Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Peter B. Collins, Dave Berman to Discuss Unprovable Federal Election Results - 10/23 5pm PT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 01:01 AM
Original message
Peter B. Collins, Dave Berman to Discuss Unprovable Federal Election Results - 10/23 5pm PT
Originally blogged at: We Do Not Consent:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/peter-b-coll...

Peter B. Collins, Dave Berman to Discuss Unprovable Federal Election Results - 10/23 5pm PT
By Dave Berman
10/22/08

Listen live through PeterBCollins.com Thursday at 5pm PT as I'll be on this great talk radio show to discuss whether the accuracy of federal election results can be proven.

For a long time I have argued federal election results are inherently inconclusive, unknowable and unprovable - based entirely on the conditions under which "elections" are conducted. There is simply no basis for confidence in the reported results, that is, no reason to believe them.

As I hinted last Friday, when I wrote about the Nation's John Nichols coming around to describing the 2000 and 2004 elections as "inconclusive," during tomorrow's interview we will begin to hear a louder chorus taking up this message and calling out the media.

Why should we be expected to believe reported election results that media have not and can not independently verify, which can't even be proven, and which come from only one source - the very government whose grip on power is at stake?

In fact, for as long as I've written the We Do Not Consent blog there have been others making this point. In the back of my book, We Do Not Consent, (free .pdf), there are testimonials that have permanently appeared in the sidebar of the blog as follows:
"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."

Michael Collins {DUer autorank} covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media

and...

"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It's also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can't repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn't exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor {DUer LandShark}
Over the years, these points have been made in countless ways. Tomorrow we will unveil perhaps the most impactful expression yet. In the meantime, here's another that I submitted last week as a letter to the editor of the North Coast Journal. I'm posting it now because their new issue came out today without it.
Dear Editor:

Thank you for the even-handed run down of state and local ballot issues (Oct. 9). Perhaps you could also devote a little space to both sides of a national question: are federal election results provable?

One side says: we have secret corporate vote counting computers in more than 95% of the country; about 30% of the country doesn't even use paper ballots to allow a serious re-count; and these electronic voting machines frequently produce results impossible in a legitimate election, such as John Kerry's negative 25 million votes in Youngstown, OH (Nov. 2004), or Palm Beach County's 12,000 votes in excess of the number of voters (Aug. 2008).

These self-described "election integrity advocates" say there is no way to prove federal election results. They further allege that media is abandoning its most basic principles by publishing election results as fact, when the information has not and can not be independently verified. Worse still, they say, is that media reports of election results rely on only one source--the government--even though the government can not prove the reported results.

Opponents argue federal election results are provable because. Just because.

While this is fairly convincing, the Journal could do a genuine public service in affording more space for elaboration of this point of view. The Journal could also encourage the media industry at large to advocate for hand counting paper ballots, reasoning that this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording the reported results the greatest credibility, and demonstrating that the reported results have been proven to the satisfaction of the thousands of ordinary Americans who would be involved in counting ballots.

Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
# # #

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/peter-b-coll...
Refresh | +15 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Seven recs and not a bump.....
This should be in GD Dave.... or GD Presidential....

regards
al
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
2. Highest Rec and Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. Keep up the good work, Dave.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Recced and kicked. This is very important information to get out to the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm in the PBC studio
I'll be on the air in a half hour!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. So how did it got?
Haven't gotten to listen to the archive yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Obama Won. Based on the Best Evidence. Nothing from 11-4 will help. nt k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Oct 01st 2014, 08:27 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