Reply #107: YOU GUYS! See this! THEY ARE CONGRESS. They don't have to

[Amaryllis]

have PROOF of fraud. That is the lawyers' job. See this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=7598&mesg_id=7598

And please kick it! Because it is VERY important. We ALL should be using these points in our communication with our legislators. And Gary, can you post it on your wonderful website?

These are excellent talking points from the Dean People, just out today, that address every single argument for not contesting:

-There is no proof of fraud
-not enough "irregularities" to change the outcome of the election
-it won't do any good
-Kerry conceded
-elections have always been a mess
-Republicans will vote it down
-It will ruin my career

Go to the link for the whole doc. Below is a small section:

Informational Points -- to satisfy queries and combat honest ignorance

· It is the affirmative DUTY of each and every Member of Congress to personally judge the validity of presidential electors base on any information they have at hand. Yes, the apparently need to be told this. (See Note1 below)

· Each Senator/Rep is Constitutionally charged with the burden of being the backstop or safety valve for an election procedure that has rendered an invalid result

· States have no "right" to have electoral votes counted and many slates of electors have been disallowed in the past -- particularly after the Civil War

· The Voting Rights Act makes it unlawful for minorities to receive disparate treatment by any election process -- no willful or negligent act need be found to have occurred -- a disparate circumstance or result is sufficient for violation.

In 2001 the US Commission on Civil Rights made a legal finding of just such a violation in regard to the Florida election - undisputed evidence of poll-tax-lines and registration process violations makes clear that there has not been a correction of this finding

· If a state's election laws includes a contest provision, that state's election is not lawfully completed unless and until such contests have been disposed of judicially

· Elections are intended to measure the will of the people, not the will of the candidates; therefore, it does not matter if a candidate has conceded.

· An election is not a contest -- it is a survey -- an effort to measure an objective reality. (See Note2 below)

Argumentative Points -- to counter unfounded rationalizations, excuses, and fears

· What is being asked of the official is a simple question:

"Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor minority voters and none for affluent white voters a tolerable condition for you personally?"

Yes, strong stuff. But necessary stuff if we're going to secure our right to have confidence in free and fair elections.

· No unlawful election process can lawfully certify electors

· Objecting is the best action they can take to advance the general cause of "Election Reform"

Objecting to electors, successfully or not, creates a "consequence" for the failures of the system.

A traffic light rarely gets built until someone is killed or injured. Only after 9/11 did Congress seriously address anti-terrorism.

The same is true here and an objection will put states on notice that they had better remedy their system or face rejection in the future.

· We The People, through our representatives, have set out our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will

Our law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow "technical" or "legal" arguments and rationalizations to trump reality as we did in 2000.

· When the results of an election are in doubt, the moral burden is on the states to prove the results to be sound.

The People have an inalienable right to full confidence in the results.

Political/Strategic Points -- to provide pragmatic reasons to "do the right thing"

· Consider what standing up in 2001 did for the CBC. They are now without-a-doubt HEROS to the real Democratic party base. Perhaps not in DC, but among the regular party rank and file, Farenheit 9-11 immortalized their heroics.

· Standing on principle always inures to the benefit of the leader who does so. As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

· Should the Democratic Party finally see the wisdom of taking this stand, of mounting such a "charge of the light brigade" (even if that's all it amounts to), it would not be surprising to see them garner an additional 5-7% of the white male vote, simply for showing the fortitude that demographic respects.

· We on the left could use more "preaching to the choir." We've allowed our liberal values and morals to be constantly attacked, in part because we are basically tolerant people.

And that requires us to "create the reality" to combat their created reality. (Ours of course grounded in something they are fairly unfamiliar with - actual reality.)

To create our (real) reality, it is our "allies" we need to focus on. And none of us should hesitate to put it to them starkly, as in: "So, you're taking the side of the bush regime over Congressman Conyers and Reverend Jackson? That is how you want to be remembered?"

Call it tough love. But we can't leave any moral escape hatches.

Because there aren't any.