Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Look Who's Talking About Near-Unanimous Support For Transparent Elections
The Zogby poll showing that 92% of Americans favor the right to see how votes are counted is a huge story starting to show up all over the place. I first wrote about this Sunday morning. I gave the piece to OpEdNews, who has picked up my previous stories rather quickly, but didn't post this one until Monday night. Late Monday afternoon the Voter Confidence Committee also issued this press release.
Those pieces, plus all of the ones below, cite Tuesday for the release of the polling data. I saw the cross tabs myself and had no doubt we were citing real numbers when we started reporting. Now it's almost Wednesday and the Zogby "Whatz New?" page still hasn't mentioned our poll. Why? is a good question. Attorney Paul Lehto represents the voters in the CA-50 lawsuit and commissioned the Zogby poll. Lehto put out this statement earlier tonight:"Everything seems on track but Zogby has been swamped and there was a delay for tweaks in the text of the press release. The release is now set for Noon EST, Wed."
That's 9am here in CA. I'll have more on this in the morning to be sure. Meanwhile, the train has left the station...
BradBlog has done some number crunching to produce some exclusive charts not shown anywhere else, although (Winter Patriot subbing for) Brad does reprint the entire Scoop article written by Michael Collins. Collins runs ElectionFraudNews.com, and has filed many other key election integrity stories for Scoop, including this one on the CA-50 lawsuit and this article from last Christmas Day when he covered the California Unity Campaign I started at GuvWurld.
Kathy Dopp wrote this press release for the National Election Data Archive (NEDA). Democracy For New Hampshire posted these comments. And a new Humboldt blog called Center Opposition, written by the pseudonymous Blogger Critic, mentions the poll here by pointing back to WDNC. Center Opposition debuted last weekend and somehow I was the first to comment on the very first post. The writer is smart. Check it out.
As more people are talking about this, Lehto has strongly encouraged people to emphasize the significance of the 92% support for election transparency:First, I put it IN CONTEXT. It's one of the highest political values ever measured. Pretty much the ONLY way we can come up with anything more popular is to go to something about which there is NO SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY. But with the ability to view vote counting and obtain information on it, THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS RAPIDLY MOVING TO ELIMINATE THIS WIDELY HELD AND BELIEVED VALUE ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRACY.
I agree with Lehto that this is a mammoth opportunity. We are now in position to get some of our most important points clearly heard. Best of all, we can make these points knowing that the super-majority understands and agrees. What we need is for progressive media to start an echo chamber. Accordingly, now seems like a good time to revisit the election talking points I posted in June (excerpt):
WHAT DOES 92% MEAN? IT MEANS WINNING IF YOU KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE
It's way higher than people who wouldn't mind a free tax cut.
It's Higher than Bush's approval rating after 9-11. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
It's higher than the approval ratings of any departing President. http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_historical_approval.htm
I'll bet it's higher than the approval ratings of Pres. Lincoln and Pres. Washington TODAY, if they exist. Though i'm willing to be proven wrong on that. Anyone?
It's higher than the approval rating of any senator, governor or President since WWII, at any time. See, e.g., http://www.surveyusa.com/50governorsrated051005.htm others at main link.
It's higher than the 87% thinking oil companies are gouging consumers these days. http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788
And, it's also higher than the percentage of people who can get a basic math long division problem right.
And so, if you can find it in your courage quotient to mention the high price of gas benefiting the oil companies, notch that up at least another 5% to get at how much easier it is to comment against secret vote counting and in favor of public involvement and rights to get information about vote counting...1. Secret vote counting guarantees inconclusive outcomes. Whether it is paperless DREs or optical scanners with interpreted or proprietary code, votes are being "counted" in secret, without even a chance for voters, elections officials or the media to examine the process or verify the results.
The larger question that should emerge from these talking points is: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET? Presented this way the question takes a tone of inevitability - not if, but when! This is how we pave a path to a tipping point.
2. Unverified voting means there is NO BASIS for confidence in the results reported. Blind trust is required to accept current election results.
3. The media should not report what it cannot prove or independently verify. We now have faith-based reporting about faith-based elections.
4. The Consent of the Governed is being assumed, not sought, under current election conditions. According to the Declaration of Independence, the "just Power" of government derives from the Consent of the Governed.
5. Here is a partial list (in no particular order) of additional items to which we must say: We Do Not Consent.a) The lost presumption of innocence;
b) Spying on Americans and an overall loss of privacy;
c) Government lawlessness;
d) Destruction of our environment;
e) The promise of endless war;
f) Free speech zones;
g) Depleted Uranium (Mr. Bush's slow-motion holocaust);
h) Government run media;
i) Secret prisons, torture and war crimes;
j) and We Do Not Consent to secret vote counting machines.
(Read the rest of the Talking Points Memo On Elections (for Progressive media)
UPDATE: 8/23/06 1:45am
More chatter at Raw Story, The Democratic Daily, Daily Kos, and VoteTrustUSA, which has Collins's Scoop article.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/08/look-whos-talking-about-near-unanimous.html
Read or Post a Comment
<< Home