Lets Have A Brainstorming Thread - What We Doing About Vote Theft 2006?

[althecat]

Please post ideas for ways in which we can prevent 2006 midterms being just like 2002 midterms?

[LiberalEsto]

1. Ask the UN to monitor our elections

I said this time and again in 2004.

[tocqueville]

3. they don't have the resources and it is politically very difficult

to do it more than in a symbolical way. BTW they always send observers.

[JudyM]

37. or enlist Jimmy Carter's help... I wonder if he's still working on it? n/t

[msongs]

2. outlaw e-vote machines? guess that is not practical. Here in CA

we will try to undo the damage caused by the dems who control the legislature by electing a democrat as secretary of state, thus getting rid of the republican the CA dems legislature overwhelmingly endorsed, to the detriment of the members of the demcratic party that those legislators were supposed to represent.

unfortunately that will not do anything to help with the 2006 election itself.

I have read that the CA constitution mandates vote systems where the votes can actually be documented and counted. E vote machines violate that provision if that is how it really goes, because nobody can PROVE the vote totals recorded on touch screen machines.

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
put your pics on a shirt!

[paparush]

4. How about this...we make the Presidential Election a NATIONAL HOLIDAY

I can't fucking believe that Presidential election day isn't a National Holiday. Why? In a nation of nearly 300M people?

[BeFree]

5. What are we doing?

Gosh, that's a question with a million positive answers. Can you narrow it down a bit?

It's all been kind of a learning curve - inventing the wheel almost, eh?

I, for one, feel a whole hell of a lot better about the next elections... better than I felt before the 2004 election. There are many more people who are now interested in the whole election process. You can see the interest level right here on DU has grown tremendously.

Many states have new laws written that to one degree or another give us a greater leverage with which to work, and I expect more states to do so next year. We will use those laws to expose the machine 'glitches' and maybe even overturn a few stolelections^TM this fall?

It's time for us to cop a new attitude, methinks. An attitude that says we are on track to victory. An attitude that says we are conquering this plague on democracy.

The People are taking back the country.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Have poll watchers and lawyers ready

I think you may have to check local statutes, but I think poll watchers should have, at the least, cellphones so they can call if they suspect trouble. If they can take photos/movies, so much the better. This would have to be organized at the county or precinct level.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Did That in '04. They Called a "Terra Alert" & Threw Out the Poll Watchers

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html
http://www.cincinnati.com/text/local/2004/11/10/loc_warrenvote10.html
and then reported a Bush** win with margins that would
make it one of the reddest places in the whole country.

[EFerrari]

22. Did they ever figure out where the "alert" came from after the FBI

denied having issued one?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

28. I don't think they will try that again

Frankly, if they do, I think it will be an obvious steal.

[AndyTiedye]

34. It Worked So Well that They Will Probably Use It All Over the US Next Time

It is an assertion they can make at any time, and they can always cite "national security"
as grounds for refusing to provide any proof.

It gave them a free hand to steal truckloads of votes
while continuing the "terrorism" mantra that they use to justify everything they do.

And there isn't jackshit we can do about it.

[kster]

7. How about confronting the politicians

every chance we get especially the Dem's, and find out why they are remaining completely silent about these vote theft machines and the companies who own them machines.

[AndyTiedye]

8. VoterAction is taking them to court everywhere they can

VoterAction has been concentrating on litigation. http://www.voteraction.org
We need to pursue that everywhere we can. It is a long shot, with all the
BushBot judges, but its the best shot we have left in most places.

In states where the Dems control the legislature, we should be able to
get legislation mandating secure elections. For some reason, this has
not been as forthcoming as one might expect, but we have made a little
progress.

Where Republicans control the legislature, as in Congress,
election reform legislation is DOA.

Initiative petitions are only effective as a means of publicizing the issue.
As we saw in Ohio, it is not possible to reform elections through initiative
petition as long as those the reforms are targeting control the elections.
The initiatives are still worth doing as often as possible because they DO
publicize the issue, and force them to go to the trouble of stealing yet another
election -- if they do it often enough maybe they'll get sloppy and get caught!

