Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Arcata Eye: A Program To Restore Election Legitimacy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 09:03 AM
Original message
Arcata Eye: A Program To Restore Election Legitimacy
A Program To Restore Election Legitimacy

Originally published 1/18/05
The Arcata Eye

By Dave Berman

What is it with elections in America today? Why do they keep creating such controversy? Is it even possible to find someone who has complete confidence in the system, someone who thinks things are exactly as they should be?

Elections, as a measure of the will of the people, should be transparent, observable, and create records that forever sustain unanimous agreement about the outcome. Current conditions do not permit US federal elections to be accepted beyond question. I'm not interested in proving that fraud has been committed or in overturning the results of any recent election. Instead, let us work to create conditions that will make our election process and results unquestionable and beyond reproach. Above all, we need to create a basis for confidence in US federal elections where none currently exists.

Last July, Arcata's City Council passed the Building Confidence Resolution. This is the beginning of the right idea but needs to go further. Just as the foundation of a house must be laid before the walls and roof are built, so too must a basis for confidence be created before voters will be justified in building confidence. I am looking forward, with hope and determination, to a comprehensive set of election reforms that benefits us all. This collection of proposed changes is contained in the No Confidence Resolution, recently submitted for consideration at both the Arcata and Eureka City Councils and available online at http://guvwurld.blogspot.com. These changes are as follows:

full article:
http://www.solarbus.org/election/articles/050118-berman.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. This has evolved to the Voter Confidence Resolution
This has always been a work in progress. The resolution has always been offered as a template for others to use in their community. The latest version is called the Voter Confidence Resolution:

Voter Confidence Resolution
(v6.0, LAST UPDATED: 4/23/05 11pm)

Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and

Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and

Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and

Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and

Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and

Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and

Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and

Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be re-counted if necessary; and

Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and

Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and

Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power";

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

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

Be it also resolved:

Ensuring conclusive results is only one necessary step toward creating a new basis for voter confidence in U.S. federal elections. Additional reforms that would take further steps toward building voter confidence include:

1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and
2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) a voter verifiable paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and
4) declaring election day a national holiday, and
5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and
credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions to be observed by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
8) instant runoff voting (see H.R. 5293) and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;

Be it further resolved:

When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.

***
The permalink for the Voter Confidence Resolution is:
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-resolution.html

**
An archive of related prior works can be found HERE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. A question for you if you're in Humboldt County, CA
My daughter was disenfranchised in the primary election last year. She registered to vote at a table at the Eureka Mall and her registration form wasn't turned in until after the deadline. She didn't know why she never got her election materials until she received a letter last summer from SoS Kevin Shelley's office explaining that there was a criminal investigation of this situation. Apparently she's not the only one this happened to. I have no idea if it was only those who registered Dem whose forms were not turned in, but I've certainly wondered.

Do you know about this situation and whether the investigation has led to any conclusions or is still ongoing or what? Is there a voting rights group in Humboldt that would be interested in this story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Here's what I know
I have heard of this type of disenfranchisement from stories in other places but not Humboldt. There is someone who I think would be excellent to run this by. Her name is Ellen and she's with the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project. You can find her contact info through that link. Please share what you find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. yes please report what you find
It sounds like Sproul. If there is an investigation I wonder what happened to it when Shelley left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-30-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I've heard nothing about Sproul in CA. I'll see what I can find out n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontageOfFreedom Donating Member (633 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-30-05 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Here's a good place to read about that.
http://www.bushcheated04.com

In the 2004 plus likely past elections, sproul & associates has illegally torn up democratic registration forms among all sorts of other fascist-lite type activities, including and not limited to manipulation of provisional voters. It might have been the exact same way Blackwell enforced his rules, and done with the machines yet again following these rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC