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.

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...
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):
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.

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.
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.

(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


Posted by Dave Berman - 11:10 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
As shown on
Dave's new blog,
Manifest Positivity

We Do Not Consent, Volume 1 (left) and Volume 2 (right), feature essays from Dave Berman's previous blogs, GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent, respectively. Click the covers for FREE e-book versions (.pdf). As of April 2010, paperbacks are temporarily out of print. Click here for the author's bio.

Back Page Quotes

"Give a damn about the world you live in? Give a damn about what you and I both know is one of the most shameful and destructive periods in American history? If so, do something about it. You can start by reading We Do Not Consent."

— Brad Friedman, Creator/Editor, BradBlog.com; Co-Founder, VelvetRevolution.us


"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It’s also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can’t repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn’t exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."

— Paul Lehto, Attorney at Law, Everett, WA


"Dave Berman has been candid and confrontational in challenging all of us to be "ruthlessly honest" in answering his question, "What would be better?" He encourages us to build consensus definitions of "better," and to match our words with actions every day, even if we do only "the least we can do." Cumulatively and collectively, our actions will bring truth to light."

— Nezzie Wade, Sociology Professor, Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods


"Dave Berman's work is quietly brilliant and powerfully utilitarian. His Voter Confidence Resolution provides a fine, flexible tool whereby any community can reclaim and affirm a right relation to its franchise as a community of voters."

— Elizabeth Ferrari, San Francisco, Green Party of California


"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."

— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media


"What's special about this book (and it fits because there's nothing more fundamental to Democracy than our vote) is the raising of consciousness. Someone recognizing they have no basis for trusting elections may well ask what else is being taken for granted."

— Eddie Ajamian, Los Angeles, CA


"I urge everyone to read "We Do Not Consent", and distribute it as widely as possible."

— B Robert Franza MD, author of We the People ... Have No Clothes: A Pamphlet for every American