bush 2000 voters came to the polls in 2004, but only 37% did for Gore? Both statements CANNOT be true, because they are contradictory, yet they MUST BOTH both be true if one is to believe that Bush really did win the election. But why would you believe it?

[The Magistrate]

50. None Of That Is Necessary, Mr. McIntyre

All that is really required is awareness that predictions and samplings often fail, and that things do not always break the way one would prefer in the event. It really does not surprise me the other side got a few more votes, and beyond the calamatous effect the continuation of this regime has on the country, it does not distress me too much that they did so. We shall just have to do better next time....

"Democracy is a form of government based on belief the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard."

[tommcintyre]

112. If the election was stolen, we can NOT "do better next time"

Think about it. It is no longer a matter of the "will of the people"; but, rather, the "will" of those who control the vote count that matter.

Also, I think there is often a disconnect (miscommunication) between progressives who support investigation into possible election fraud, and those who do not.

Many of the non-supporters seem to assume that we need "proof" of election fraud before an investigation should ensue. In reality, we don't have the resources to likely prove it - but a full-blown commission (like 9/11) are much more likely to. Even so, because of the nature of election fraud, even they may never be able to prove it - in spite of the mountain of evidence that has been accumulated.

So what purpose does the 2004 ERD forum (and any serious investigation(s) it may help lead to) serve? It continues to uncover new evidence, and constantly "shine a light on" the possibility that this election was stolen; and without the necessary repairs, all future national/presidential elections will be stolen also.

In the end, taking the 2004 ERD forum off the front page can only decrease our effectiveness.

[The Magistrate]

132. What You Say Here, Mr. McIntyre

Verges on the mere declaration of devotion to a creed. If you acknowledge you "may never be able to prove it", and that despite "the mountain of evidence that has been accumulated," this suggests you would be wise to be open to the possibility that it did not occur, and that these mountains of evidence are something else. To declare a thing occured while admitting it cannot be proved to have occured is to indulge in faith, and where the starting point of an investigation is faith, the results of that investigation are unlikely to much impress those who do not already share the faith: the unending efforts to "prove" the Bible by archeology offer eloquent testimony to this, for they awe believers, and amuse infidels, while settling nothing at all.

This may shed some light on what you refer to as a "disconnect" between those who share your view, and those who do not. It may not be quite a question of your opponents assuming "we need 'proof' of election fraud before an investigation should ensue," but of their simply not feeling as a matter of faith that the thing certainly has occured, and undoubtedly would be uncovered by a full-bore investigation, and accordingly doubting that the facts now available would be sufficient to press the authorities to commence investigation in that manner, or even doubting that there is enough evidence to prove the thing occured at all that an investigation could uncover.

It will be obvious, too, that this is a sort of discussion many people will be apt to avoid, just as many people avoid trying to convince a devout neighbor the Pentateuch was not actually written by Moses nor the bulk of the Epistles by the Apostles they are creditted to, or simply try and find another subject when an acquaintance begins to speak about how alien beings control human affairs, or the prophetic codes fortelling all history embedded in the dimensions of the Gizan Pyramids. Debating against articles of faith is a frustrating and generally fruitless pursuit; only people who enjoy the wrangle for its own sake will indulge in it, and that is not so common a taste.

[tommcintyre]

141. Have you tried looking in the mirror lately? ;)

Verges on the mere declaration of devotion to a creed.
I would venture to guess that generally describes your opinions; etched in stone as if Moses himself wrote them.

...only people who enjoy the wrangle for its own sake will indulge in it, and that is not so common a taste.
Ah... that's certainly NOT my taste, so I bid you farewell, and wish you a very satisfying life, Mr. Magistrate.

<Well... at least you gave me a chuckle.>

<Message (and conversation) saved for posterity.>

[The Magistrate]

144. That Is Probably For The Best, Sir

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[EFerrari]

148. LOL!

So true!

Is that Mr. Wilde?

[The Magistrate]

149. It Is, Ma'am

He is one of my very favorites. Here is another....

"I like people better than principles, and I like people without principles better than anything in this world."

[EFerrari]

150. Thank you.

My favorite moment as a sometime teacher was when I had the Cal hockey team studying "Earnest". They were given a choice to write an essay or to give two characters without a love scene a moment under the lights.

I'd not lived before I was treated to half of the hockey team in drag.

[The Magistrate]

152. You Are A Cold Lady, Ma'am

Why people would not want to write an essay is beyond me....

[EFerrari]

153. It is possible that they were doing me a kindness

whose magnitude I have yet to appreciate.

A full HALF of the hockey team.

lol

on edit: It was a misunderstanding between me and some young people.

[autorank]

173. I have enjoyed the colloquy between you and tommcintyre. Thoughts

You say: "their simply not feeling as a matter of faith that the thing certainly has occurred, and undoubtedly would be uncovered by a full-bore investigation, and accordingly doubting that the facts now available would be sufficient to press the authorities to commence investigation in that manner, or even doubting that there is enough evidence to prove the thing occurred at all that an investigation could uncover."

This argument, distilled, says essentially that if an individual feels that the results of an investigation will not be fruitful, then they have a legitimate stance to oppose one." That argument, prior "proof," violates the very purpose of an investigation. Voting rights were violated (see Conyers, DNC, Ohio and other voting rights activists). There is parallel evidence, from statistical analysis of information that was not intended for release (the timed National Exit Polls) that is strong enough, by any standards of starting an investigation, to cause serious doubt as to the accuracy of the vote count in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. We have our legal right to vote. This is a public right. It cannot be abridged nor can it be obfuscated without inquiry. Failure to require inquiry, for possible fraud by either side, fails to protect the most basic of all public rights in a democracy. Voting rights are the rights from which all others flow.

For those with eyes to see, see; for those with ears to hear, hear; and and for those with minds to use, use them. Review this and tell me there is not’t ample reason to begin an immediate investigation.

[Stevepol]

191. Just curious. What would constitute "proof" in an election?

The exit poll indicates that Kerry won (Edison/Mitofsky), which Mitofsky himself admits -- that is, he says that both the exit poll and the supposed final result could not both have been true.

And you have the mountains of circumstantial evidence that indicate fraud asstd w/ the electronic voting machines in addition to the items listed above related to demographics and every other facet of the election, all pointing to a Kerry win.

My question is simple: how can anyone "prove" that Bush won the election?

If so, how would you prove it?

