Monday, March 16, 2009
Please Help Save The Peter B. Collins Show
Peter B. Collins announced on his syndicated talk radio show this past Friday (.mp3 via BradBlog.com) that his last show in its current "configuration" would be next Friday, March 20. Listeners are rallying to reverse this decision, and what I'm writing is an urgent plea for your help. Below is an explanation from Peter's website explaining this "tough decision", but first let me tell you the why and how to save the show.
Peter's reporting, coverage and exploration are unmatched on topics such as election integrity, 9/11 truth, depleted uranium, grassroots activism (more properly called public service), and others distorted or blacked out by the corporate/military/government/media juggernaut. Of all the talk show hosts I've heard, PBC is the most respectful of listeners, guests and callers, who are rarely interrupted and never shouted down, always allowed to make their point even when in disagreement with "the humble host." This show smartens us up rather than dumbing us down.
On Sunday night I made a bunch of phone calls adding up to $1,160 in pledges and donations to keep Peter on the air. Others are doing similar outreach and so I ask what is the least you can do? Can you pledge $10 per month for six months? At this rate just 500 regular sustaining contributions would keep the show on the air. This is how we vote with our dollars, and put our money where our mouths are. Click here to visit Peter's donation page (scroll to bottom for donation button).
We all know that not everyone can afford even $10. So maybe the least you can do is tell a friend who perhaps donates and/or tells another friend. Perhaps you own a business, or know a business owner you can encourage to advertise to a very smart and conscious audience. Speak up for (and on) our supposed public airwaves. We're past use it or lose it - we must reclaim what is ours, support and protect it dearly.
Try this: Imagine the PBC show as our after school club where we get together to stay informed and involved, a rare progressive media forum that supports real world work for change. If you can, pay some monetary dues. For the rest, dues means participating. Listen live all this week (and hopefully beyond) from 3-6pm PT via www.PeterBCollins.com.
I've mentioned my respect, appreciation and admiration of Peter B. Collins on the We Do Not Consent blog many times these past few years, often referring to my appearances as a guest or caller on the show. I was honored to be part of two live broadcasts from here in Humboldt, CA, and even one visit to the secret PBC studio location in the Bay Area (when he signed on to the open letter to the media from the media). Brad Friedman at BradBlog.com has been a much more frequent guest, contributor and even fill-in host, and has posted his own reflections that have prompted much fan-to-fan discussion of how to save and subsequently sustainably support this vital program.
* * *
"I made a tough decision..."
On Friday, I delivered the news of my decision to end the daily broadcasts of the PBC Show.
Our last live broadcast will be Friday, March 20, which will replay on some stations through March 22.
Since we started on KRXA in 2005, I've been covering the costs of producing the show and delivering it to our affiliate stations by satellite. With phone bills and the other expenses, it adds up to more than $5,000 a month. We get a little advertising revenue and some generous listeners contribute, but most of it is absorbed by my small business, Collins Media Services. Until last summer, I was able to cover the costs from my work as a radio producer and consultant. Like everyone else, the Bush recession has hit me hard.
To make money in syndication, we need to be on 20+ stations and at least one of the big 3, NY, LA, Chicago. As an independent, self-syndicated show, we've had to compete with Air America, Dial-Global and Nova M programs, and for various reasons, the PBC Show didn't break through. Air America is the brand that most people connect with progressive talk radio, and their bankruptcy and sequence of blunders has, unfortunately, defined our collective efforts in a negative way that has provided an easy target for the non-liberal media. As a result, the total number of stations offering progressive talk in the US peaked at about 105 in 2006, and is now around 70. Miami, DC, and even Ann Arbor have lost their progressive stations in the last month.
Over the past 3.75 years, I've tried it all. I pitched all of the Air America programmers except the current one, who never returned my calls or emails. I was offered a deal by Nova M, but they reneged in a bizarre story I'm saving for my talk-n-tell book. Air America just announced that Montel Williams will be their new offering in the Thom Hartmann time slot, which tells us that Jerry Springer's flameout was just their first attempt to retread a tabloid TV host as a "progressive" radio host.
As I said on Friday, I'm very proud of what we've done here, and grateful to my partner, Kathee Shatter, for indulging my risky business, and to two exceptional producers: Matt Renner (now DC editor at Truthout.org) and Katrina Rill. Katrina was with me when we euthanized my satellite radio show, and I'm sorry she has to go through it again.
I'm grateful to every listener, even the ones who think I'm full of it, for taking the time to listen. And to those who called and emailed and sent letters and checks, I couldn't have done this without you. To the many fine guests who spent time on the show, and especially to the regulars, I thank you for your immeasurable contributions to my program and to the knowledge base of my listeners.
Thanks for all the emails in response to this news, I will try to answer as many as I can, and all will be saved so we can notify you of future plans. I'm not going away, and may launch a podcast and/or weekend radio show after I take a break to recharge and re-wealth. Special recognition to generous individuals who have clicked on "You Can Help" and made contributions, including the whopper from Seattle. Your contributions will be used to retire some debt, pay off the bills and give Katrina and Nick something extra for their dedication. No pressure, no guilt, but if you can help, you have my gratitude.
Many people who heard the $5,000 monthly cost figure have emailed to pledge $10 a month and said, "how do we find the other 499?" We have tried that to some extent, but I don't want to turn the show into a pledge-a-thon, 'cause I listen to the radio, too, and don't like them. Plus, I'm well aware that many of my listeners can't even spare $10 a month right now. Overall, I don't think we can shift to a voluntary subscription plan to produce a reliable funding stream.
If you disagree, email me: fullofit@peterbcollins.com Tell me if you're willing to subscribe for at least 6 months, and how much you can pay. If enough people respond by Monday night 3/16, I will make a final review of this decision. Dave Berman in Eureka, Tom McAfee in SF, and Aldous Tyler in Madison have offered to coordinate this kind of effort, but I need to give them your names and emails.
Keep listening this week, call in when you can–we'll try to get allof our favorite guests to check in, too.
warmly,
pbc
Please help save the Peter B. Collins Show...
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/03/please-help-save-peter-b-collins-show.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, BradBlog.com, open letter, Peter B. Collins, public service
Monday, January 12, 2009
Funding Frozen For Proposed Humboldt Voting Machine Switch
According to the agenda, this Tuesday the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal from Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, who seeks approval for the purchase of Hart InterCivic eScan optical scanners to replace the similar Diebold/Premier equipment used to "count" votes here since 1995. Linked from the agenda is a 22 page .pdf called Voting Modernization Project Plan Phase II. From page two:Because of the current fiscal crisis in the State of California, the voting Modernization Bond funds designated to cover this project were frozen by the State Treasurer on December 19, 2008. We will return to your Board for change order and funding plan approval once the funding plan is developed and approved by the Secretary of State. The delay in obtaining these funds should not impact the approval of the concept of this plan.
As previously reported at WDNC, the Registrar has created a sense of urgency around this proposal (reinforced by quotes in a Eureka Times-Standard Sunday cover story that is oddly absent from the paper's website). But how can she expect the Supes to hurry up and approve a proposal for a purchase requiring funds that are not currently available and which would be based on a contract that has not been made public? Further calling this urgency into question, from page 6 of the same agenda attachment:Because there is currently no county-wide election scheduled until November 2009, full implementation of the system will be possible before the next election.
