Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Real Election Math

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 12:07 AM
Original message
The Real Election Math
Edited on Thu Sep-25-08 12:31 AM by GuvWurld
Paperless electronic voting +
Corporate vote counting guarded as proprietary secrets +
Nonsensical results such as negative vote totals =

"Election" results are UNPROVABLE.

Tell the media not to report as fact what can't even be proven and what hasn't been independently verified. The media should be the greatest advocates of hand counting paper ballots because this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording their reporting the greatest credibility. Transparent coverage of a transparent counting process would create a basis for confidence in the reported results where none currently exists.

Listen to this .mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/3sppbd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. I love this part especially:
"The media should demand hand counting paper ballots because this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording their reporting the greatest credibility."

I'm ready for them to take on that campaign!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I like that you liked that, but I edited it
instead of demand, it now says:

The media should be the greatest advocates of hand counting paper ballots because this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording their reporting the greatest credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. What media?
The greedia are part of the problem. They have covered up all the criminality and all the vote stealing from 2000 to now.

Listen to them pass the kool aid on the bail out and tell me why I should do anything other that laugh and then puke at the wholesale sell out to Bushco and corporate America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Of course the media are part of the problem
That is why rather than continuing to bang our heads against the wall trying to lobby election administrators to behave differently (change election conditions), this is a change of strategy to work on getting the media to behave differently. And, understanding that the big corporate media will have no problem continuing to ignore you and me, this proposes that we first target those in the media who we are able to interact with and influence, such as:

Michael Moore
Garrison Keillor
Thom Hartmann
Peter B. Collins
Stephanie Miller
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Mike Malloy
Jonathan Alter
Don Hazen
Hillary Rosen
Naomi Wolf
Naomi Klein
Arianna Huffington
Rob Kall
Randi Rhodes
Brad Friedman
Josh Marshall

who else?

let 'em know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. I hope I see this every single time it's posted. Thank you, Guv.
biggest :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. let me know when you repost and I'll give a kick
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. That's a very good point.
I have to think about that and will get back to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. um, excuse me, are you assuming we have free media?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Here's what needs to happen next
We need to target this message at the people who can't deny it, such as Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller. They need to challenge the overall media. This takes the daily routine of debunking to a whole new level. This will do unto the media what has been done unto us: create divisiveness.

And you know what else? The message of the OP was true and simply unheard prior to the 2004 "election." For every American who understands that we rolled over and accepted unprovable results, now is the time to figure out how to respond differently to these same election conditions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. The more I've thought about the no confidence statement
the more I come to understand that it applies so widely to just about every aspect of what we are calling our system of government.

We are asked to take everything on faith even as we see our rights being stripped away and when we ask reasonable questions, we are insulted and demonized. Just yesterday I was told to get back on my meds when I pointed out that OpScan ballots are more pointed to than counted. That's okay.

I think this is the best tool I've learned at DU. It's simple and utilitarian. It doesn't make any wild claims and it doesn't need to. It's the most basic reality check possible.

Do I have any reason to have confidence in these election results?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. For those who don't know...
The no confidence statement sfexpat refers to became the Voter Confidence Resolution, a revolutionary statement that was formally adopted by the City Council of Arcata, CA on July 21, 2005 after about 15 months of community organizing, revisions, and lobbying.
The Voter Confidence Resolution
(v6.1, LAST UPDATED: 5/14/05 5pm)

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:

The following is a comprehensive election reform platform likely to ensure conclusive election results and create a basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections:
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 verified 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 restored 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) preferential voting 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.
***
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Free media or not, it's legit to ask them to UPHOLD their *OWN* CLAIMED principles!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. K&R, I approve this message too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
12. As is so often the case, what we think we KNOW is merely what we BELIEVE.
I look forward to the day when we put an end to faith-based election and exit poll results.

Those who control the voting machines, exit poll true-believers (choose a side), and the media, invent the national (un)reality.

Some of us would rather count ballots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-08 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. k/r
When I gave up on candidates I gave to election reform groups. I feel better for it because I have family obligations consuming all my time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. thanks!
n/t
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 Aug 20th 2014, 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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