Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When the DNC asks for your money, what should you say?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 05:22 PM
Original message
When the DNC asks for your money, what should you say?
I've decided to create a letter and save it for use when any of these "progressive" causes comes calling, those that have not raised their voices about the vote fraud.

I'd suggest that some others might want to do the same, if you are like me and can't in good conscience give to an organization when that org won't even acknowledge that the fraud could have happened or should be investigated.

Here's my recent letter (with slight alterations to fit each org) in reply to the DNC's request for money and my own state Dem Party's request. I plan to use it for all other orgs that come begging for money: the ACLU, the NAACP, Nancy Pelosi, or any other person or org that could be raising a ruckus about the vote fraud and isn't.


Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Dr. Dean:

It is with regret that I have to decline to give any money to the DNC. At the moment, I believe it is standing for principles I deeply believe in and I would very much like to give you some money. However, since you and apparently every other representative of the Democratic Party refuse to even acknowledge that electronic vote fraud is even possible, much less something to be concerned about and remedied, I would rather spend my money on those organizations and individuals who are working tirelessly and against great odds it would seem to make people aware of what is quite obvious: that our democracy doesn’t really exist anymore. It has been abducted by the electronic voting machine. I don’t think anything could be any clearer. Let me just mention a few of the reasons that led me to this conclusion. Others would have their own reasons I’m sure since there are by now thousands of good and valid reasons to proclaim fraud.

After the 2002 mid-term elections, I was “stunned” at the result in many places around the country but particularly in GA. There, Roy Barnes, after holding a 9-11% lead in all the pre-election polling right up to 4 days before the election, lost by 5%, a 15 – 16% point swing in 4 days; and Max Cleland after enjoying about a 5% lead in pre-election polling, lost by 7-8% points, a 12 or 13% swing. The exit polls for the election apparently agreed pretty closely with the pre-election polling because they were quickly removed from the internet. In interviews, reps for the polling service said that their polls were accurate within the margin of error (MOE) in every other state where they were used. Only in GA were they wildly inaccurate. I heard Mark Shields mention that only Diebold was being used to count the votes in GA, the first time a voting machine had been used for this purpose uniformly in one state. Naturally, I was suspicious (as he apparently was not since I never heard him mention it again). I got on the internet and very soon discovered that touchscreens cannot even be audited or recounted. The vote once cast and counted in cyberspace cannot even be checked for validity. I won’t trouble you with the other things I found out about the ownership and management of Diebold and its software programming division GEMS (Global Election Management Systems), or about the number of times the Diebold machines were “patched” after certificiation before the GA 02 election or about the fact that ES&S and the Diebold election division are headed by brothers or hundreds of other disquieting facts. These facts and by now thousands of others, all pointing to the likelihood of fraud, are easily accessible to anybody who is reasonably curious and persistent. The facts for the most part can be easily verified, especially by somebody in the DNC or on any big city newspaper in the country. Very few have even bothered to investigate, so apparently you have plenty of company in your lassitude about this issue.

Then there was the 04 election. I told all my friends that I was hoping and praying for a Democratic victory but I didn’t have much faith in this happening since the voting machines were being used too extensively around the country (at the time 80% of the vote was counted on DREs of one kind or another) and it would be too easy for a small handful of dirty tricksters or insiders to patch or fraudulently program or hack into the computers, especially the central tabulators, and I felt sure that Kerry, while he would win the real election easily, would “lose” the computer election once the final results came floating in out of cyberspace. I thought it would happen just as the GA 02 election had happened.

And of course I was right. As the by now hundreds of statistical analyses of the exit poll and actual vote discrepancies in each state and in the country as a whole have shown more or less conclusively and as Mitofsky himself has said (in case you’ve forgotten, Mitofsky is one of those in charge of the official Edison/Mitofsky exit poll for the election that was commissioned by a consortium of networks and other interested parties), it is statistically impossible for the exit poll results and the alleged “actual results” to both be true. Mitofsky himself originally blamed “reluctant Bush responders” for the inaccuracy of his own poll. He offered no proof of this highly speculative conclusion, but it apparently satisfies him, as it must satisfy others.