One other quick point about this implementation plan. On page 9 it calls for "sleepovers," a period of two days prior to the election when precinct inspectors will have the eScans in their private possession. This is despite myriad warnings, even in the California Secretary of State's own Top To Bottom Review of Hart voting systems. From that report:Conclusion (p.16):
No procedural mitigation defeats unfettered access to machines that can be undetectably manipulated. In addition, deletion of audit trails occurred in this past November's election, as revealed by the Election Transparency Project (ETP). Volunteer Parke Bostrom commented on this in a quote previously posted here at WDNC and also found in this December 8 article at Wired.com:
Although the Red Team did not have time to finish exploits for all of the vulnerabilities we discovered, nor to provide a complete evaluation of the Hart voting system (System 6.2.1 [now proposed for Humboldt]), we were able to discover attacks for the Hart system that could compromise the accuracy, secrecy, and availability of the voting systems and their auditing mechanisms. That is, the Red Team has developed exploits that – absent procedural mitigation strategies – can alter vote totals, violate the privacy of individual voters, make systems unavailable, and delete audit trails.This means the audit log is not truly a "log" in the classical computer program sense, but is rather a "re-imagining" of what GEMS would like the audit log to be, based on whatever information GEMS happens to remember at the end of the vote counting process.
Bostrom is referring to the Diebold central tabulation program responsible for the 197 secretly deleted ballots, though the point is the same with Hart's equipment. Beyond undetectable manipulation, the system can cover its tracks, destroying assurances of built-in memory redundancies and making a mockery of logic and accuracy testing.
The We Do Not Consent blog on Friday posted an announcement from the Humboldt County Republican Party that it has adopted a resolution in support of a public discussion process prior to a vote by the Supervisors on Crnich's proposal. In Sunday's (so far) print-only T-S article, Eureka City Councilman Larry Glass adds, "I think that's an issue that I'd like to see get some more public dialogue, and I'm going to try to make a point of contacting the supervisors and expressing that." Another member of the Council assured me he will attend Tuesday's Supes meeting to make this point in person.
The Voter Confidence Committee, which I co-founded nearly four years ago, distributed an e-mail newsletter on Sunday evening encouraging supporters to attend Tuesday's meeting, or at least to call Supervisors with some or all of the following messages:--We want and are entitled to have a choice and a say in how we count our votes;
There has been other recent media coverage of this developing story. In the third hour of Friday's Peter B. Collins show, I spoke with PBC and Brad Friedman about the day old announcement of a second discrepancy found by the ETP, showing 57 ballots were scanned twice into the official certified results.
--This plan calls for $600,000+ of public money to be spent, and any expense this size deserves careful public scrutiny;
--Prior to voting on the proposed plan, the responsible thing is for the Supervisors to invite the public to participate in the decision making process;
--In any case, there is no reason to rush this decision as the funds for this purchase have been frozen by the State Treasurer;
--The proposed replacement equipment are still secret corporate vote counting machines (a "false alternative");
--State-sponsored reviews of the proposed replacement machines have revealed many problems; we do not want to repeat the past mistake of investing in flawed technology despite knowing of the risks and warnings;
--The manufacturer of the replacement machines has withdrawn from the federal certification process, meaning no software or security updates of any kind will be possible, and no newer versions will be available.
After a commercial break (edited out of linked recording), we got into discussing Tuesday's upcoming Supes meeting and were then joined by a surprise phone call from Crnich. She has appeared on PBC's show many times before, and this is not the first time she has called in immediate response to my presence on the show. There was an unusually long and uninterrupted segment where Friedman challenges Crnich in ways that just have to be heard, including telling her flat out in the end that she should slow down and allow more public input. Overall, I come on the show at about 16:30 into the recording; Crnich joins around the 24 minute mark.
Finally, borrowed from the VCC newsletter, a summary of recent related links:
North Coast Journal, 12/4/08, Election Results: Wrong
http://ncjournal.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/election-results-wrong/#comments
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/5/08, Software glitch yields inaccurate election results
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11145349 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/7/08, Local elections office commended
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11161383 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard (editorial), 12/7/08, A glitch that should never have been
http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_11161384 (archive)
Wired, 12/8/08, Serious Error in Diebold Voting Software Caused Lost Ballots in California County
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/unique-election.html
Wired, 12/8/08, Unique Transparency Program Uncovers Problems with Voting Software
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/unique-transpar.html
Eureka Times-Standard (Letter to the editor), 12/10/08, Who Dares Defend Diebold?
http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_11183863 (archive)
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/17/08, Humboldt's False Alternative to Diebold
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/12/humboldts-false-alternative-to-diebold.html
North Coast Journal (Letter to the editor), 12/18, Has Humboldt Hit a Tipping Point?
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2008/12/18/vote-smart/
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/22/08, Registrar of Voters considers dumping equipment
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11287543 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/29/08, Federal election commission eyes Humboldt
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11328669 (archive)
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/6/09, Exclusive: Humboldt's Secret Hart Attack
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/exclusive-humboldts-secret-hart-attack.html
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/9/09, Humboldt Republicans Call For Public Discussion of Proposed Voting Machine Switch
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/humboldt-republicans-call-for-public.html
Eureka Times-Standard, 1/10/09, New error found in county election results
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11422921 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard (Editorial), 1/11/09, Thank you, Humboldt County Transparency Project
http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_11428478 (archive)
* * *
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/funding-frozen-for-proposed-humboldt.html
Labels: Board of Supervisors, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, Diebold, Hart Intercivic, Humboldt Republicans, Parke Bostrom, Peter B. Collins, Top To Bottom Review, Transparency Project
Friday, October 24, 2008
How To Disarm Weapons of Mass Deception
The phrase "weapons of mass deception" is a well recognized play on "weapons of mass destruction," and is well understood to refer to the corporate media. As a fascist state, it is really the corporate/military/government/media juggernaut that bombards and assaults freedoms and liberties, dumbing-down, propagandizing, manipulating, and feeding us The Big Lie. We have to protect ourselves, not only from our government's lawlessness, but also from weapons of mass deception. Kill your television, yes, a good place to start. Now we are going further...
Yesterday I appeared as a guest on the Peter B. Collins syndicated talk radio show (part 1, part 2). We talked about an open letter, published yesterday at We Do Not Consent, New Zealand's Scoop, as well as other progressive news sites (known list of x-posts below). PBC added his name to Mark Crispin Miller, David Swanson, Lynn Landes, Rob Kall, and more than 15 other media truth-tellers so far who have begun to disarm the weapons of mass deception.
George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
My rally cry has long been "Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!"
Put the two together and we have media telling the truth to their colleagues and industry, questioning how federal election results can be reported as fact when they can not be independently verified or even proven, and come from only one conflicted source, the very government whose grip on power is at stake.
The power of weapons of mass deception emanates at full strength unless we challenge the phony narrative and distracting drama portrayed as the important stories of the day. But the challenge alone is not enough. To disarm weapons of mass deception we must also supplant its fabricated reality with what is really going on.
The letter itself is only a first step. The list of signers, while meaningful, is static even as it grows longer. The impact of this truth-telling comes in telling it repeatedly and seeing those who encounter it begin to tell it yet again.