[Twist_U_Up]

8. 2004 election forum is how I found DU

I stumbled on it by searching election fraud, right after 2004 election. Took me right to a thread and its been very enlightening since.

[KaliTracy]

14. me too ... If I hadn't found DU I do think I would have

exploded.


head and all.

[Misskittycat]

47. Me, too. I would definitely have exploded.

The Election forum needs to stay front and center.

[tommcintyre]

189. Well... that's why I stayed

I came here in the middle of October to help beat the *. Then I stayed to help expose his second presidential theft.

[MelissaB]

13. Please keep it on the main page.

I don't mind renaming the forum, either. I like something like "Election reform, fraud, and discussion" or just "Election reform".

[Gelliebeans]

43. Just because I don't comment

often in this forum doesn't mean I haven't been reading it. This is vital for future elections. So many of you (the regulars) keep us in the know and we really appreciate it even if we forget to say so. You number crunchers have my utmost respect.

[tommcintyre]

59. Yeah, it's like "the tip of the iceberg". Many more are reading, and...

many more will... if they can find it.

[Eric J in MN]

17. I voted Yes.

Without clean elections, we don't stand a chance.

[PA Mamma]

18. Yes!

Every vote should be counted - and they aren't - it's a fact. Seen it with my own two eyes.

New name would be okay. How about: Voter Rights

[garybeck]

20. yes, because

the only way the problems with the election system are going to be fixed is if more attention is put on it, not less.

[tommcintyre]

60. Definitely, the more attention it gets, the better chance we have...

of getting fair elections.

[Amaryllis]

23. Yes. Agree it needs to be more encompassing than 2004. And needs

to include fraud in the title. Election fraud and reform would be fine. Or election fraud, reform and related news.

[Cocoa]

29. it's kind of a dysfunctional forum

there's a certain spamminess to it, which is less disruptive to DU when the forum is quarantined.

It's a shame that a quality discussion of election reform can't take place on DU, do to the way a group of people choose to conduct themselves.

[MelissaB]

32. Please explain.

[Cocoa]

40. see post #24

that's the kind of dysfunction I'm talking about.

[Time for change]

72. This is a very large forum and a very emotional issue

The value of the whole forum shouldn't be judged by the fact that some individuals may become hostile and say things that they shouldn't say.

[Cocoa]

109. it's not just some individuals

that post represents, exactly, to me, the spirit of that forum, which is identical imo to the spirit of the old "BBV."

I'm coming from the point of view of someone who has disagreed strongly with BBV and with the current prevailing theories in your forum, and has been insisting on expressing my disagreement for a long time.

[Sterling]

208. People get upset when their right to vote is usurped

I am more disturbed by those that are calm about it.

[althecat]

46. Cocoa has thought the idea of vote fraud dysfunctional for about three yrs

There is considerable history to his skeptical views...

[Sterling]

209. It is frustrating that we have these kinds of apathetic

attitudes in our party. It is a big part of of why we can't mount a real fight against the criminals ruining our country.

[tommcintyre]

35. Election Fraud/Reform is the ROOT issue

<I wrote this article two days after the election was stolen. It was true then, and even more true now - considering the mountain of evidence that has accumulated in the last eight months.>

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud_arti... :
Election Fraud:
THE most important issue for all of us

November 4th - 30 percent of all Presidential ballots were cast this year, using electronic voting (Evoting). With Evoting, it is very easy to change the results of an election. And no one can prove it, since there is no paper trail (no hard copy).

I believe this is the most important issue all progressives face. Bush didn't "win" reelection - it was stolen (read here). Not only did Bush steal the Whitehouse again; but they also swept the South's Senate seats. And, they even ousted Senator Tom Daschle by a very "close" margin. This probably sent a very ominous message to the other Senate Dems: "mess with us and we won't keep you around as a "token" minority." This is the first time in 53 years that a party Leader has been beaten. A GOP spokesman described Daschle as an "obstructionist" (threat - don't get in our way!).

I believe in two years, they will try to "finish the job". They will try to defeat enough Democratic Senators to take away their ability to filibuster*. If this happens, there will be no stopping them! They will be able to appoint the most extremist right-wing judges, etc. They will have unchecked power - since they will have total control of all branches of our federal government. In effect, our country will become a total fascist state!
*A device, used only in the Senate, to delay or prevent a vote by time-consuming talk. It can be stopped only by a 60-member vote of the senators present and voting.

Clearly, this should be THE most important issue for all of us. I'm not suggesting that you give up any other causes you have. But we all must give very serious effort to stop Evoting Fraud. If we don't, it is very possible that our other progressive interests will be greatly marginalized, if not outright eliminated. So I suggest devoting as much time to this as your other causes, until all States and all elections have a paper trail.

I have created a new web page ("Election Fraud"), that is devoted to informing, educating and bringing about the end of the paperless ballot.
I will add to this page daily. Please email me with any link suggestions; and check back regularly.
----------------------------------------
<Edited for beter link.>

[EFerrari]

37. Yes, it is. And if we overlook this issue, we're spinning wheels..

[helderheid]

38. YES. 2004 ELECTION FRAUD.

[Renew Deal]

41. I would say no but

I feel that the forum has been productive. For that reason alone, I would say yes. But it doesn't matter to me either way.

[katinmn]

42. Voted Yes. I like the name Election Reform

It's ongoing.

[kster]

44. Voted Yes, Recommended And Kick...nt

[farmboxer]

45. Yes!

We must stop the Republican manufactured and programmed voting machines! We must stop all the voter fraud, but I feel the rigged voting machines, without a paper trail, is the biggest problem. There is no excuse for the other problems either, of course!

I voted a huge "Yes"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[omega minimo]

48. This move and the reaction have increased your visibility

with DUers who are not new, who may have been interested in THE issue, who have not visited the Elections Forum in a while.

"... potentially reduced the ability of this forum to fulfill its goals, by virtue of the fact that new members or potential new members are unlikely to be aware of it."

Placement may not be as big a problem as you think. People will find you and add to My Forums.

The "outrage" and "abomination" comments directed at DU/Skinner in the Forum may have made the point moot? (Once his eyebrows grow back, he may consider....) It appeared there was some Very Personal Stuff going on over there. Not clear why it approached conspiracy level outbursts!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it would be good to be in the "backwater of irrelevance" with the unwashed masses of DU for a while. It could provide new energy for the important work you are dedicated to.

There will be new opportunities for broader discussion, including "dealing with the fundamental issues of consent of the governed....the disenfranchisement of the majority, the catastrophic failure of the Democratic Party to demand a transparent, verifiable election, the wrong result in the election, and the illegitimacy of our national government.”

[yurbud]

52. "election rigging"

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[tandem5]

53. Give the forum a more general title, but the topic is paramount...

and it should be brought back to the main page.

[sweetheart]

54. no, time to get with the now

As much as there was fraud involved, the 2004 election will live in
infamy, but it is past and over.

We need to impeach the bastard for lying and war crimes, and take down
the whole lot of them. That is the now. This load of scumbags needs to
pay for the crimes they've committed, and it does not help us to sound
like a broken record regarding what was a really close election.

We need to impeach and win the next election. THat is the future.

I support having it off the page. I as well support having the 2000
election off the page and 9/11 off the page... its yesterday's dirt.

[meganmonkey]

61. The problem with that way of thinking is that in 2008

are we all going to act surprised when there are more irregularities, more shady results, more evidence of suppression and fraud?
Not enough was done after the 2000 election mess, so 2004 was even worse. How do we expect 2008 (or the 2006 election, for that matter) to be safe, secure, and accurate elections if we don't try to fix the problem?

[sweetheart]

67. Then rename the forum to "avoiding election fraud in 2008"

We need to be proactive, and looking to the future. I agree with
everything you say, AND we need to look forward to today's battles
like progressives. Winning tomorrow is a more powerful focus than
being a sore loser yesterday. (even if it is just appearances).

[TruthIsAll]

78. We are sore because we were WINNERS, not losers in 2004.

sweetheart, have you ever spent time on that forum?

We were f*** in 2000.
They said: get over it.
We did nothing.

We were f*** in 2002.
They said: get over it.
We did nothing.

We were f*** in 2004.
Now you say: think about the future
I say: We did. In 2000 and 2002.

The future is now.
This time, we will not make the same mistake of thinking that the future will take care of things.

[sweetheart]

79. Ok, we WERE winners, now what?

I totally support the drive to get the voting corruption fixed, and
frankly find the irony that a man who lost the presidency is in my
face at all; TOTALLY sickening every. single. day... every single one.

Just as a party, as a coalition of persons, we need to turn this
anger and disgust towards 2006 and 2008. The history is relevant to
those futures, then lets frame it in that way. I'm not suggesting at
all to eliminate a very healthy forum. I merely suggest either a name
change or a subtle way to take the energy and wisdom of 3 corrupt
elections and to win this next one... by the frame of the forum.

9/11 is a dead subject. I've not visited that forum for years. It is
that way with the past, that as relevant as it may seem, we become
historians rather than activists. Impeach bush now. End the drugs
war now. Out of iraq NOW. Count all the votes NOW. Recordable
physical ballots NOW.

Perhaps the forum might be called: "elections NOW"
"Ending election corruption"
"Electoral systems and voting fraud"
"Ending voting fraud 2006"
"Learning from electoral history"

We need a way to put DU in a forward focus FRAME.

I do not wish to tread on the sacred truth, but i can see the reason
for shifting the old forums off the masthead. Until the old becomes
new, it will only get older.

[marions ghost]

83. election theft is ongoing

...far from being a dead subject. If the reference to 04 is too "historical" for a large no. of people, then call it Elections Forum but leave it on the front page. It's a key avenue of investigation, which heats up repeatedly...no need to relegate it to the back burners.

[sweetheart]

87. Agreed "Elections Forum" on the front page is the right way forward

eom

[Griffy]

146. AREyou KIDDING.. bush uses 911 DAILY..

your forward thinking is great, but you want to ignore the painful past.. for fear of how we look?? we are in this mess for NOT stranding up and stopping everything and pointing at the guilty! We take the abuse like a battered wife.. forgiving the man and saying it will be better next time... its the people ability to believe we DONT live in a democracy that is a problem! I dont know how to look forward like you want with understanding the past! 911 was not an accident, and that makes a huge difference to me, I can see the neocons and thier agenda clearly, and Iraq and rigged election are part of the game! The propaganda we face is the real problem, since they "sore loser" position would come from them, and others that just want to move on! ...

I fear we will be battered again.. perhaps in late '06.. I will ask you if your ready to look to the past, and admit the problem.. and NOT let it go till it is SOLVED and the guilty are held accountable! Look at the War lies, the 911 lies, the election lies, energy policy lies, social security lies, tax cut lies, jobs lies, health care lies.... lies lies lieslieslieslieslies! (this crumbles without a propaganda machine)

there was a coup in '00 and most American dont even know it yet..! after all.. who selected him.. the people or the court?

[bobbieinok]

157. '9/11 is a dead subject' ....... GOOD GRIEF, CHARLEY BROWN!!!!!!!!!

[Amaryllis]

63. We CANNOT win another election as long as private corporations

with highly partisan polictical and financial conflicts of interests are using secret software souce code to count our votes.

[sweetheart]

64. Indeed that is true

But we cannot win as well, if we do not drop the image of "whiners"
caught in the past, of poor losers who spend their time fighting the
last election instead of the current one.

Election fixing through computer counting corruption is a separate subject
from the 2004 election. Then the forum should be "election and
balloting systems". Its a dry name, but it covers the dirt without
the need to refight last years's war.

[Cookie wookie]

68. Just how will we "win the next election"

if we do not do the work of catching possible fraud and changing the voting systems and processes that are currently in place that can either perpetuate that fraud or leave elections wide open to undetected fraud, as paperless DREs do?

Okay, let's take a really really simple analogy.

someone wants a big chicken dinner.
that someone has a hen house.
that hen house has openings that foxes can enter.
there is documented evidence that foxes love to eat hens
and that there are always foxes in the neighborhood of the hen house.
foxes may have been eating the chickens in that hen house.
there is no way to tell for sure, because the owner doesn't go in and count the hens, for whatever reason (let's say it's a proprietary hen house).
what should that chicken-dinner lover do?
sit around and look forward to a great chicken dinner?
or find and patch the holes in the hen house?

I know this is a really stupid analogy and that sarcasm is not a best practice when it comes to education, but I just can't understand why is it so hard for people to get it when it comes to the vital and essential need to catch and prevent massive election fraud? It's seems like such a no brainer.

[sweetheart]

69. jetteson the references to the past, and i agree

We're a political forum and we need to prevent election fraud going
forward, like "progressives" do. This could be as simple as taking
the "2004" out of the forum name and focusing on future fraud avoidance.

I hear ya... how can we win back power when they control the count.
Well we win by kicking their ass, and fixing the fraud at the same
time.... i really think the forum just needs a new name, so that those
folks can be seen to be seeing the past in terms of the now and the future.

[Time for change]

73. The past is called history

There is a very good reason that it is a required part of our educational curriculum. Without an understanding of history we wouldn't be able to make much progress.

[Time for change]

71. If we don't understand and address the 2004 election fraud

why would you expect that we would ever win another election, even if we did impeach Bush?

[garybeck]

89. you're not going to win the next election unless

the fraud is exposed. Diebold is still there. It doesn't matter how much they are hated, they will steal it again.

remember, Saddam Hussein survived many "elections" over his lifetime, as have many dictators.

we can't "get over it" on this one. we must fight this fight until it is won, even if it takes years.

[Time for change]

91. Exactly

There is no reason why we should worry about being called "sore losers" Being "sore losers" has NOTHING to do with this. There is a vast amount of evidence out there that gives us plenty of reason for believing that Kerry won -- foremost among them the fact that the Ohio Secretary of State did everything in his power to prevent an assessment of what happened in the Ohio election, including stonewalling of Conyers' committee, steadfast refusal to testify under oath, and preventing a recount of the Ohio vote, in accordance with Ohio law. See this thread for a summary of some of the major reasons for suspecting that Kerry won Ohio: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... .

Sore losers indeed. Republicans should not be above the law just because the MSM enables them to act that way. If they get away with this there is no telling what this means for the future of our country.

[mopinko]

56. i support a name change

but it is the most important issue there is.

[tommcintyre]

57. I like the button - it says it all. n/t

[mopinko]

62. thanks nt

[Amaryllis]

126. Yes, great slogan. would be good as a bumper sticker too.

[autorank]

66. Put it back now, please. The sentiment is overwhelming. Vital to DU.

The "shake up" has done its shaking, with ill effect. (Excellent post!)

--Removing ERD from Admins Pics will not migrate ERD folks over to Activists as part of the 1000 activists. ERD people, like others on DU, already have their activist paths.

--Removing ERD won't make it easier for DUers or lurkers to get to ERD, it will make it harder.

--Removing ERD from from the Admins Pics won't make ERD easier to manage. A more aggressive elimination of people who "visit" ERD just to go after certain users will.

--Removing ERD from the Admins Pics won't help new users, it will take away a vital part of DU from easy access...the horror, a group of newbies who actually think we have free and fair elections.

Removing ERD from Admins Pics reduces it's visibility, reduces one of DU's highest quality forums, and it's, quite simply, a put down of ERD and what goes on here. There is no other way to interpret the act.

The decision should be reversed immediately.

[marions ghost]

75. Agreed...

Admins: Please put the Elections Forum back on the front page, giving it the prominence that it truly deserves. The DUers working in this forum have done a crucial job in keeping the issues alive despite many attempts to sweep them under the rug. The forum's ongoing investigations and election reform efforts are essential, a key means of exposing the systemic abuses of the current regime. It's a plus for DU that the elections forum be given front page status. I think it one of the most enlightened features of this website. Please reconsider.

[bleever]

102. What MG said. And the very presence of people who would say

"I don't find it necessary to consider any evidence, I just acknowledge that sometimes things don't go our way and we have to try harder next time" underlines the absolute necessity of this work. For me and many others, it is central to the value and power of DU.

[autorank]

129. Amen, "I bleev"

[bobbieinok]

156. agree agree agree

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

74. kick.nt

[Mr.Green93]

76. Never Forget!

Yes.

[bobbieinok]

77. ABSOLUTELY YES YES YES many DUers joined because of stolen

election

[LeahD]

93. Count me as one of those

who found DU, because of the stolen election.

On edit....please move back to the main page.

[tommcintyre]

172. Yes, and that's why many stay.

For many, politics in general, are not that interesting; but they are very concerned that their vote doesn't count.

[catabryna]

81. As a newbie, but long time lurker

It is easy to forget that Election Results forum exists. But, because I was glued to that forum for so long, I do manage to make it there; just not as often as I used to.

So, I guess that makes my answer "Yes".

Cat

[Eloriel]

82. Absolutely. And I'm pissed it was moved.

Sigh. Why can't this critical forum be left ALONE? First the tried to change the name (and were met with one hellish backlash, thankfully), and now they've tried to disappear it. For shame.

I have to say, it makes me worry just a bit about the new DU Activist program. The election fraud/vote suppression/computerized voting issue is arguably THE most important issue in the country for Democrats and all the people ("Ya can't vote 'em out if ya didn't vote 'em in"), and what's the first thing that happens after the DU Activist initative gets announced? The whole subject gets disappeared.

NOT a good omen.

[autorank]

98. Great point. What good is that "activism" if votes don't count...

...as you say, this is THE baseline issue. In '06 nearly 80% of the votes will be tabulated by two firms, Diebold and ESS, both controlled by extremist Republicans.

Now somebody please tell me, is OK about that, why is that tolerated, what does it take for Dcmocrats to wake up and smell the coffee.

I post on a number of issues in GD and GD Politics and when it's election reform issues, e.g., Rep. Conyers, DNC, I get huge threads going without much more that my standard "f" word truncation in the subject field. General DUers are extremely well educated because they read and think on their own and because of ERD and the interaction there.

Tossing ERD aside won't due. Bring it back now.

[lonestarnot]

84. ABSODAMNLUTELY!

This is not a dead issue!

[MelissaB]

86. We have a politician screaming about the 2002 stolen election

Siegelman still says election was pilfered

Ex-governor using professor's report to back up his claim

By Dana Beyerle
Montgomery Bureau

MONTGOMERY -- Former Gov. Don Siegelman still believes the 2002 governor's race was stolen from him by someone who manipulated a Baldwin County vote-count computer.

He's using an Auburn University professor's report to back him up.

"Oh yeah, I believe it. Absolutely,'' Siegelman said last week. "There's no way for a computer to get different results.''

On Nov. 5, 2002, Baldwin County election officials, based on a vote tally at 11:04 p.m., initially reported that Siegelman got 19,070 votes in the county, while challenger Bob Riley got 31,052.

...snip

"The manipulation that I suspect took place, I'm pretty certain took place in the tallying machine,'' Gundlach said. "After everybody left, except a handful of Republican officials, they ran another set and pulled the second set back and ran a third set. (The third set) were the final certified results, which gave Riley the election.''

More: http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...

How about that...This appeared in Sunday's newspaper. I was shocked to see it.

