New and Better way To Secure Fair Elections

[abester]

With great interest I have read Kennedy's article in RSM earlier this week. With even greater interest and a growing sense of wonder I have read Salon's Manjoo column debunking Kennedy and, implicitly, all those who feel the outcome of 2004 election was illegitimate.

Apparantly there are still quite a lot of democrats out there who still firmly deny any foul play. Even on DU I read statements from ConservativeDemocrat that are fairly typical, denying facts, dismissing evidence, or simply lobbing ad hominems and disqualifiers at those expressing concerns over election integrity.

It is obvious to me now that those who dismiss election fraud are simply holding on to a belief. And as usual you can't argue with a believer, and they won't change their mind no matter how much evidence is presented.

Instead of trying to convince them and the rest of America that something truly radical needs to be done in order to secure the elections and save democracy in the process, just let go.

Don't bother with election reforms, let the republicans believe they are untouchable, and allow them to grow overconfident. They will then probably win the 2006 elections, and in order to secure the 2008 presidential election they will need to shift votes by 30% or more.

By then, hopefully, even the most stounched nay-sayers can't deny the already-obvious. At least, I hope the bigger gap will convince them, but I'm not alltogether certain.

No one refutes the fact that the discrepencies between exit polls and vote tallies are statistically impossible and therefore some systematic effect must be at work. In addition, virtually all those discrepancies favour the republicans. At the precint level those differences are even more pronounced and unbelievable.

You have to wonder, what does it take for them to finally start connecting the dots??

[EST]

1. Your best statement--

That one cannot change the beliefs of a believer-is spot on.
The only thing that can be done is transform the believer.

This only happens when the believer comes up against something truly mind blowing--something either totally outside his experience or so overwhelming that it absorbs him until that belief falls away of its own weight or baggage.
Often that transformative experience comes in the form of a near death experience, a tragic accident, the death of someone so important that the believer identifies with that person as though it is himself, or, in a controlled environment, the enlightening shift that happens when a seeker has a breakthrough.

Such a transformation happens every day, but is an individual experience, so, happening to one person at a time, is a long, painful transition. Given that there is such a plethora of idiots attempting to get the enlightened person distracted enough to knock him off the rails, seldom does a large change happen and then stay in effect.
People are amazing critters.

[IndyOp]

2. Do *not* wait until 2008 - begin educating everyone who will listen

now, now, now. The more people who are alarmed, the more who will vote, the more who will have a stake in whether elections are or are not fair.

What will it take for them to finally start connecting dots? 'Waking people up' is very much like tossing pebbles at a window to wake up a sleeping person inside. You just keep tossing those pebbles until the succession of ping, ping, ping somehow gets through to them and they wake up. Over and over and over: We must secure free and fair elections. We must secure free and fair elections. We must secure free and fair elections.

I spoke last night at my local Democracy for America group and have attracted someone to work with me who is *passionate* about this issue -- so that is one more to add to our quiver.

:kick:

[neoblues]

3. It is a little surprising...

to see even Democrats being unable to recognize the confluence of evidence to conclude systematic manipulation of the vote tallies did indeed occur. The media expounded Republican spin and ofuscatory explanations were predictably successful; many Democrats thinking the pattern being that Democrats are just falling for conspiracy theories and giving in to human nature in resenting the results and therefore clinging to any possibility, any way to believe that we actually won. Well, it seems to me they just haven't bothered to read enough about the different types and instances of fraud or the very well thought out arguments and mathematical proofs showing the probability (since the fraud was performed within a process designed, by Republicans and their Corporate allies/controllers, to allow such activities to occur while ensuring that that no such inarguable evidence could possibly be created) of fraud to be vastly beyond any reasonable or rational possibility.

Still, whether we can "prove" large-scale organized and/or electronic vote fraud, none can deny the enormous impact of the also organized effort to disenfranchise mostly Democratic voters, nor can they argue that the voting processes used can either be verified (even if it was honestly/sincerely attempted) or consequently "prove" Bush won. Really, it's just that no honest person could argue that we shouldn't expect and demand our electoral processes be accurate, fraud resistant and verifiable. Alas, in most cases--especially in places where the race between Democrats and Republicans is likely to be competitive, it's just not the case--those systems are almost entirely open to fraud and lacking even the most basic mechanisms by which to perform a recount or otherwise seek to verify the results.

I'm not really hopeful that Democrats will successfully organize to demand verifiable voting systems by November. Nevermind that paper ballots is a tried and true technology, easily implemented (even on short notice), can be verified and is almost infinitely cheaper than our electronic systems (and can still provide totals in a reasonably timely fashion). Therefore, I won't be surprised when Democrats lose in races in which they're well ahead in the polls and conversely Republicans will win in races that seem uncompetitive--even to the extent that they set "unprecedented" statistical leaps over their final polling numbers. I also don't doubt that the troublesome "exit polls" conform even more 'perfectly' with the final outcomes--and that we won't be seeing anyone with access to the interim results/totals (so that we won't be noticing large, inexplicable changes in the totals late in the day--when the cheaters can best estimate by just how much they need to shift the numbers in order to ensure their candidates win--all because we won't have access to the data to be able to notice such chicanery).

You're also right, I think, that if we aren't successful in demanding verifiable voting and Democrats don't manage to turn out in numbers that just overwhelm the fraudsters--creating a need to shift the vote by such percentages that they are either unwilling** or unable to implement... then we'll lose--and lose often, despite our "confidence" and the other side's "fear". Those feelings don't matter (and Republicans are only "scared" because they themselves, for the most part, don't know for sure that the electoral system is designed to provide a "Republican Bonus" (vote shift)--even though they commonly vote in such a way as to prevent improving the electoral process to discourage fraud--just in case). Anyway, the more Democrats that turn out versus the fewer Republicans that turn out, in combination with the much higher popularity of Democrats and the falling popularity of Republicans--in cases where Republicans win anyway--will act to make the outcomes seem that much more suspicious and potentially allow for more calls for recounts (which won't be possible in most cases)... That will help to either make the reality of vote fraud more apparent and/or motivate more people to demand verifiability/recount capabilities next time. So if we lose alot, despite our newfound popularity, it will just benefit the electoral process--helping to make it more secure for the 2008 elections. A costly approach to getting long overdue electoral reform, but better late than never.

**To avoid the following type of suspicion generating situation: "Astonishingly, the registers show 1 million Democrats turned out for the vote and only two hundred thousand Republicans did, yet the Republican candidate who was losing in the polls (80% predicted for the Democrat to 20% Republican), but yet the Republican "won"--getting 650,000 votes, a 54.1% (R) to 45.8% (a 12 point spread) which means... 450,000 Democrats had to cross party lines and vote for the Republican! Another "Unprecedented" Republican 'Come From Behind' Win! Shows how wrong the polls can be... He was supposed to only get 20% OF THE REPUBLICAN TURNOUT, which would have been ONLY 40,000 votes... 40,000 versus 650,000? Polls can be SO wrong! Certainly the Democrats will cry and scream "Fraud", but that's just ridiculous! There was no fraud here.". Such a situation could be just a little too hard to explain... so they'd accept the loss, only padding the vote with their typical 5-15% (25% normal maximum).


By the way, ou used a word "stounched"; I'm guessing, but did you perhaps intend "ensconced"?