The default response of the weapons will be to ignore. The truth-tellers challenge will be mostly won merely by engaging with the weapon, insisting on not being ignored. Members of the reading and thinking public can and hopefully will self-identify as truth-tellers, rather than externalizing that label onto the courageous early adopters of the letter.
Confronting The Big Lie means calling out simple truths hiding in plain site. Consider it converting unconventional wisdom to conventional wisdom. That implies enormous reach and explicitly calls us all to action. How hard can it be to call a talk show host or e-mail an opinion writer and have them address this, from the open letter:There are three very simple basic facts about the way US federal elections are conducted now, and we think they lead to an inescapable conclusion that must be addressed.
Weapons of mass deception are a powerful force working against We The People. This common phrase is so well known, yet rarely considered in a way I would call ruthlessly honest. Ruthless honesty requires that we match up the way we see something with the way we act about it. We already see the corporate media as a weapon of mass deception. Ruthless honesty calls for disarmament.
See if you agree:
1. We have secret corporate vote counting computers counting more than 95% of the votes cast in the United States;
2. The absence of paper ballots, and in some cases state's law, prevents meaningful re-counts throughout much of the country;
3. These electronic voting machines frequently produce results impossible in a legitimate election, such as John Kerry's negative 25 million votes in Youngstown, OH (Nov. 2004), or Palm Beach County's 12,000 votes in excess of the number of voters (Aug. 2008).
To us this suggests the conclusion that federal election results are unprovable, even though the media reports them as fact.
Can you draw any other conclusion?
Known cross-posts of the open letter as of now:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/We-Do-Not-Consent--Open-L-by-Press-Release-081024-862.html
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/37087
http://usacoup.scoop.co.nz/?p=835
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0810/S00360.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/24/202910/15/310/641419
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x509838
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4304200
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) also has a blurb about the letter here.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-to-disarm-weapons-of-mass-deception.html
Labels: David Swanson, disarmament, George Orwell, Lynn Landes, Mark Crispin Miller, OpEdNews.com, open letter, Peter B. Collins, truth-tellers, weapons of mass deception, weapons of mass destruction
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Peter B. Collins, Dave Berman to Discuss Unprovable Federal Election Results - 10/23 5pm PT
Listen live through PeterBCollins.com Thursday at 5pm PT as I'll be on this great talk radio show to discuss whether the accuracy of federal election results can be proven.
For a long time I have argued federal election results are inherently inconclusive, unknowable and unprovable - based entirely on the conditions under which "elections" are conducted. There is simply no basis for confidence in the reported results, that is, no reason to believe them.
As I hinted last Friday, when I wrote about the Nation's John Nichols coming around to describing the 2000 and 2004 elections as "inconclusive," during tomorrow's interview we will begin to hear a louder chorus taking up this message and calling out the media.
Why should we be expected to believe reported election results that media have not and can not independently verify, which can't even be proven, and which come from only one source - the very government whose grip on power is at stake?
In fact, for as long as I've written the We Do Not Consent blog there have been others making this point. In the back of my book, We Do Not Consent, (free .pdf), there are testimonials that have permanently appeared in the sidebar of the blog as follows:"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."
Over the years, these points have been made in countless ways. Tomorrow we will unveil perhaps the most impactful expression yet. In the meantime, here's another that I submitted last week as a letter to the editor of the North Coast Journal. I'm posting it now because their new issue came out today without it.
— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media
and...
"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, Juris DoctorDear Editor:
Thank you for the even-handed run down of state and local ballot issues (Oct. 9). Perhaps you could also devote a little space to both sides of a national question: are federal election results provable?
One side says: we have secret corporate vote counting computers in more than 95% of the country; about 30% of the country doesn't even use paper ballots to allow a serious re-count; and these electronic voting machines frequently produce results impossible in a legitimate election, such as John Kerry's negative 25 million votes in Youngstown, OH (Nov. 2004), or Palm Beach County's 12,000 votes in excess of the number of voters (Aug. 2008).
These self-described "election integrity advocates" say there is no way to prove federal election results. They further allege that media is abandoning its most basic principles by publishing election results as fact, when the information has not and can not be independently verified. Worse still, they say, is that media reports of election results rely on only one source--the government--even though the government can not prove the reported results.
Opponents argue federal election results are provable because. Just because.
While this is fairly convincing, the Journal could do a genuine public service in affording more space for elaboration of this point of view. The Journal could also encourage the media industry at large to advocate for hand counting paper ballots, reasoning that this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording the reported results the greatest credibility, and demonstrating that the reported results have been proven to the satisfaction of the thousands of ordinary Americans who would be involved in counting ballots.
Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/peter-b-collins-dave-berman-to-discuss.html
Labels: hand-counting paper ballots, inconclusive, John Nichols, Michael Collins, North Coast Journal, Paul Lehto, Peter B. Collins, Scoop, The Nation, unprovable
Friday, October 17, 2008
John Nichols: 2000, 2004 Elections "Inconclusive"; Humboldt Dems to Show "Uncounted" This Sat
Sorry for the split headline, but it is time to do some dot connecting.
First, a note for Humboldt readers. The local Democratic Central Committee will be hosting a free screening of "Uncounted" beginning at 7pm this Saturday (10/18) at 129 5th Street, Eureka. The film is a "documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 - and now looms as an unbridled threat to the outcome of the 2008 election."
I'll be there and anticipate a lively group discussion (read: confronting Dems' cognitive dissonance) following the film. If you've ever met me or read anything else I've written, you may already have a sense of what I'll be saying, especially now that others are saying the same thing. Say what?
I was both pleased and bemused last week when John Nichols posted to The Nation website a piece called "No More Stolen Elections." Two key excerpts (emphasis added):"...[Bush campaign co-chair and Ohio] Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, made it possible for the Republican ticket to secure an election night "result" that was of dubious legitimacy, and circumstances taht [sic] made the ensuing recount an inconclusive exercise in frustration."
Certainly I am pleased to see a major American journalist take the position I've held for years, that the Bush regime claim to power is illegitimate, and was made possible by election conditions that ensured inconclusive results (see: Voter Confidence Resolution, adopted by Arcata, CA City Council, 7/20/05).
(snip)
The bottom line from both 2000 and 2004 is this: Smart, engaged activists from across the country were caught unprepared for monumental struggles over not just clean elections and electoral votes but, in a very real sense, the future of the republic.
Good people tried to intervene. But it was too little, too late. Mistakes made in the hours and days after the presidential elections in each of those two years would haunt the process to its conclusion -- or, to be more precise, to an inconclusive moment when power would be allocated without legitimacy.
But Nichols has two major disconnects that I'd like to put back together here. First, he attributes the inconclusive results to the election conditions - which are largely the same in 2008. To look back and say the previous results were inconclusive requires a degree of honesty which could only be called ruthless honesty if it acknowledged that the same conditions will always and again produce inconclusive, unknowable, unprovable results. "Too little, too late" last time means take a different approach this time.
The second disconnect is Nichols' call to action:What should smart activists be doing?
If we already recognize that election conditions guarantee inconclusive results, waiting until after the "election" to protest is not what smart activists would do because it would again be "too little, too late." In fact, the same well-meaning progressive leaders behind "No More Stolen Elections" put forth a similar pledge that I wrote about just prior to the 2004 "election."
Preparing to say, without caution or compromise, that they will not sit idly by and allow another presidential election to be gamed.
That's what the Rev. Jesse Jackson, populist leader Jim Hightower, author Barbara Ehrenreich, singer Holly Near, activist Tom Hayden, Rabbi Michael Lerner and other activists, academics and writers -- including this author -- were thinking when we signed on to the call to action for the "No More Stolen Elections!" campaign that launches this week.
The campaign asks Americans to take a simple pledge:
"I remember Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, and I am willing to take action in 2008 if the election is stolen again.
I support efforts to protect the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 4th.
I pledge to join nationwide pro-democracy protests starting on November 5th, either in my community, in key states where fraud occurred, or in Washington, D.C..
I pledge: No More Stolen Elections!""I remember the stolen presidential election of 2000 and I am willing to take action in 2004 if the election is stolen again. I support efforts to protect the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 2nd. If that right is systematically violated, I pledge to join nationwide protests starting on November 3rd, either in my community, in the states where the fraud occurred, or in Washington DC."
It has become cliché to cite the definition of insane as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Does it make me a bad writer to use a cliché or a smarter activist to say let's do something different?
The original link to the first "No Stolen Elections" pledge no longer works, but I found it archived here. That's a page on the site of the Liberty Tree Foundation, one of the sponsors of the new pledge. There is a lot of other great work happening there, but I can't consider either of these pledges as good examples. It is counterproductive to reinforce the frame: "if the election is stolen again." We all know already the "election" is a charade. We also all know more than enough to conclude with certainty that the "election" results will be inherently uncertain, inconclusive, and unprovable.
Even though I've been making this point for more than four years, it has morphed and sharpened somewhat in the past several weeks. For reference, read here and here, and listen here (.mp3) as I spoke at a Constitution Day rally in Eureka last month, and here (.mp3) for a few minutes with Peter B. Collins and Brad Friedman.
While my blog posts have not been frequent, I have been doing other writing that I'll soon make available. It will be another, bigger example of others saying what I'm saying we should say. If you get it, you need to pass it on to the media. Don't be shy about expressing disbelief or even disdain that media would expect us to accept their reporting of election results as fact when the results have not and can not be independently verified by media, can not even be proven, and come from only one source -- the government whose power is at stake. If we buy that, we really are insane by any definition.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/john-nichols-2000-2004-elections.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, Democratic Central Committee, inconclusive, John Nichols, No More Stolen Elections, Peter B. Collins, The Nation, Uncounted, unprovable
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Slacker Uprising? Not in the Charlie Brown Nation.
Michael Moore released a new film this week called "Slacker Uprising." After watching the free download tonight I realized nobody would have paid to see this had it been released in theaters.
"Slacker Uprising" chronicles Moore's 62 city "get out the vote" tour in the weeks leading up to the 2004 "election." He drew huge crowds, controversy, and media coverage in cities and towns of all sizes. His affable personality, quick wit and good humor were shown in abundance. And as Rady Ananda observed in her own review of the film, the events were depicted as anti-war and anti-Bush but no so much on selling positive attributes of John Kerry or the Democratic (sic) party.
Frankly, this movie was painful to watch, but not in the way that it hurts see a mom talking about losing a son to war (which was a sad and moving moment in fine Moore movie making tradition). This was painful--for me--in the same way even conservative pundits describe cringing during Sarah Palin interviews. I doubt that everyone will respond to "Slacker Uprising" this way, though perhaps you can understand my reaction through the prism of the words I was writing at the time these rallies were happening:The GuvWurld Blog is Back, September 4, 2004
In general, I like Moore and his films. But watching "Slacker Uprising" was like seeing the Charlie Brown Nation running up to kick the football that is always pulled away at the last moment. Will Charlie ever learn? Will we?
...I think there needs to be a planned response to the inevitable election uncertainty. We have disaster contingencies for all sorts of emergencies so why not a Constitutional crisis? It behooves us to know what we'll be calling for and that we have some harmonized voices in a chorus. I think it also makes sense to encourage elected officials to pledge a response. They must be held accountable for their responsibility to hold others accountable.
Simulated Competition, October 12, 2004
The real competition occurs in these [court] battles while Bush vs. Kerry is simulated competition perpetuating the myth of democracy. This is the only point that now really needs to be made on behalf of the No Confidence Movement - if both major parties are preparing and planning for the uncertainty, so too must we plan and prepare.
Bush Lawyer Anticipates Delay in Tally, October 16, 2004
More validation for the premise of No Confidence:President Bush's top campaign lawyer said yesterday that the winner of next month's presidential vote may not be known for "days or weeks" after Election Day if the contest is close.
Full story from today's Washington Post (in GuvWurld News Archive, links to original)
NYTimes Ponders Uncertain Election Outcome, October 16, 2004
I still have not read or heard of anybody making the argument that they have absolute confidence that the election will be 100% legitimate with a universally accepted outcome. This is an untenable position because there is NO BASIS for such confidence. From today's NYTimes:
(snip)Some observers see potential for lasting benefits from another disputed election, at least once the dust has settled: they say it may finally rouse the country to overhaul the presidential election process.
While I recognize the election cannot and should not be pre-empted, I find this final excerpt to be highly motivational:One thing that seems certain, though, is that there is no certainty about how the nation will handle the aftermath of a disputed election.
We can't know how the nation (or the world) as a whole will respond, but there is no reason for us not to be gathering in our communities to determine appropriate expressions of rejection for the impending sham.
Post-"Election" Planning October 28, 2004
So what else, let's see...the GuvWurld News Archive has several recent stories about expecting an uncertain outcome:
San Francisco Chronicle - Various Controversies Expected To Delay Election Outcome - 10-23-04
FindLaw - The Coming Post-Election Chaos - 10-22-04
GovExec.com - Justice Dept Not Prepared To Document Election Aftermath - 10-19-04
NYTimes - Imagining the Danger of 2000 Redux - 10-17-04
Here we are four years later and my last two blog posts were "The Real Election Math," proving election results will again be unprovable this November; and "Hey Media! - Don't Report As Fact What Can't Even Be Proven (Federal Election Results)," in which linked to this speech (.mp3) I recently gave outlining a new campaign calling for the grassroots, progressive politicians, and progressive media to confront the corporate media in the simplest of terms.
Despite Moore's gung-ho "get out the vote" attitude, or perhaps because of it, he is now a must on the media outreach list for this campaign. I stuck my toe in that water Friday afternoon with a call to the Peter B. Collins show during Brad Friedman's regular guest spot on election integrity. Listen to the excerpt in the GuvWurld News Archive, or catch the full hour in PBC's podcast archive.
"Slacker Uprising" had no potential to come anywhere near Moore's box office financial successes, so I can see keeping it out of the theaters. What I'm struggling with is why anybody thought there was a good time to show this dated and painful reminder billed in the opening as "one filmmaker's failed attempt to turn things around."
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/09/slacker-uprising-not-in-charlie-brown.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, Bush, GuvWurld blog, GuvWurld News Archive, John Kerry, Michael Moore, no confidence movement, Peter B. Collins, Sarah Palin, simulated competition, Slacker Uprising, unprovable
Sunday, May 11, 2008
So-ing The Seeds of Change
will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
"So?" -- Dick Cheney
* * *
Two months ago, on the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, ABC News asked Dick Cheney to comment on "recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it." With a chuckle and a smirk (video), Cheney famously replied, "so?"
As infuriating as this may be, it comes as no surprise. In fact, this quip - "so?" - should feel familiar to millions of Americans ardently working for peace, justice, the rule of law, election integrity, and a host of other supra-issues, each another path to understanding the illegitimacy of the power behind such dismissiveness.
This illegitimate power flaunts itself virtually unchecked, reinforced by mass media and enabled by the learned helplessness of the American people. Ever since the indeterminate period following the 2000 "election," I have drawn attention to this odd paradox of helplessness, from which it is past time we learned:Having cast a vote, each of us is supposed to know that we did our part to elect our next set of leaders. Yet we are in fact helpless to influence the outcome of events in Florida. Will the election be determined by legal wrangling or concession, vote totals or fraud? No matter which seems to be the ultimate basis for declaring a winner, many will scream injustice. Doesn't this uncertainty cast doubt on the legitimacy of any eventual outcome?
This impenetrable defense against logic ("so?") appears to be contributing to a widespread public emotional and/or mental condition, on the order of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Because I am not immune from these and related forces, I will share the rest of my Cheney-induced flashback...[S]hortly after 9/11, I saw a newspaper photo of a limp woman being dragged by police officers at a UC Berkeley Middle East peace rally. Passive resistance appeared to me as a classic activist technique. With images of picket signs, sit-ins, marches and strikes all popping into my head, I stared at the woman in the picture and couldn't help feeling that her attempt at noble sacrifice left the world no different the next day.
Six years ago I concluded traditional American activism was futile. Now with much of the country awake, a wealth of great online organizing experience under our collective belt, and personal opportunities that allow my writing to reach far larger audiences...despite all that, we've continued to lose our most basic fundamental and unalienable rights, we've learned many times over (or should have) to protect ourselves from our so-called government, and we've seen any pretext of accountability run into a wall of "so?" (think Bolton, Miers, Addington, and Rove all ignoring Congressional subpoenas; or worse, open admissions of torture and illegal spying).
I'm reminded of the Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution, which I wrote over the summer of 2005 and circulated just prior to my participation in the National Summit to Save Our Elections, held in Portland, OR that fall:
Naomi Wolf has since written an even more compelling book, End of America, which defines fascism by common practices of many past regimes, seemingly a template for America's transformation. The North Coast Journal published my book review:· The introduction of paperless electronic voting machines has resulted in "elections" whose unverifiable results are inherently inconclusive. In November 2004, roughly 30% of the votes cast could not be recounted using physical ballots touched by voters. This is blatantly illegal in the many jurisdictions where a close race automatically triggers a recount. It also means we cannot possibly reconcile the results of so-called "glitches" such as machines losing data, counting backwards, or reporting more votes than registered voters. These conditions ensure inconclusive outcomes that will never receive unanimous acceptance (more inherent uncertainty). As the City Council of Arcata, CA attested in adopting the Voter Confidence Resolution, "When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought."
Failing to seek the Consent of the Governed has created a situation where such Consent is assumed. Allowing this assumption to stand is the great collective sabotage* of We The People. The very legitimacy of the U.S. government must be questioned and challenged for it is based not on democratic principles or even laws, but rather the textbook aspects of fascism. Within the reality-based community, these 14 characteristics of fascism are familiar thanks to Laurence W. Britt's widely circulated essay describing commonalities among seven different fascist regimes throughout history.
* Sabotage is the human nature tendency to make trouble for ourselves. Sabotage is yin to the yang of Progress – the result that occurs when we stop making trouble for ourselves.Extensively footnoted, this book draws out astounding parallels between Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet and more. Laid against the backdrop of 21st century America, Wolf shows those currently in power have followed the playbook closely.
To paraphrase an old proverb, people plan, god laughs. I'm not religious and I'm not saying Cheney is god. I'm saying every worthwhile progressive cause can only advance "so?" far until justice and the rule of law are re-established and we deliver ourselves from the illegitimate fascist powers that have taken control of the US government.
Wolf refers to "historical echoes" when describing such recurrent totalitarian manifestations as: secret prisons, mercenary or paramilitary forces, surveillance of ordinary citizens and infiltration of their organizations, restrictions on the press and speech in general, arbitrary detainment and release of citizens, evocation of a constant internal and external threat, allegations of espionage and treason at critics and dissenters and subversion of the rule of law.
Back at the Portland conference I was not able to sway the three dozen or so assembled election integrity advocates who I had hoped would stop treating election integrity as the end goal and begin seeing it as a tactic toward peaceful revolution, a shift in the relationship of power between the People and government. Then as now, it needs to be understood that general acceptance of bogus elections is the juncture at which we either allow our Consent to be assumed and taken for granted, or we make clear that WE DO NOT CONSENT, and prevent power from being usurped by anyone claiming to be so entitled. Upon returning home from the conference I wrote "Peaceful Revolution Is The Elephant In The Room":I took comfort in observing that most if not all in attendance understand empirically, logically and emotionally that there is no rational basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections. There was a lot of discussion about what has happened in recent "elections." But even more important were the projections, made with certainty, that future elections held under these conditions will guarantee inconclusive outcomes and fail to produce unanimous acceptance of the results.
I continued to lead down this path as much as possible, and at times felt great support, including in June 2006. That's when Congress seated and swore in Brian Bilbray as the Representative of California's 50th District, based on a preliminary fax from an assistant Secretary of State of CA, who later acknowledged 65,000 ballots had not yet been counted. In response to the CA-50 power grab I wrote a resolution adopted by the California Election Protection Network, which also received the support of other groups as well as influencing the language of additional separate resolutions:
(snip)
Looking at the real elephant in the room includes these questions: where is the movement going? What will it look like when it succeeds? How can we develop and facilitate the implementation of a cohesive national strategy? And how can we make the phrase "peaceful revolution" socially acceptable? This is why I went to Portland. There was some progress made but we did not get to the core of this matter.Therefore, be it resolved that to warrant the Consent of the Governed, and the authorization of the transfer of power to winning candidates, a full hand count of all legally cast ballots shall first be conducted. This hand count shall reflect the only official result and not be regarded as a recount in any way, including relieving voters of the obligation to pay for said count; and
The collective outcry in this case was channeled into a lawsuit brought by voters. Attorney Paul Lehto correctly called this election nullification, a term that is apt for all so-called "elections" held under unverifiable conditions. His point was that if the outcome of an election could be determined this way then it defeats the purpose of voting and having an election in the first place. So? The judge dismissed the case on the premise that the Constitution gives Congress the final say in seating members, and not even a large number of uncounted ballots could give the court jurisdiction to order counting, whether by hand or otherwise.
Therefore, be it resolved that until such a hand count has been verifiably conducted and a conclusive outcome determined, We, The People, DO NOT CONSENT to transferring power and authority to candidates claiming victory in this illegitimate election. We will do everything within our Constitutional and Human Rights to protect and preserve possession of this power that is inalienably Ours to be given but never taken away.
Right about this time I also challenged the media to follow its own most fundamental ethics and not to report as fact what simply can't be proven and confirmed (unverified and unverifiable "election" results). This is a perfect example of a tilt target, an untenable position that can be maintained (by the media, in this case) only for the lack of being pointed out and challenged. This was among a series of talking points I published and circulated for progressive media. It also spawned two published op-eds and two radio forums on media accountability. So? Without louder sustained pressure upon this Achilles' heel of media credibility, the situation remains unchanged today.
Even progressive stalwarts such as Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins continue to devote substantial radio air time to discussing the candidates and campaigns even though we see widespread consensus that this will have no bearing on how "election" results will be determined. The message of this essay must reach beyond my friends and respected colleagues in the election integrity movement and sink in to the minds of the millions volunteering for and donating to candidate campaigns (for any office, really, not just president). I'd like to think the former can manifest the latter.
So how should Americans react in November after the climax of this never ending campaign results in the predictable spoiled mess with an inherently inconclusive, unknowable outcome that won't be unanimously accepted? I posed this exact question to former Georgia Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on May 9, when she appeared at Humboldt State University on her campaign for the Green Party nomination for President.
She spent nearly five minutes in response (listen here - .mp3), acknowledging many aspects inherent in this situation, but without saying how we can reject the phony results or how her campaign would address this in advance. So? McKinney is articulate, knowledgeable, and brave enough to discuss many things the media and other candidates won't touch. However, she resembled the many polished authors that stop by on book tours, and not someone advertising leadership we were urged to follow.
To McKinney's credit, without my having uttered the word "confidence," as in "no basis for confidence in election results," or the Voter Confidence Committee, in the audio linked above you will hear her say "we can't have confidence in the election results...we are participating in blind faith voting." So? She knows her campaign is part of an "election" masquerading as a legit election and yet she acts without direct challenge to the charade. This also encourages others to look past it, feeding that society-wide PTSD contagion.
McKinney credited the widely used phrase "blind faith voting" to Black Box Voting founder Bev Harris. Recently Harris submitted written testimony to the federal Election Assistance Commission. Here are some important excerpts:We do not consent to any form of secret vote counting, administered and controlled by government insiders and their vendors...Citizens are never allowed to view the original input in order to compare it to the output, and are relegated to trusting circumstantial evidence controlled by insiders. Such a system is, in fact, a transfer of power...The people were never asked to approve such a transfer of power, have never consented to it, and indeed cannot consent, because the right of sovereignty over the instruments of government which we have created is an inalienable right, one which cannot be given away, nor can this right be removed through legislation...Not only does my organization, Black Box Voting, refuse to participate in the design of such systems, but we will do our utmost to inform the populace that such systems must be revoked, by whatever means necessary.
Harris concluded with the following salutation: "We do not consent."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Here's a question I used to ask a lot: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?
This question grew out of my work writing the Voter Confidence Resolution, successfully lobbying for its adoption by the Arcata City Council, and promoting it as an advocacy journalist blogging at GuvWurld and subsequently We Do Not Consent.
The point of the YET? question is to create a frame of inevitability. Make it viral and watch it build a growing and cumulative impact. This approach constructs a path to the tipping point.
So please, promote the WE DO NOT CONSENT meme all you can, and remember to empower those you meet with the confidence that our Consent most surely can and will be withheld. Let's start talking about what that looks like. Brother Thom? Peter B.? Peaceful revolution won't happen by accident. Your attention and intention is requested. This surely has day to day ramifications, but then November's "election" is also something specific around which to organize.
America needs to click its heels three times and rediscover that we've had the power all along. Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
* * *
I think the answer to "so?" may be an equally disdainful "you're not the boss of me." Think about it.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/05/so-ing-seeds-of-change.html
Labels: "so?", Bev Harris, Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution, CA-50, Cheney, Cynthia McKinney, fascism, JFK, peaceful revolution, Peter B. Collins, Thom Hartmann, tilt target, Voter Confidence Resolution
Saturday, December 22, 2007
A Missed Opportunity
Almost a month ago I wrote a post called Time To Check Your Least, in which I said I wasn't going to beat myself up for not writing enough. Since then I've posted more often than in quite some time. This reinforced the notion explained in that post that commitment to the least you can do philosophy will inherently increase what the least can amount to. I have to take this same outlook in considering yesterday's appearance on the Peter B. Collins show as a missed opportunity.
Click here for the full .mp3 archive of the show. Drag the slider of your media player to the start of the third hour and listen to Peter B. and Brad Friedman question Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich about the so-called Humboldt Transparency Project. I was not given an opportunity to respond or comment on this, but I would have only repeated the concerns I have raised previously, including in this Eureka Reporter OpEd from July 6, 2007.
In summary, the Transparency Project would allow the public to view pictures (scanned images) of all ballots cast to perform a recount in whatever way one chooses. However, a secondary computer count is promoted as the way to go, although this completely defeats the purpose of checking the official, original count done by secret computer programming; and it relies on post-certification auditing which recent history shows will have no chance at overturning an inaccurate outcome. In addition, to do this ballot image recount without a secondary computer count would be entirely unwieldy and impractical, without even the prospect of proper observation or witnessing typically associated with post election hand-counting or manual auditing.
Not getting to respond to that wasn't really the crux of my missed opportunity. After returning from a commercial break, Peter B. prompted an exchange between the Registrar and me. This is where I blew it yesterday. The Registrar questioned the assumption of six seconds to count each contest per ballot. I noted that this is a variable that can be changed by the user of the hand-count forecast tool, but I then veered off into discussing the New Hampshire origins of that data point. What I should have said is that we have been trying for months to get assumptions from the Registrar herself plugged in to the forecast tool so that the community would have the opportunity to judge the Voter Confidence Committee's (VCC) hand-counting proposal based on the Registrar's official assumptions. Immediately after the segment had ended I realized my missed opportunity and e-mailed Peter B. with one last thought...
Peter B. took a call at that point from Jim Lamport, another regular attendee of the Registrar's monthly Election Advisory Committee meetings here in Humboldt. I have no problem with Lamport's defense of the Registrar, especially since I was not attacking her. I do respectfully disagree with Lamport's assessment that computers are ideally suited for vote counting. Since my phone line into the broadcast was already cut off, I was very glad to hear Brad Friedman challenge this position. Upon concluding that call, Peter B. did me a real solid and read the e-mail I submitted, quickly summarizing that the VCC is in search of official numbers from the Registrar precisely so the public can objectively judge our proposal. This was a save, in my view, salvaging to some extent the opportunity I see as missed.
There was another aspect of the discussion I wish I had handled differently. I noted that New Hampshire counts votes by hand in 45% of its polling places and the Registrar replied that this leaves a 55% majority of polling places being counted by optical scanners. Of course this is true, and I explained it as a function of jurisdiction level choice as opposed to being a state mandate. The opportunity I missed was not asking the Registrar whether Humboldt voters have had an opportunity to make the same choice, which of course we have not.
Earlier in the day, several hours prior to the radio show, the Registrar left me a voice message in response to the two messages I had left her in the two days prior. She mentioned that she and Kelly Sanders in the Humboldt Elections Department were busy gathering up all the data the VCC requested last week in an open letter. When these numbers are provided, yesterday's missed window of opportunity will open once again.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/missed-opportunity.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, hand-counting paper ballots, Humboldt Transparency Project, Jim Lamport, Least you can do, Peter B. Collins, spreadsheet tool, VCC
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Advancing the HCPB Framing, Outreach and Media
Thursday's Eureka Reporter, online as of a few minutes ago, carries a solid report from Cerena Johnson on both the recent Voter Confidence Committee media advisory and press release, plus a phone interview conducted this morning. Excerpts:The VCC is renewing the request for information following a meeting with Crnich in May and participation on the Nov. 30 Peter B. Collins radio show.