[byronius]

88. I come in today, and what do I find? My Forum Gone! Damn!

This is the Big Issue, people! What the Hell!! Put it BACK!!

[NC Beach Girl]

90. kick!

[Generator]

92. We have outrage fatigue but a big yes

Because obviously double duh if your vote is in doubt then all this yacking and speculating and fund raising and writing and yelling and pleading and hoping and believing we do and the rest of the whole ball of wax is POINTLESS.

[Amaryllis]

127. Why is it so hard for some to see something so obvious?

[tommcintyre]

187. Mostly denial I think.

It IS such a scary prospect, so I have been told here from very experienced DUers,"Get over it, it was just another election". One above even told me here, "we'll just have to do better next time".?!?!

If their not beholding in some way to the Dem leadership that continue to fail us so badly, it has just got to be denial. sigh

[tommcintyre]

94. kick n/t

[autorank]

99. Kick

[bleever]

100. Yes. Without real elections, the GOP runs everything, forever.

Remove the "2004" and continue it as "Election Results and Discussion Forum".


Let it continue forward without interruption under the new name.

God bless DU.

[autorank]

101. Right, on removing only 2004--then there's no excuse to dump it.

[Helga Scow Stern]

105. Absolutely! And perhaps with a name change.

Without clearing up the fraud, no other democratic efforts really matter.....

[FogerRox]

110. >wink< those muther fluckers stole my vote, forum?

[MelissaB]

111. I love it!

[denese]

113. me too

I think it's perfect

[Helga Scow Stern]

136. Don't Fluck With The Vote Forum?

[Amaryllis]

190. No one can say that is a dry or boring title! :)

[north houston dem]

114. yes please

[Peace Patriot]

115. Election Justice Forum: 2004 and Beyond

Just thought of this. Kip Humphrey thought up the first part--"Election Justice Forum"--which I like--and I thought up the second part--"2004 and Beyond"--so that 2004 is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER FORGOTTEN!

Note: It leaves out 2002, and 2000 for that matter--but we will include information on them, of course, esp. '02.

QUESTION FOR DU: I want to know what will happen to the archives, if we change the name. They contain so much pertinent, relevant, current, vital information! On-going analysis and discussion. On-going campaigns. Will it all be burried and hard to find?

[Time for change]

116. I agree that 2004 should never be forgotten

And should be part of the title.

Certainly there must be a way to make sure that searches of the archives will include whatever names the forum has ever gone by.

[Peace Patriot]

117. Note: AND PUT IT BACK ON THE MAIN PAGE!!!

Some other thoughts on a forum title:

I'm not quite 100% happy with

"Election Justice Forum: 2004 and Beyond"

It needs more bite, maybe?

It's pretty good. It says a lot. That there is injustice. That we need to aim at the next elections, but never forget what they did, and work like mad to repair the election system BECAUSE of what they did.

Yeah, it says a lot. I'm almost happy with it. I could live with--IF we go back into Admin Picks on the main page, and IF our archives are not buried.

[Amaryllis]

128. FLorida 2000 was won with a Diebold tabulator that dumped 16,022 Gore

votes. the "error" was found and corrected after Gore conceded. It didn't start with 2004.

[marions ghost]

118. "2004 and Beyond"

--this addition is good--projects it into the future but doesn't erase the past. There are a lot of diverse interests who would like the questions about the elections of 2004 to just quietly fade away (similar to the idea that the WMD question is now "history").

The elections of 2004 were a critical turning point for so many--when the full understanding of the hijacking of the country sank in. I did a little poll awhile back at DU asking, "when was your political epiphany?" and listed various big historical moments going back to Vietnam. By FAR the most responses were to "Elections of 2000" or "Elections of 2004." Tells you something about the importance of this forum.

[Time for change]

119. If you want to get an idea of the effect of these elections on DUers

See what percent of us joined in November or December of 2000 or 2004.

[MelissaB]

120. You are right! Many of the profiles I click on joined then...

[foo_bar]

137. DU didn't exist in 2000

So that's 0% for the first figure (0.0013% if Skinner made a test account).

There were 55,258 registrations on election day (per the Wayback Machine), as this highly suggestive pie chart suggests:

[Time for change]

154. How did you do that?

Can you tell how many registrations there were in Nov/Dec 2000 and Nov/Dec 2004?

[foo_bar]

161. DU launched on 1/20/2001

72,682 user registrations and 16,376,403 posts since January 2001

Can you tell how many registrations there were in Nov/Dec 2000

Zero, per above.

and Nov/Dec 2004?

59,592 on 11/29/2004, but that's the most recent cache on web.archive.org. Beyond that, there's two "happy 60,000+!" Lounge threads on December 16, 2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Time for change]

163. Thank you foobar -- I was most interested to know about NEW

registrations in November/December 2004, compared to other months. But it looks like they don't have info on that.

[foo_bar]

168. you just subtract the two figures to get new registrations

The reg number represents the cumulative number of registrations to date, not active users (i.e., the number doesn't go down). From the data gleaned so far, there were 4,742 new users in the 6 weeks following the election (11/2/2004 (55,258) to 12/16/2004 (60,000)).

[Time for change]

171. Ok, thank you

[rumpel]

121. Yes, a lot of investigation by many DU'ers are of great value. Further now

that we know of the dangers still lurking in 2006 the more serious participants the merrier we'll be. We now know the modus operandi of the thugs, therefore we have to spread the word to prevent further damage to our basic rights.

[autorank]

122. KICK for democracy

Listen to the will of the PEOPLE!!!

[lonestarnot]

123. Damn... says I already voted!

[autorank]

124. Get a friend to vote ... same thing.

[lonestarnot]

125. Okeedokee then!

and

[demodonkey]

130. Nothing Else on DU Matters w/o Clean Elections. NOTHING.

No matter WHAT Dems do, about ANY issue, without a fair vote you will LOSE. Forever. End of story. Put it back on the FRONT PAGE where it belongs, please.


2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum brought me into DU, BTW, and frequently is what keeps me here.

[kster]

131. kick.nt

[LeahD]

133. Yes, news of what happened in 2004 keeps me here too. n/t

[tommcintyre]

186. Sadly, it's true. n/t

[AnotherMother4Peace]

135. The election forum is what drew me into DU - amazing info found there

[ebayfool]

138. That forum is where I first landed when I found DU!

I didn't post a lot, but was obsessed w/ reading it - 2004 was my first clue of how election fraud was so prevalent. I still am obsessed w/reading it - I just don't post since I haven't the brainpower of most of you folks! It was & is an important part of my 'awakening'. I've always been a dem - but I was a very naive dem!

on edit: I vote yes!

[EFerrari]

147. That's where I landed, too.

I didn't even read GD for months.



/typin'

[suffragette]

139. It belongs on the main page.

I found DU because of the 2004 Election Forum.
I joined DU because of the 2004 Election Forum.
I first spoke to someone from DU because of the 2004 Election Forum.
I first met wonderful DU'ers in DC on Jan 5th and Jan 6th because of the 2004 Election Forum.
I haven't posted there lately, but I still go there first and take a look whenever I visit DU. It's the heart of this place and it's still beating strongly, if not as loudly as it once did.
Please put it back on the main page where it belongs.

[Pallas180]

140. Elections are ongoing: dems'll never win any unless voting machines are

retooled, changed, or we go back to paper ballots.

[autorank]

143. I knew you'd show up.

[loudsue]

142. Yes!! Hell yes!!

This is the MOST important topic of the day! The 2004 election was stolen from us, just as the 2000 and the 2002 elections were.

Come 2006, we will be sitting here pissing and moaning ONCE AGAIN if we don't keep abreast of the activism....AND MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS to the activism....to prevent our votes from vaporizing in some pre-programmed voting machine!

[tommcintyre]

170. Yep: "Come 2006, we will be sitting here pissing and moaning ONCE AGAIN"

Handle it now, or pay the price later.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

155. No.

Same answer I gave to the original thread in this vein, before it was unsurprisingly cross-posted into GD.

[tommcintyre]

158. kick n/t

[mod mom]

159. To all who oppose: Elections Results forum is a group of self funded

activists doing the work to preserve our democracy. We can't rely on the Democratic Party to do this, as they have had 2 presidential elections stolen and with the exception of a few brave and determined elected officials, have failed to address meaningful election reform. We have kept the topic of fair and transparent elections (the root of a free democracy) upfront and center. We have self funded our own investigations and have pushed for action in remedying solutions.

What damage does it do to keep us on the front page?

[FogerRox]

162. Right om MOM

[tommcintyre]

169. Absolutely! n/t

[icymist]

160. We need election reform in this country....

or we can kiss Democracy goodbye.

[Trillo]

167. I agree-- Everyone's vote must count.

This fundamental fairness is the basis for peace between all of us.

[jukes]

165. lottery, we cdnt do worse

and if the 22nd amendment is reapealed, we're stuck w/ bush for life (or until he vreamates himself in front of his DC bunker.)

[jukes]

166. oops, misunderstood query

what's the point to an election?

[autorank]

174. This thread is a PLEA FOR INCLUSION! not an attack. Must be clear.

This thread is an attempt by ERD and those who hold voting rights as vital to our future as a country and a party to get ERD the visibility it deserves. The shock of seeing it disappear has caused concern. In addition, the many, many users who joined after the election for ERD are disappointed as well.

The thread should not be seen as a pissing contest between ERD and the Admins. Rather, it should be seen as a way to work out the problem in a fashion that preserves the importance of the work on ERD.

ERD could be restored to ADMIN PICS but that's not the major concern. The major concern is that ERD not lose visibility, i.e., disappear from prominence (near the top) of the Latest mast head.

Personally, I think ERD would fit nicely between GD: Politics and The Lounge.

And I feel strongly that the "pleas" here should be heard in a receptive fashion reflecting the respect that they have for both ERD and DU.

[Time for change]

175. Well said autorank. And it's not just a plea

It is also an attempt to identify the degree of support which exists for giving back the visibility to this forum which many of us feel is warranted.

[autorank]

179. I agree with you. This demonstration is heart-felt...

...and a plea for inclusion, as in inclusiveness. Hey, I'd do a supplication to keep ERD prominently displayed. This is an excellent thread. Thank you.

[Nederland]

176. As I said before

The problem is not that the DU community at large or the Admins believe that Election Reform is an unimportant issue. The problem, IMHO, is that the 2004 Election Results and Discussion is dominated by people that have a very specific view as to what the best way to solve the problem is, namely to hold forth 2004 exit polls as "proof" of fraud. The forum is consumed by endless rehashing of exit poll analysis and treat any and all that question that analysis with mockery and disdain. Now that the forum has largely driven out everyone that disagrees with it, its remaining members make a plea for "inclusion". Certainly you can see the irony.

Its seems to me that in moving the forum off ADMINS PICS the Admins are merely displaying the same degree of tolerance the forum itself demonstrated in these past few months. I do not claim to speak for them, but merely offer it up as one possible explanation for the move.

[Cookie wookie]

177. What did the posts of Time for Change

or others who posted to those stats threads, have to do with all the rest of the posters and threads in the ERD forum? That was only one topic under investigation. Why would anyone assume that the style of posting on those threads was endorsed by everyone who posted to the ERD forum? What a strange concept.

[Nederland]

178. Nothing

but certainly any long time observer of the forum has to admit that the topic of exit polls dominates discussion there. I remember distinctly a month ago when I visited the forum fully half the threads on the first page were posted by TIA and consisted of the same arguments s/he had been posting ever since election day.

[mod mom]

181. Really! WHAT WOULD IT HURT? nt

[autorank]

182. HURT?

You mean me supplicating, in that case nothing.

Or, ERD between GD Politics & the Lounge, in that case nothing either. It would probably help!

[kster]

183. kick.nt

[Sydnie]

180. Kicking this back up to the top n/t

[loudsue]

184. And another kick!

[tommcintyre]

185. OK, they won't be able to say I didn't warn 'em. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[tommcintyre]

192. This one's for you Andy.

Fly free.

[tiptoe]

193. kick n/t.

[tiptoe]

194. for Andy n/t

[govegan]

195. For Andy

The crisis is NOT OVER. The neo-fascist thugs are smug and happy with their frauds.

We should pray for the enlightenment of the duped and the denied, and work to make it a reality.

And save a few for Andy, too.


From the ending of Goethe's poem "The Holy Longing":

Distance does not make you falter
now, ariving in magic, flying--
and, finally, insane for the light,
you are the butterfly and you are gone.

And so long as you haven't experienced
this: to die and so to grow,
you are only a troubled guest
on the dark earth.

[demodonkey]

196. Kick for Andy.

The Andy Stephenson Election Reform Forum.

[tommcintyre]

197. The Andy Stephenson Voting Rights Forum?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It would be a nice tribute; and an inspiration to all of us to "keep fighting the good fight" - just as Andy did.