[EFerrari]

9. I suggest focusing on California because the Empire

is determined to take it as they've taken FL and OH.

We have Debra Bowen running for SOS and she has taken on the issue. Through her campaign we can help educate people -- most of whom don't know that the SOS runs their elections.

We can't be everywhere but we can do some damage in CA this year, imho.

[garybeck]

24. Debra Bowen could save our Democracy.

If she wins SoS of CA, all the decisions she makes about this issue will affect other states.

How can she win? I think she will get more votes but, what will the machines tell us?

[Bill Bored]

36. It's a statewide race with a 1% audit.

VERY high probability of fraud detection if it's done right.

THAT'S what the Californians among us should be working on!

I don't have time to explain the numbers now (and no one pays attention anyway), but if you can do a REAL 1% audit of a state that size (>20,000 precincts), INCLUDING the absentee ballots, Early Voting, etc., you CAN verify the outcome of the Bowen race to see that is wasn't fixed.

You also have to EDUCATE voters to check their f#%^ing VVPATs when they vote! Another job for California activists.

Hope this helps.

On second thought, why not just spend the rest of 2006 querying whois servers and tracking down that fake BBV Watchdog site? That will help! :sarcasm:

[Wilms]

46. 1%?

Gee, Bill.

What are the chances of finding a corrupted machine in a statewide race using a 1% audit?

[kster]

47. Hate to say it but

we need to start investigating the Democratic WINS in 2004. With the 99% silence from our Democratic leaders about the election theft machines, we need to find out more about their races.

[Wilms]

48. You may be right. Why should I assume it's half a charade?

Perhaps the whole thing is.

[kster]

50. Thats where I'm at, its time for our Guy/Gals (Elected Officials)to

ANSWER UP! If they don't they are suspect, and it is time to treat them as such.

[Bill Bored]

52. Depends on how many there are of course!

In CA, if there are 3% corrupt precincts or more, it's almost 100%.

If Bowen wins or loses by a margin of say 0.5% or more, and there are about the same number of votes in each precinct, the outcome can be verified with a 1% audit if it's done right.

I'd be more worried about those Congressional races, like Busby's getting hacked. 1% audits are almost useless in those, unless someone wins by a landslide.

[Bill Bored]

38. See post #36. nt

[mopinko]

10. voluntary open voting

i mentioned this idea before, and i know that thom hartmann has said he feels that eliminating the secret vote could combat vote fraud. he does not advocate it, but has discussed it, and feels it could help. as we are in a desperate situation, maybe desperate measures are called for.
short of that, however, i think that a voluntary open vote parallel election, even if only as political drama, raising the subject of the secret nature of the current voting system, would be effective. who knows, you might get 100% participation, and could then challenge the results of any count that was not the same as yours. it would seem to me to have more weight than any of the other solution mentioned along those lines, exit polls, postcards affirming your vote or parallel balloting. these plans are not any more transparent than dre's, as there is ample room to rig and fiddle either. but if everyone who came out of a polling place was given the opportunity to sign their names to a public tally, at least we would know for sure that someone was going to see and count our votes. and it could easily include people who were turned away.
the secret ballot has a lot of reasons behind it, but much fraud has long been hidden under it. would you trade it to make sure that your vote was counted? i would.

[bananas]

11. All dem candidates should promise not to concede for at least a week. nt

[SnoopDog]

13. In every county of these United States...

we should meet with the Registrar of Voters and ask how the citizens of the county will vote in November. Ask if the vote can be proved. If not - why not. Ask what 'machines' will be used. Ask if any 'purges' of voters is plan. Ask about how many voting apparatuses will be at each precinct. Ask how the votes will be counted. Ask how the votes will be sent to the state.

In other words, ask the questions to put them on the spot. Then write letters to the editor, and who ever else will listen as to the fact that we cannot prove the vote.

This will be my job starting this month. That is all I can do as just one person.


Please note: the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly state that members of Congress and members of the Senate are chosen by the People of the States.