It did not satisfy many statisticians, among them some of the contributors to the uscountvotes.org group that analyzed the discrepancies as well as the various “bias” explanations for the inaccuracy of the exit polls. I would suggest that you download the studies and working papers at this web site and many many others on the internet and avail yourself of some of the statistical evidence contained therein.

Let me just say one other thing. Even if you distrust statistics, though they be done by the most highly qualified individuals in the country, you surely must realize that it is impossible to have a democracy when the votes are being counted in secret by extreme partisans of one side in such a way that even the elections officials can’t come in the room to check (the source code is off limits) and that it is either impossible to have audits and recounts or, in practice, it is almost never done. This is the state we have come to at present, and apparently only a very few in high places have even the slightest suspicion about this set-up. All it would take to have a democracy again would be this: REQUIRE A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT AND RANDOM AUDITS (5% should be a minimum requirement) FOR ALL ELECTIONS WHERE VOTES ARE COUNTED BY ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES.

This doesn’t seem like a terribly lofty or unrealizable goal for your organization to set for itself; at the very least, you should be shouting the facts (which you can easily access and verify) from the housetops and demanding reform of the vote counting procedures in the country. Until, however, I hear you demanding a fair vote count, I cannot in good conscience send you money. It would be money down a rat hole. I will continue to support those who still have eyes in their heads and the courage to act on what they see. I will continue to pray for better results but unless you or others begin to act in unison and demand reform, the next elections will be no different.

My best wishes go with you if, as I hope is true, you are sincere in your support of the values that you profess to believe.

Sincerely,


Steve Carter

P.S. Incidentally, lest you think that I’m a crazy “conspiracy theorist,” let me say that I have an advanced degree and have been teaching for many years. I believe it is generally conceded that conspiracy theories are based on less evidence than the “accepted” interpretation. That is not the case here as you can easily ascertain if you will do the research. The evidence is all on the side of fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SoFlaJet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. yes if you got it
no if ya don't(like me)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, in my particular case, I usually say
Edited on Tue Jun-28-05 05:32 PM by Demobrat
"Who's got a stamp"? If it's got a survey enclosed, that is. Otherwise it's more along the lines of "Where's my credit card?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Nice letter Stevepol. I feel much the same way.
As a matter of fact, just a few days ago someone called asking for money for the DNC, and I told them that I've decided not to give any more until they make election reform their number one priority. She sounded like she doesn't hear that kind of talk very often, kind of bewildered. I don't know if it's the best way to go about it, but right now I can't think of what else will get the Democratic leadership to give this issue the attention it deserves.

BTW, I think that the 80% figure is way too high for DREs. On the other hand for much of the country, even though DREs are not used to vote on, a central tabulator is used to tabulate the votes for the entire county. Many believe, and I am tending to think they're right, that this is where most of the fraud is likely to occur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. The 80% is s figure I read several places. Remember that includes
all the different types of programmed machines, including the optical scanners, which are also programmed at the factory and capable of being patched and hacked, etc., and in my opinion just as rigged if not more so than the touchscreens. Here in the county where I vote we use the Micro-Vote machine, made in Indianapolis, which supposedly has a paper scroll inside that has a record of the votes cast to use in case of a recount. But it's not voter-verified, so there's no assurance that the machine records what your vote was on the paper or on the cartidge that's used to record the cyber vote.

In fact, the Micro-Vote machine was involved in one of the most outlandish votes thus far in America the Computer governed. In Boone County IN in 03 I believe, in a county w/ 19,000 registered voters the Micro-Vote machine counted 144,000 votes.

I agree with you in thinking that the central tabulators were the real culprits in the 04 fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Here's a quote from Lynn Landes, but there were others,
and this just includes Diebold and ES&S. There are many others.