[freedomfries]

200. KICK

[tiptoe]

201. kick n/t

[NC Beach Girl]

202. kick n/t

.

[Helga Scow Stern]

205. I love the sound of that!

The Andy Stephenson Voting Rights Forum.....

[Melissa G]

198. Kick! Thanks! n/t

[tiptoe]

199. kicking n/t

[tommcintyre]

203. Welcome tiptoe.

[tiptoe]

215. t'nx

[tommcintyre]

216. Nice sig line. ;) n/t

[In Truth We Trust]

204. Yes for Andy: "Paper ballots NOW! Hand counts NOW!"

[Yellow Horse]

223. This was NOT Andy's position! READ HIS OWN WORDS HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[liberalismresurgent]

206. Not only 2004 elections

We should never forget the Grand theft that occured in 2004, but this election-theft forum should also include warnings and concerns about the upcoming elections in which Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or whoever the Democrat candidate is, will be robbed of the presidency. the 2008 elections should have more of as much preponderance over 2004 regarding our discussions, since at least now many of us know what these people are capable of.

[tommcintyre]

210. You're right, and welcome liberalismresurgent .

We must investigate the 2004 theft, in order to prevent it again in 2006, and beyond.

[andym]

212. Suggestion-- make two forums

The 2004 Election Forum should be split into two forums to solve some of the problems that have limited the usefulness of the current forum.


The first forum would be for activists who want to organize against past and future election fraud, and who those believe that the 2004 election was stolen. Perhaps we can call it "Election Fraud 2004 and beyond." Those who don't believe that the election of 2004 was completely fraudulent would be subject to attack, and generally unwelcome as is now the case on "Election 2004".


The second forum would be for everybody else: those who are interested in an general discussion of the 2004 election. It would include those who want to discuss the implications of the election given the assumption that the election was not stolen, for those who want to prove whether or not large-scale fraud did turn an overwhelming Kerry victory into a Bush victory, and it would also be for those interested in election reform and limiting voter suppression in future elections. It would include people who want to make a serious attempt to gather evidence of possible election-determining fraud that was strong enough to convince intelligent neutral parties. Criticism of possible evidence would be taken seriously and respectfully by all parties. This would be more appropriate for mainstream Democrats, academics and political strategists, as well as skeptics of the stolen election. We might call this "2004 Election: investigations and lessons" Ad hominem attacks would be strictly prohibited and a presumption of fraud would not be made, though the possibility of a stolen election would be taken seriously.

[Peace Patriot]

214. andym, your assumptions are faulty and your solution is therefore...

...faulty.

You said

"...those who don't believe that the election of 2004 was completely fraudulent would be subject to attack, and generally unwelcome as is now the case on 'Election 2004'."

The attacks I've seen on "non-believers" have been wholly justified. Often, the poster is a "hit and run" artist who is unwilling to review the mountain of evidence of election fraud, and just drops in to dis the efforts of the awesome researchers and activists who HAVE assembled, analyzed and reviewed the evidence. I have also seen incredible patience toward these "hit and run" posters (if they were not obviously "freepers"), in trying to GET them to look at the evidence. And most often, they just run away. They don't want to do the hard work of reviewing the evidence.

Because, you see, it is not a matter of "belief" or "unbelief"--it is a matter of evidence. Often these "hit and run" posters demand hard evidence, or "smoking guns," or a slamdunk court case--and they simply ignore the FIRST item of evidence: that Bushite voting machine companies own and control the vote count with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, and that Tom Delay and other Bushite criminals PREVENTED a paper trail requirement for these machines. That the election system was SET UP FOR FRAUD makes hard evidence nearly impossible to obtain (although there is some) and inferential evidence essential (of which there is a mountain's worth).

Here's what the Carter Center said about our election system in 2004--that our election system does not meet the MINIMUM standards of transparency and verifiability, and they therefore COULD NOT monitor the U.S. election. Does not meet MINIMUM standards!

THAT is the obstacle that we have been trying to overcome, in the DU 2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum--to create a very strong circumstantial case for election fraud, much like court cases on financial crime wherein the perps have shredded the paper trail, and in which statistical analysis is therefore permitted and can be used to convict.

The trouble is that the "court of law" in this case in the U.S Congress, which is controlled by Bush "pod people" (people who brainlessly repeat Karl Rove talking points), many of whom were themselves illegitimately elected.

The OTHER trouble is that many Democratic Party leaders are cowardly, corrupt or collusive on this matter. Witness the hogfest being put on by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia for local/state election officials (many of whom are Democrats), at the Beverly Hilton this August--uncovered by DUer Amaryllis:

Amaryllis: Election officials for sale
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The DU election forum should NOT be split up between those who are outraged at this corruption and who have devoted their lives to alerting other citizens to the 2004 Bushite election theft and who are actively pursuing remedies, and those who would like to sweep this reality under the rug and talk about the 2004 election as if this crime had not occurred!

Your proposal for a second forum has everything upside down and backwards--much like the "Alice in Wonderland" world that we have all been living in, since 9/11/01.

--------

You wrote

"It would include those who want to discuss the implications of the election given the assumption that the election was not stolen...."

You might as well say, let's create a forum to look at the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, given the assumption that nobody was lying. That is an absurd assumption, given the evidence so far of egregious lying--as it would be an absurd assumption that the 2004 election was NOT stolen, given the overwhelming case that we and others have made for massive fraud. To ignore this evidence is...well, "through the looking glass," where, as you may recall, the Red Queen insisted that white roses be PAINTED red!

-------

You wrote

"...for those who want to prove whether or not large-scale fraud did turn an overwhelming Kerry victory into a Bush victory...."

They can't "PROVE" it, dear. The Bushites took the paper trail away. Anyone who talks of "proof" is already living in Wonderland.

As for work on the hard evidence in Ohio, and other places where egregious vote suppression and vote stealing occurred, and on the necessarily inferential evidence--such as the exit polls, and anomalous election numbers--there is no place more active, more committed, and more reliable than the current EXISTING "2004 Election Results and Discussion" forum, which has now been buried and put out of reach to most newbies by the DU administrators, in an arbitrary, unexplained action, and without consultation with the hundreds of activists who need and use this forum.

-------

You wrote

"...and it would also be for those interested in election reform and limiting voter suppression in future elections."

There is no more committed group on "election reform and limiting voter suppression in future elections" than the CURRENT activists at this DU forum.

-------

You wrote

"It would include people who want to make a serious attempt to gather evidence of possible election-determining fraud that was strong enough to convince intelligent neutral parties."

A "serious" attempt to gather evidence. A "SERIOUS" attempt? You mean, like the DNC report by Donna Brazille? Get serious, andym. (And try not being so insulting.)

-------

You wrote

"Criticism of possible evidence would be taken seriously and respectfully by all parties."

No Freepers allowed, huh? No "hit and run" artists? Good luck.

-------

You wrote

"This would be more appropriate for mainstream Democrats, academics and political strategists...."

You mean the people who brought us Diebold and ES&S? The people who couldn't be bothered to notice that Wally O'Dell and the Ahmanson's would be counting all our votes in secret? THOSE "mainstream Democrats?? THOSE "political strategists"?

As for "academics," have you even looked at the long list of Ph.D.'s who have cried foul on this election, whose various studies and alarmed warnings have been completely ignored by the news monopolies, and by the Democratic Party, and who ONLY RECEIVE ATTENTION at DU in the "2004 ELECTION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FORUM"???

You want to create ANOTHER forum where they can talk themselves blue in the face to the "mainstream Democrats" and "political strategists" who HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED ALL THEIR STUDIES AND ALARMED WARNINGS SO FAR?

-------

You wrote

"...as well as skeptics of the stolen election."

I have dealt with these "skeptics" above. And I have yet to meet, or read, a "stolen election skeptic" who was willing to look at the evidence. Not one! And I am widely read on this subject. What I have seen is scoffing, name-calling, "hit and run" postings, "freepers" in disguise, and a whole lot of Democrats acting just like Bush "pod people," repeating the party line over and over and over--"we are not questioning the result"--WITHOUT EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE. And what I have learned from all of this is that: skepticism on 2004 election fraud = brainwashed by the corporate news monopolies (or, in the case of certain Democratic Party leaders, corruption).

-------

You wrote

"We might call this '2004 Election: investigations and lessons'..."

We? "We might call this..."? Where have you been, andym? I haven't seen you here at the election forum. You are perfectly free to create your own forum, or lobby the administrators to create one, and investigate all you want, but we here at the 2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum who have ALREADY done the extremely difficult work of election investigation, information gathering, posting of evidence and criticism of evidence, posing of hypotheses and the criticism of hypotheses, and drawing conclusions, DON'T NEED another forum in which to continue this investigation and seek election reform remedies. "We" want THIS forum. We trust THIS forum. We are active at THIS forum. We are familiar with the personalities and workings of THIS forum. THIS forum is where the evidence of the 2004 stolen election was assembled!

For you to create a new forum where something that you call "ad hominem attacks" will be "strictly prohibited"--no matter the identity or attitude or knowledgeability of the poster--and where "a presumption of fraud would not be made"--despite all the evidence that WE have assembled and analyzed in THIS forum--is your business, andym, not ours. "We" don't want and don't need a CLEANSED election forum, where uninformed, so-called "skeptics" can run rampant and can't be called on their nonsense, where facts are ignored and the election is presumed to be valid until "proven" otherwise to "neutral parties", and where "questions" may be allowed but conclusions are never reached.

Phooey on that. You can waste your time doing that. We won't.

-------

You wrote

"Ad hominem attacks would be strictly prohibited and a presumption of fraud would not be made, though the possibility of a stolen election would be taken seriously."

Good luck to you, I say. I think your proposal of a forum in which "a presumption of fraud would not be made" is absurd. It means that YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE EVIDENCE. So, good luck on "taking" a stolen election "seriously."

-------

What is needed is inspired, passionate activism to reform our election systems NOW--to rid it of private Bushite companies, and achieve at least a MINIMUM STANDARD of transparency and verifiability. This is a CRITICAL NEED. Our democracy--or rather our last hope of RESTORING our democracy--depends on this. And it must be done at the state/local level, because the combination of Bush "pod people" in Congress and lazy, oblivious or corrupt Democrats has made national reform impossible (if not a further danger!)

This is not going to be accomplished by a cleansed election forum where the participants are not outraged at what has happened, and where the goal is "lessons" from the 2004 election.

What we are looking at, my friends, is a fascist coup. If you can't see it, then you are blind. And I do wish you luck at stopping more death in Iraq, an invasion of Iran, the looting of Social Security, the installation of more fascists on the Supreme Court, and additional treasonous acts by this regime. But if you don't understand why these things are happening--that the election was STOLEN, and that this junta DOES NOT REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS--then I sincerely wish that you would listen to those who DO know what they are talking about on election fraud, and join our efforts, and STOP TRYING TO SILENCE US.

If we don't achieve election reform, there is no hope of getting our country back. It is our last chance. Don't you understand?

And until the American people realize what happened in 2004, and understand the mechanism by which it was done, they will not demand transparent elections in the only venue left to them in which to demand it: state/local election systems.

The DU administrators deep-sixing of this election forum (removal from the main page) is going to help keep them ignorant. And I don't know if this is deliberate or inadvertent, but I do know that it was arbitrary, and has continued despite the objections of all the major activists in this forum, and despite a DU poll that was hugely in our favor (83% for restoring this forum to the main page). And I OBJECT TO THIS DECISION!

[tiptoe]

217. "biggest crime in the history of the nation"*...and DU admins

tuck away the world's best collection of information and ongoing analysis about it. (Form over substance? An unexplicated matter of political expediency...?)

*The Biggest Story of Our Lives

05.10.2005
by Jim Lampley
The Huffington Post
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=55568&...

[tommcintyre]

222. It just doesn't make sense, does it. n/t

[tommcintyre]

213. Kick for honesty. n/t

[autorank]

218. Time for change, has anyone ever gotten back to you on the poll?

Like, someone who can make a decision. The methodology is transparent, the poll binary, the results clear. What's the word from the "central office?"

[Time for change]

219. I have not been in contact with the administrators about this

Amaryllis has been, and he received a form letter from them, which was not encouraging, but I'm not sure when it was written. Here's his post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

MelissaB received the exact same answer, and I suspect that others have as well.

So, I'm not sure how best to handle this at this point.

[autorank]

220. You did your part!!

The poll is great. I've noticed that ERD is better than ever in terms of activity, new posts, etc. since this "dis." I think this poll should just stick around forever!

[Time for change]

221. I don't know about that

I wouldn't want to get anybody pissed off, now that we've made our point. I don't think that this poll is going to get many more votes anyhow.