That We the People have the right to choose our Congress and Senate and that we are NOT TO BE BOUND by corrupt election fraudulent machines and that the Federal Government has NO RIGHT to impose compromised voting systems.


The US Constitution:

Article. I.
Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.



AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

[mod mom]

14. MAKE SURE ALL VOTERS (esp low inc, elderly & college students) have IDs!

and know if there have been precinct changes. Seems simple but only us election reformers have been requesting BOEs to do this (of course it has fallen on deaf ears. This is the DEM base they should be taking charge. They have the resources ($ and people).

Ohio is again an important state yet the effects of HB3-the Disenfranchisement legislation enacted by the GOP will disenfranchise tens if not hundreds of thousands of voters.

[althecat]

15. Ok I reckon once we have a few "Serious" ideas we could stick em into

a poll thread and vote on em.

[althecat]

16. My Ideas so far:

a) Independent Exit Polling PAC to fund exit polls with the specific purpose of discouraging and collecting evidence on vote fraud.
b) A national coordination committee and conference for the Election Reform/Integrity movement
c) Pre-emptive lawsuits all over the place to prevent disenfranchisement
....

[kster]

18. Great ideas, but

aren't you getting the least bit pissed off about the SILENCE from our elected officials when it comes to the vote theft machines? There is no reason ABSOLUTELY NO REASON at this point in time that they should still be SILENT.

[IndyOp]

41. I wish they weren't silent, but I do have a couple of reasons why I

believe they are silent.

Kerry - in Rolling Stone - says some national legislators are afraid to try to pass more legislation to make elections more fair, because they are afraid the Republican controlled House & Senate will manage change the legislation so that any *new* legislation backfires - like HAVA.

Also - Landshark - from here at DU has suggested that Dems who want/need big donations from people who donate to get access to candidates -- don't want to whisper a word about election fraud because they don't want to risk not getting donations. Given that the whole BLEEPING world seems to revolve around $$$ this may have more validity than I wish it did.

Finally - I've heard from some Dems that they are afraid to talk about election fraud BECAUSE we need massive voter turnout to overwhelm attempts at voter suppression and if Dems talk about election fraud voters may decide that it isn't worth their time to go vote. :(

There are reasons why candidates and some people in the party stay silent - including the fact that they don't understand the realities of the situation and the corporate media won't talk and the DNC won't talk because of the reasons above.

Silence begets silence.

:(

[kster]

45. I understand

your reasoning for why they may remain silent, but that can't take away the fact the Dems are no better than the Repugs if they allow themselves to take office Knowing full well that they were selected by a "Machine"that is able to steal votes, and that the will of the people was more than likely thwarted. ;)

[Usrename]

25. Independent exit polling.

Another poster on another board suggested getting the Universities involved with exit polls. I am not quite sure how that would be accomplished, neither of us are in academia.

If something like this could be put together it would have the benefits of giving academic credibility to the results, and raising public awareness through the schools. Also, if many schools chose to participate, it could produce very good sample sizes for excellent visibility. I don't understand why this is not a patriotic mission in these times.

[mopinko]

31. i would not accept their exit polls.

i would not expect them to accept ours. i think that exit polls are just one more privately owned election mechanism, and we embrace them at our peril. same for parallel balloting.

[Awsi Dooger]

17. Excellent thread, althecat

An ounce of prevention...

Communication is the key. If one Democratic election worker discovers a terrific idea for expanding absentee voters, it needs to be shared with the state and national Democrats. I read obscure local online articles and it's maddening how often something like that will be referenced but not coordinated, the appearance of one disjointed faction after another. For instance, in 2000 I guarantee some states had Democratic workers making sure the county ballot designs were standard, no confusing two-page designs. But not Florida, so here we are.

Election day is too late. Lawyers and challenges are always longshots.

I'll try to make a list of some concerns and post them here. Photo IDs have already been mentioned. That's a logical next step in terms of low tech suppression, insistence on photo IDs. There have been many obscure online articles in that regard lately, not merely Ohio but states like Georgia and Indiana.