Here's the link on the following but I'm sure you could find others:
www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

Two voting companies & two brothers will count 80 percent of U.S. election using both scanners & touchscreens

By Lynn Landes
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

April 28, 2004—Voters can run, but they can't hide from these guys. Meet the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Todd. Their respective companies, Diebold and ES&S, will count (using both computerized ballot scanners and touchscreen machines) about 80 percent of all votes cast in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm pretty sure that optical scan machines are not DREs
DRE stands for direct electronic record. With optical scan machines, the primary (direct) record is a piece of paper. Then the machine reads it. Not that optical scan machines can't be hacked as well, and I believe that they were involved in as much fraud as the DREs in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You're right Time. I mispoke, meant electronic voting machines.
I'll have to re-word my letter. Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senior citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Gee, last election didn't they raise more money than they needed?
Edited on Tue Jun-28-05 06:02 PM by Senior citizen
So why should I think that if they raise twice as much for the next election, it would be used for anything more than further fundraising?

Since I don't have much money, I've been donating my time to groups working on publicly-funded elections, instant run-off voting, voter verifiable and recountable ballots, and opposing hackable election systems. I'll also donate time to honest candidates with proven records of fighting for us and who are not beholden to corporations.

If someone with even less money than me, like a homeless person on the street, asks me for money, I'll give what I can. I don't ask how they'll use it, it is enough to assuage my guilt at having more than someone else. But when somebody with more money than me asks me for money, I'm afraid I have to ask how they'll use it. Since they already have more money than I do, I want to be sure the money will be used for something I consider worthwhile. I've grown so cynical that I'm actually concerned that they might be asking me for money because they want to use it for something they would never waste their own money on.

Last election I was asked for money to help take our country back and to make sure that every vote was counted. I donated more than I could afford, but the money wasn't used for the purpose stated. As far as I know, much of it is still sitting in various warchests to be used for raising bigger warchests in future elections. I don't like war, and I've realized that I don't like warchests either.

I won't say that I'll never donate again. But I will say that if I do, I want a signed legal contract stating that if my money is not used for the purpose it was intended, I can get it back. A vague statement about "taking back our country" won't do because, as you've clearly explained, you can't take back the country from election fraudsters if you won't even admit that they exist. Bravo!

:yourock: :hug: :bounce: :kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave502d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. I told them if they want anything from me.
They need to so something about our voting system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. I promised to support the DNC after Howard Dean
was brought on board, and I'm sticking to it.

We need funds for 2006. I'm not a purist about this.

I'm supporting all true Democrats.

I'm going to trust that if the DNC chooses to stand down on the election fraud, they have a good reason to do so.

Maybe improved theft techniques to help install Dem candidates? :evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. I don't even think that's funny. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tommcintyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. I'm afraid you may be on to something, but it's still not good
"Maybe improved theft techniques to help install Dem candidates?"

Here's the problem. The way things are going, even if the Dems "get better hackers than theirs", all you are likely to get is DINOs (DLC?). Do you think for one minute they are going to let REAL Democrats beat them in the primaries?

Besides, didn't your mom teach you it's not very nice to steal? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. She sure did.
And thank you for bringing me back to what's left of my senses.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but many wrongs certainly do seem to make a Right-Winger. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. I don't want to
get beat up here, but if those machines are in place in 06, I think we should consider ourselves at war ,like if a thief (voting machines) is trying to break in to your house ,you call the cops(Dems Repugs) and the cops (Dems and Repugs) don't get there in time or refuse to come at all and the thief (voting machine) gets in to your house, you can either wait for the cops(Dems and Repugs)to get there or you have to take the theif (voting machines) in to your own hands. At that point its FAIR GAME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tommcintyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
13. OK, here's what I will do: "MY litmus test".
For now on, for ANY national politician to get my: 1) financial contribution, 2) volunteer help, 3) AND ESPECIALLY my vote, they must support the meaningful investigation of election fraud.

And, THAT is MY litmus test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senior citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. That sounds sensible to me.

If you don't care about my vote, you don't get my vote.

What could be simpler?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC