Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?

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
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-05 10:50 PM
Original message
Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?
This is a guide to the strategy and talking points of the Voter Confidence Resolution.
(LAST UPDATE: 6/11/05 7pm)

Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?

Premise:

The Voter Confidence Resolution shows us that the Consent of the Governed is no longer being sought through elections in America. Unverifiable votes, privatized source code, and secret vote counting ensure inconclusive outcomes. If the results are unknowable, we have no basis for confidence.

What's Next?:

People in communities around the country are organizing and lobbying their City Councils to pass the Voter Confidence Resolution. While the resolution is a template that should be customized somewhat in each community, these three frames should remain intact to generate a cumulative impact as more and more resolutions pass.

  1. The way it works now we're guaranteed inconclusive outcomes and we'll never have unanimous agreement about election results.

  2. The Voter Confidence Resolution contains a comprehensive election reform platform designed to ensure conclusive outcomes and create a new basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections.

  3. With the Consent of the Governed not being sought, we ask: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?

The benefit of cumulative impact means it is assumed we will eventually switch the answer to this question from no, to YES, the Consent of the Governed HAS been withdrawn.

The Big Picture:

By uniting citizens on the community level, bridges are built across partisan divides. This consensus-building process will make it easier for any City Council to feel free to pass the Voter Confidence Resolution as a collective declaration. So begins the shift in the balance of power between We The People and the government gone awry (the very definition of revolution, according to Rebecca Solnit's "Hope In the Dark").

Summary:

Who: City Councils
What: Pass the Voter Confidence Resolution, ask: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?
Where: Communities all across America
Why: Election conditions ensure inconclusive outcomes and fail to seek the Consent of the Governed (and because peaceful revolution is a birthright)
When: Immediately; public hearing already scheduled for July 6, 2005 in Arcata, CA

Endorsements:

David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Voter Confidence Committee
Green Party of Humboldt County, CA

Submit your group's endorsement or the version of the resolution that your City Council is considering.

Permalink for the Voter Confidence Resolution:
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-r...

Permalink for this Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution:
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/06/guide-to-voter-con...

An archive of prior related work is HERE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
minnesotaDFLer Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-05 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. consent of the governed?
in this country? psssshhh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. Kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. Kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. This is EXCELLENT. My local group has been working on framing the
Edited on Mon Jun-13-05 10:29 AM by Amaryllis
issues, and this is very helpful and contains much of what we have been trying to articulate. If this thread doesn't go anywhere, Guvworld, this deserves another post with a different title. I would start another thread on it if you like; I started one recently on the situation in CA and it wasn't going anywhere. Peace Patriot asked to have another thread under a different title and it really took off. You know how thread titles are; hard to know what will take off and what won't. Hopefully this will, but if it doen'st, let's keep this alive because it's very important.

I read your post on Garybeck's thread where you said that as long as the system is set up to guarantee inconclusive results, it keeps us in the Orwellian position of getting stuck in arguing over who "won." Brilliant.

Here is the Voter Confidence Resolution Guvworld references:
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-r...

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 verifed 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.

***
Endorsements

David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Voter Confidence Committee
Green Party of Humboldt County, CA

Submit your group's endorsement or the version of the resolution that your City Council is considering.

***

The permalink for the Voter Confidence Resolution is:
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-r...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks, Amaryllis. What you can do to help is...
...post back to this thread about how your group discussed the resolution. It will be useful to others to know that City Councils in various locations are hearing about this from committed groups of election reformers who see this plan as the epitome of "thinking globally and acting locally." Please let me know if your group is willing to add their endorsement of the Voter Confidence Resolution, and what, if any, changes you make to the template to reach consensus on your version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. It will be a couple of weeks before we have a chance to discuss it. In
the meantime, let's keep this alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. This is SOOO alive...
David Cobb just agreed to present this during a panel discussion at the upcoming Houston event Kip and others are planning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I meant keep it alive on DU. So far this discussion is just between you
Edited on Mon Jun-13-05 02:33 PM by Amaryllis
and me. If it doesn't take off, consider having me post it with a diffrernet thread title and sending people here.
Sometimes that will get a thread to take off. This is excellent and more people need to see it.

See my post number five again:
"If this thread doesn't go anywhere, Guvworld, this deserves another post with a different title. I would start another thread on it if you like; I started one recently on the situation in CA and it wasn't going anywhere. Peace Patriot asked to have another thread under a different title and it really took off. You know how thread titles are; hard to know what will take off and what won't. Hopefully this will, but if it doen'st, let's keep this alive because it's very important."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I understand, I'd try...
for a subject line: Blueprint for a Peaceful Revolution
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I would try: "READ THIS. It's really important! " In fact, if it's okay
you, I will do that and direct them to this thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I appreciate your help. Play it any way you want (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Ka -- ick
I gotta belief thats pure and true--
in my red, and white, and Blue---
If you wanna join my crew---
Saving democracy is what I do--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tommcintyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. It may very well have been an illusion for quite some time.
Edited on Mon Jun-13-05 08:09 PM by tommcintyre
The more research I do on national American elections, the more I am coming to this conclusion.

The good news: The two Bush II thefts are so flagrant (so obvious, etc.), we may actually have the best chance of becoming "governed by our consent" that we have had in a long, long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yep, or
vote early and take them machines out, by what ever means ,make them switch to paper ballots hand counted,If they can't play fair neither should we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Well actually it is more a matter of civil disobedience
We are taking the high ground here. Rather than declaring we won't play fair, we are saying we will play by the rules as we know they should be and we will not accept results from one more single election held under current conditions. When we start saying this as a community, in town after town, it will have an impact. Especially when we frame it in measurable increments to a tipping point: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?

Here is an analogy I've used before:
As I addressed the Supes, one of the new points I tried out today was an analogy between the voting machines and a hypothetical communications system for the police department. I pointed out that if messages sent by dispatch to patrol units were likely to be garbled by static, or sent to the wrong patrol unit, or be received with different content than was originally sent, then the County would surely not follow a law mandating that they imperil the safety of our community through use of such a system. We must likewise reject the requirements of HAVA (Help America Vote Act), or at the least join efforts to repeal or delay its implementation.
Just as Utah and Connecticut have rejected demands of No Child Left Behind, we have to encourage official civil disobedience among those who most immediately (locally) represent us. They are being put in a position where the federal government is forcing them to choose between compliance and taking action in the best interest of their constituents. The Voter Confidence Resolution is a call for local governments everywhere to perform civil disobedience by refusing to accept election results until our election reform platform has been implemented. We aim to create a basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections where currently no basis for confidence exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Have you read Votescam yet? Details forty years of election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
16. kick.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
18. Kick (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
20. Press Release: VCC Calls For Rejection of CA Special Election Results
June 15, 2005

Media Contact: Dave Berman, Voter Confidence Committee
707-845-XXXX, blog@guvwurld.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Voter Confidence Committee Calls For Rejection of CA Special Election
Results

The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) of Humboldt County, California, an election reform and watchdog group, announced today it will not accept as conclusive any results from the special statewide election called for Nov. 8 by Governor Schwarzenegger. Citing the election reform platform of the Voter Confidence Resolution, the VCC maintains that this election will be held under conditions that do not ensure an outcome that is conclusive beyond all question and indicative of the will of California voters.

"Until corporate money is removed from elections, voting systems are no longer privatized, and vote counting is not done in secret, election results in America can't be seen as beyond question," said VCC principal Dave Berman. "And until these deficiencies are remedied in California, how can we possibly have a basis for confidence in election results?"

The Voting Systems and Procedures Panel is scheduled to meet in Sacramento on Thursday June 16th to rule on certification of voting equipment made by Diebold and Elections Systems and Software (ES&S). Diebold has been under heavy scrutiny for alleged employment of felons, internal memos discussing programming loopholes, partisan fundraising activities of executives and dozens of examples of vote tally discrepancies.

ES&S is partially owned by Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. ES&S machines counted over 80% of the votes that first put Hagel in office in 1996. Combined, ES&S and Diebold count over 80% of the votes in U.S. national elections and are run by brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich.

"We can choose to allow these blatant conflicts of interest, or we can
recognize that sensible laws prohibit them," says Berman. "Isnt it bad enough that private corporations are counting our votes in secret? Does it make any sense to use these machines when they don't even meet requirements established by the state of California?"

In April, 2004 the CA Secretary of State's office issued a report stating that counties throughout the state, including Humboldt, were using machines lacking state certification, federal qualification, or in some cases both.

The Voter Confidence Committee is encouraging other public interest groups to support the Voter Confidence Resolution by lobbying their local City Council for its passage. "We must refuse to accept elections held under conditions that can't and don't ensure conclusive outcomes and a basis for confidence in the results reported," says Berman.

"When we begin to make this stand community by community, We The People will have begun the process of ensuring the Consent of the Governed," Berman added. "This doesnt need to be controversial. Elections must be transparent, fairly executed, and lead to unanimous agreement about the outcome. The system must be beyond question, period.

RELATED READING
Voter Confidence Committee website - http://www.voterconfidencecommittee.org
Voter Confidence Resolution -
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-r...
Facts on Diebold -
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/images/ovc_lit/Dieb...
Facts on ES&S - http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
Facts on corporate ownership of election machines -
http://www.ecotalk.org/UrosevichBrothers.htm
April 2004 CA Secretary of State report -
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/randgsumma...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
21. Kick (eom)
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 Sat May 25th 2019, 06:32 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