[Melissa G]

19. K&R #5 Talk to your State Democratic Chairs and every candidate running

for office you can get your hands on.. That is my current mission. we just had a very contentious race for state chair here in Texas and everyone was actually courting delegates and listening to their concerns. I made election security one of my top priorities to bend their ears over as well as every delegate i ran into. Now that they are back to working for the party, I still have their email addresses and I plan on emailing them regularly about this issue as well as talking to each and every candidate i can find.
Our great candidate for Texas Attorney General is tackling this issue head on with a lawsuit!

DAVID VAN OS ROCKS!!!!

NEVER EVER GIVE UP!!!

[EFerrari]

21. Yes! Every time we get a call, I ask The Question.

EVERY TIME.

:thumbsup:

[Melissa G]

29. Wat to Go sfexpat! Everytime I get a funraising letter or call

I ask THE QUESTION? What are you doing about making sure the next election is Not going to be stolen. You will not get any money from me unless I get a good answer AND see some action on your part. I am saving my donations for people who are making a difference!

[eridani]

20. Sue, sue, sue the bastards!

Let a thousand Land Shark lawsuits bloom!

[garybeck]

23. agree with that one.

[Just WTFisWTF]

49. I agree, sue the hell out of them

File a massive suit against all of them and split up the bounty amongst various people and sites like this one that are trying to do something good for our country.

[livvy]

26. People should become informed, join or start local/state groups....

that work on election/campaign finance reform. Here are some links to get started.

http://www.newrules.org/gov/clean.html

Campaign Finance Reform - Clean Election Laws
As of 2004, four states have passed "clean election" laws, laws that provide public money for state election campaigns if a candidate agrees to strict spending limits.

http://www.publicampaign.org/index.htm

Clean Money, Clean Elections

A new kind of politics is taking root in America called Clean Money, Clean Elections (CMCE) campaign finance reform. CMCE reduces the influence of special interest money and provides a level playing field by offering qualified candidates a limited and equal amount of public funds. It's a bold, new experiment in campaign finance reform, seeking to restore democracy and the principle of one person, one vote.

If you're looking for real solutions to clean up the campaign finance mess in this country, you've come to the right place. We can show you what's wrong with the system and how you can help fix it. Please browse the site and dig into the information.

Click to find out how Clean Money, Clean Elections works

On the above site, a person can find their state and the organizations that are involved in working on election and campaign finance reform.

[durrrty libby]

27. We should sue the makers of these machines n/t

[druidity33]

30. as an immediate measure...

Perhaps we could focus on TRANSPARENCY in all critical upcoming elections. Busby race would be a good start. Maybe we could make a concerted effort to contact the DNC about this specific race for now, write LTTEs, etc. And also contact our Reps and Sens and ask them to look into this SPECIFIC race, and in general their districts reliance on corporate machines to tally the vote. I think targeting issues as they come up, coalition style, while problem-solving longer range plans is going to be difficult. Perhaps 2 threads, 10 immediate actions you can do to protect Democracy (updated weekly?). And maybe, 10 things to work towards come November (checklist style?).

Maybe we should all join hands and sing a circle song?...

[mopinko]

32. be a judge

take the day off work, and sign up to be a poll worker.

[iconoclastNYC]

33. We should write our own bill and force candidates to react to it

[IndyOp]

35. We Need A National Strategy - A Step-By-Step Guide that people

concerned about elections can take to their local Democratic Party NOW to discover/discuss/plan to cover for weaknesses in their local system. Provide a thorough summary of all the ways the GOP has cheated in past elections and what to do about them.

I can VISUALIZE this manual, but can't seem to get it together to produce a draft for critique here at DU. :(

What other materials are already available?

[Bill Bored]

39. AUDIT THE BALLOT DEFINITION SETTINGS!

Here's the problem:

There's a basic lack of understanding on the part of most activists of where and when the most likely risks in the election system are. We think that just because there may be paper and some kind of audit, that our elections are safe, or that without these basic necessities, there's nothing we can do.

That's horse hockey!

Exit polls, parallel elections and hacking tests only go so far. They don't prove anything. They are tools to draw attention to the problem, but they don't solve it. If you want to be a PR specialist, then do exit polls and parallel elections. If you want to stop election fraud, read on.