Much of the article details the information we requested in the letter distributed with the media advisory. The best thing about this article, without a doubt, is the extension of the key new frame: let the public judge the viability of our proposal.
The VCC has developed a forecast tool that illustrates how hand-counting is possible, factoring in costs, time and required labor.
"The community can judge the viability of what we are proposing," VCC co-founder Dave Berman said.
Among many concerns, Berman said the main problem with the current system is that the voting machines operate in secret.
In a related matter, the VCC recently joined more than 30 election groups throughout the country in an amicus brief filed in the case of U.S. v. New York State Board of Elections, intended to enforce compliance with requirements in the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
(snip)
Berman and Crnich are scheduled to return on the Collins show, KGOE 1480 AM, Friday between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Johnson called me this morning before I had a chance to call her, as I intended. I did reach out to James Faulk at the Eureka Times-Standard but he has not yet returned my call. In addition, I left a voice message for Humboldt Registrar Carolyn Crnich just to be sure she knew I was also going to be on with Peter B. on Friday, but also to make sure she knows about the amicus brief (.pdf), and most importantly, to propose that we meet prior to Friday's broadcast so I could bring her up to speed on the many changes that have been made to the hand-count forecast tool (.xls). I told her I hope we can avoid appearing adversarial.
In further outreach efforts, tomorrow I'll be attending the regular monthly board meeting of the Redwood ACLU. Their agenda includes: "consideration of the request by the Voter Confidence Committee for support of a policy to require the use of hand-counted paper ballots in Humboldt County elections." I have attended several of their recent meetings and engaged them in dialog about the VCC Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County. I have been shown a draft of a statement they are considering making with regard to a variety of election issues. However, it does not quite cover everything I would hope they might address so tomorrow's meeting is all about potential.
Finally, Dan Ashby of the Election Defense Alliance called me Tuesday afternoon to see if I could appear on the debut episode of EDA's new radio show. We made it happen and you can listen to the .mp3 archive here. Other guests on the program included Jonathan Simon, EDA attorney in the courtroom Thursday representing the NY amici, and also Mary Ann Gould, host of Voice of the Voters. This is one of many broadcasts archived on this page, which also includes a recent series hosted by Bev Harris of Black Box Voting. EDA also now has a page devoted to documents related to US v NY Board of Elections.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/advancing-hcpb-framing-outreach-and.html
Labels: Carolyn Crnich, Cerena Johnson, Dan Ashby, Election Defense Alliance, Eureka Reporter, hcpb, James Faulk, Jonathan Simon, Mary Ann Gould, Peter B. Collins, Report on Election Conditions, VCC
Monday, December 17, 2007
Suggested Reading For The Teenagers In Your Life
My friends at Veterans For Peace Humboldt Bay Chapter 56 have really put together a phenomenal counter-recruitment pamphlet. Please share it with parents or young people you know.
Perhaps of less interest to teenagers, but relevant for the regular WDNC reader, Teresa Hommel has far surpassed me with her compilation of documents from the amicus brief (see this press release if you haven't been following this story).
Peter B. Collins responded to the press release this morning by inviting me back on his radio show this Friday at about 5:20pm or so. Brad Friedman and Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich will both be on at that time as well. As an old friend used to say, "Let's get nice!"
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/suggested-reading-for-teenagers-in-your.html
Labels: amicus brief, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, Peter B. Collins, Teresa Hommel, Vets For Peace
Thursday, December 13, 2007
NY Attorney Stands Up For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
Coming right up on tomorrow's filing deadline, NY attorney Andi Novick will be submitting a brief regarding the state's response to Department of Justice pressure to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). New York is the last state not in compliance and the DOJ appears intent on forcing the state to purchase and implement some ridiculous electronic vote counting system or other in time for the November 2008 presidential election. The state, political parties and watchdog groups are all weighing in. Novick's brief, a proposal really, would keep NY's lever machines in place through next November, and it would allow hand-counting paper ballots for the two federal races on that ballot.
I suppose I have been peripherally aware of this situation, and began to learn a little about it before speaking in Commack, NY at the end of August. Here are several articles about the situation:
As I noted at the end of my "teamwork" post last weekend, I was recruited onto Novick's team to apply the hand-count forecast tool (.xls) I built for the Voter Confidence Committee to forecast cost, time and labor needs for hand-counting in 15 NY Counties. Over the past week the forecast tool has done some more evolving. Once Novick files I will make available the workbook showing the NY forecasts. In the meantime, the version that has been publicly available (.xls) for months has been updated to reflect these innovations:All innovations developed in cooperation with Andy Novick, Rady Ananda, Nancy Tobi, Sally Castleman and Pokey Anderson.
As part of Novick's brief, I had to draft a declaration stating my qualifications and specific contributions. I look forward to sharing that soon too. Papers due tomorrow are for the case scheduled to be heard on December 20.
The biggest fundamental difference in this new version is the distillation to the exact number of hours *required* for a four-person team to be able to hand-count an average poll site in the county. The benefit of this is showing very small numbers, in some cases, and also instances where a second team might be considered.
This still computes the number of people needed countywide, but now makes a more accurate computation of their collective pay. Before it was based on an arbitrary user input suggesting how late counting would be allowed to occur. Now the pay is completely prorated to the actual amount of counting time required.
Two new guide calculations have also been added for the sake of creating checks and balances, really a reality check for other numbers in the equation. The first new one is registered voters per poll site, computed by dividing the total number of registered voters by the number of poll sites. The other new guide is the poll site-level voter turnout, derived by dividing the average number of ballots cast per site by the average number of registered voters per site.
Removed from this version: time *allowed* for counting (both hours and seconds), teams required per poll site, and people required per poll site. Instead of quantifying people on a per poll site basis, it is now framed around the exact amount of time counting will require.
There was a wonderful confluence of events today as the VCC released this media advisory making public a letter we delivered yesterday to Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich. We have waited a long time for her to provide her own forecast assumptions to be plugged into the forecast spreadsheet tool. By renewing our request publicly, we are hoping the media will become determined to know these numbers as well. This is how the community will be able to judge the viability of our proposal for hand-counting all ballots in Humboldt elections. The Registrar has already agreed to return to the Peter B. Collins show a week from tomorrow, December 21, presumably between 5-6pm when Brad Friedman is a regular guest.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/ny-attorney-stands-up-for-hand-counting.html
Labels: Andi Novick, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, DOJ, hand-counting paper ballots, HAVA, Nancy Tobi, Peter B. Collins, Pokey Anderson, Rady Ananda, Sally Castleman, spreadsheet tool
MEDIA ADVISORY: VCC Renews Call For Release of Public Info
MEDIA ADVISORY: VCC Renews Call For Release of Public Info
Contact: Dave Berman, 707-845-3749 or info@VoterConfidenceCommittee.org
Election Watchdog Group Repeats Request For Details From Humboldt Registrar
12/13/07 - Humboldt County election watchdog group The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) hereby makes public a letter hand-delivered to the office of the Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich on December 12, 2007. Many of the questions included were first posed to the Registrar in May 2007, just prior to the release of the VCC "Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, CA." More recently, this topic was discussed on the Peter B. Collins talk radio show with both members of the VCC and the Registrar. The information being sought will enable the public to determine the viability of the VCC's proposal to hand-count all ballots in Humboldt County elections. A formal copy of this letter is attached to this e-mail and a plain text version appears below.
The VCC Report is archived online here: http://tinyurl.com/29vhhu.
Listen to an .mp3 of the Registrar on the Peter B. Collins show here: http://tinyurl.com/2f9jdj.
# # #
The Voter Confidence Committee
PO Box 5131
Eureka, CA 95502
www.VoterConfidenceCommittee.org
December 12, 2007
Dear Carolyn Crnich, Humboldt Registrar of Voters:
As a follow up to participation on the Nov. 30 Peter B. Collins show and renewing our request for information that you agreed was reasonable when you met with members of the Voter Confidence Committee in May 2007, we respectfully submit the following questions:
1. What were all the costs associated with the use of Diebold optical scanners, the GEMS central tabulator, and the Hart InterCivic eSlate machines in the November 2006 election, including:
a. Depreciation
b. Storage
c. Repair
d. Software updates
e. Ballot printing
f. Ballot definition programming
g. Back-up systems
h. All staff time
i. Contingencies for power failure
j. Legal expenses (i.e. Holder v McPherson)
k. All other costs
2. What were the funding sources to cover the above costs, and who authorized those expenditures?
3. Regarding the 10% manual audit of the November 2006 election:
a. How many hand-counters were hired?
b. What was the collective total paid to those hand-counters?
c. How many total hours of counting were required?
d. How many total contests (cumulative individual voting opportunities) were counted across all ballots in the audit?
4. In the November 2006 election, countywide, how many total votes (not ballots) were counted by precinct-based optical scanners? How many precincts were used in Humboldt County for this election? How many ballots were cast either provisionally, absentee, or mail-in?
5. Regarding the upcoming February 5, 2008 presidential primary:
a. How many precincts and how many physical polling places (excluding mail-in only precincts) will there be in Humboldt County?
b. How many contests will be on the ballot?
We look forward to a prompt and timely written response, directed either to the address above or via e-mail to info@VoterConfidenceCommittee.org.
Sincerely,
Aryay Kalaki, for
The Voter Confidence Committee
CC: Peter B. Collins, Brad Friedman, Humboldt County Supervisors and all local governments, Eureka Reporter, Eureka Times-Standard, North Coast Journal, Arcata Eye, KHUM, KGOE, KSLG, KMUD; (Added after letter delivery: GreenFuse, HSU Lumberjack, Humboldt Sentinel)
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/media-advisory-vcc-renews-call-for.html
Labels: Aryay Kalaki, Carolyn Crnich, hand-counting paper ballots, Peter B. Collins, Report on Election Conditions, Voter Confidence Committee
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Teamwork On Display
I wasn't really sure what to call this blog post but then I realized all the things I wanted to cover had to do with...well check it out.
Jane Allen, a long time contributor to the GuvWurld News Archive and occasional guest blogger here at WDNC, has landed the second letter to the editor in the Eureka Reporter in less than a week calling out Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich for remarks she made on the Peter B. Collins show two Fridays ago. Click here for the letter written by Ruth Hoke and George Hurlburt published Tuesday. Jane's letter follows this transcript of a relevant excerpt from the PBC show:CC: "Frankly, having 800 people handle our live ballots is not an appealing idea to me."
I think Jane shows a little more fang there than usual, though not uncalled for. I can hear Jane chuckle as she reads that last sentence. She recently brought up the expression "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" My crazy artist friend Dave Migliore (Bardoodle.com) had coincidentally just sent me this YouTube clip from the movie Network, a classic satire I hadn't seen. Until recently. Then what happened?
PBC: "Because..."
CC: "Do you not think that opens a door to fraud, too? 800 people handing live paper ballots? I'm not saying its the wrong thing to do. I'm saying I think it is an excellent audit tool for the way we count ballots now or, or in the future on some other equipment perhaps but..."
PBC: "I would argue that in a group situation, the group would basically police itself. So you're not putting individuals in a room with ballots that they could tamper with, you're putting a group to count them"
CC: "Yes, and I don't know that group and you don't either, and, and, do you see my concern?"
* * *
http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=31535
Voting software more trusted than citizens?
12/8/2007
Dear Editor,
Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, during the Peter B. Collins radio show Nov. 30, said hand-counting paper ballots is an "excellent audit tool," but 800 people hand-counting "opens the door to fraud." It sounded like she believes that the same people who serve as poll workers (registered voters) aren’t honest enough to count ballots.
Of course, it is part of her job to be concerned about election fraud, but do I have this right - machines counting votes with secret software are more trustworthy than volunteers? I thought stepping up to help out during elections was called being a good citizen. Ms. Crnich apparently sees it as suspect activity.
Jane Allen
San Francisco
Last week I walked into a bank to pay my credit card statement. I recently learned that this is a way to pay as close to the due date as I want, and always be sure it is received on time. Very good tip that you could pass on, though likely this only works when the card and the bank branch are the same. So I walked into Bank of America to pay my BofA card and I noticed televisions dangling from the ceiling a few feet above the head of each teller. MSNBC was on the screen showing a school in Pennsylvania and that the lock-down had been lifted. I wasn't there long enough to find out anything more. I stepped up to the teller and had something along the lines of the following conversation:DB: Hi, I'd like to pay my credit card statement.
Maybe my fang was showing there too. I think I have generally been doing a good job of playing nice and sharing. I am proud to announce that the Voter Confidence Committee has collected 206 names thus far for our hand-count volunteer drive. We now have a sign up form on our home page, which is great, but we also still desperately need a webmaster, another way we can put teamwork on display. It this theme working for anyone?
BofA: OK, I can help you with that. How are you doing today?
DB: Well I'm not really comfortable with that television above your head.
BofA: Really? How come?
DB: Imagine at your house there were some pipes coming in, filling your house with toxic goo and causing your family to have brain cancer. You wouldn't want those pipes coming in, would you? That's what TV is doing, and what TV has already done.
BofA: (Blank stare)
DB: Ooh. Sorry. Did I just make you think?
I have to also shout out to NY attorney Andi Novick. She is planning to file a legal brief this week that basically aims to keep the Department of Justice from forcing NY state into quickly buying and implementing some secret electronic vote counting system or other. Andi will be proposing that the state keep its lever machines through next November's presidential election, and hand-count at the precincts only the two federal races on the November 2008 ballot.
I got involved with this project when another GuvWurld News Archive contributor and WDNC guest blogger, Rady Ananda told me she was helping Andi and asked if I could use the hand-count cost estimator (.xls) to add some detail to the proposal. Other familiar names like Nancy Tobi of Democracy For New Hampshire, and Sally Castleman of the Election Defense Alliance (who I remember fondly from the Portland conference on election integrity), have also played key roles. I will have a lot more on this story in the coming days.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/teamwork-on-display.html
Labels: Andi Novick, Bardoodle, Carolyn Crnich, Dave Migliore, Eureka Reporter, GuvWurld News Archive, Jane Allen, mad as hell, Nancy Tobi, Peter B. Collins, Rady Ananda, Sally Castleman