Here's a suggestion which I've been talking about on DU since early last year when I started studying GEMS (and in no way is this limited to ANY particular vendor, which seems to be another common mistake some of us make):

What we need to do BEFORE EVERY ELECTION is:

Audit the ballot definition settings!

If you don't understand what this is, or it's still new to you, see this paper by Ellen Theisen.

If after reading it, you still think that it's more important for you to do whatever it is you've been doing, then go ahead.

But it would only take a few knowledgeable people in each county to ensure that the entire election is configured correctly, on a NATIONAL scale. If activists aren't allowed to walk into a BoE and do this, then representatives of each political party should demand to do it, and activists should demand that they demand it!

If you still don't get it, read the stuff about Pottawattamie County Iowa, which is just one example of what can go wrong, either accidentally or by design, with ballot definition settings. And it can affect EVERY machine in a jurisdiction, paperless or not. Scanners are just as susceptible as the DREaded DREs. I don't know what else to say. This is the gorilla in the room, folks. The rest is just fluff.

Without access to these configurations, to ensure their correctness, which some will wrongly claim are "proprietary" even though they are NOT source code, all other efforts will be in vain. Why do I say this? Because screwing with this stuff is all it takes to rig an election -- that's why. And the ones doing it know that you don't know how it works because you're too busy doing exit polls and parallel elections and the occasional hacking test while they're busy rigging elections! And every BoE or vendor has unrestricted access to this stuff, with no one looking over their shoulders. Because it's pre- rather than post- election, nobody thinks about it. It's the means and opportunity for the perfect crime. All they need is the motive and a few diversions, and we ourselves provide plenty of the latter.

You want to get serious about this shit? Then arrange to audit the ballot definition settings BEFORE they are loaded onto the voting machines. Immediately before! At least that will make it a little harder to steal the vote this time around, and maybe the exit polls (unadjusted) will come out a little closer to the vote tallies too.

[IndyOp]

40. Day before? Day of? Day after? When?

I like the way you think. I had not thought that there would/could be a way for us to audit this -- but THIS IS A BIG CHUNK O' THE BALLGAME.

This clearly matters for opscan and punchcard - but does it matter for the 30%-40% who are on DRE? I've not read the Theissen article, but will do so *tonight* - so maybe I'll find out soon (as I soon as I get back from walking my dogs).

I corresponded very briefly with Douglas Jones of University of Iowa after the theft of 2004, and he argues that the most easily detected and very effective method of cheating is changing the ballot definition settings - and, again, I thank you for your post - I had no clue we could inspect for that. All you have to have is a few educated observers at the counting of the in EACH county that still counts ballots - right? To double-check that the definition settings are accurate?

13,000 separate voting 'nations' in Presidential election 2004 -- so we need about 26,000 educated Americans who know how to effectively observe the counting of the ballots in the 60%+ of the nation that still has ballots.

:eyes:

[Bill Bored]

42. Right before the election!

You check the configuration on the server just before it's loaded onto the machines. You also do a proper logic and accuracy test, using the actual ballots, or touch screen voting, right before the polls open on at least one of every batch of identically configured machines or scanners.

Doug Jones knows whereof he speaks!

As I said, this applies to DREs as well as scanners. They are "programmed" exactly the same way: A configuration is loaded into each machine from a server running GEMS or a similar application used to define the whole election. Typically, the same server is used to aggregate the precinct totals afterward, but that horse has already been beaten to death with various demonstrations and ways to mitigate the risk of tampering with post-election totals on the tabulators. It's a lower risk because the precinct totals will never match the tabulator totals, and precinct totals can be obtained independently or posted on election night (at least in theory). See:
<http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section08.pdf>

But if the ballot definition settings are wrong, the totals will be wrong AT THE PRECINCTS and they will always match the tabulator totals in the end -- a much more efficient and dangerous way to steal votes.

Now, when you say Doug Jones said this is "easily detected", I assume he meant only if the ballot definition settings are checked and/or a really good logic and accuracy test is performed on a bunch of machines (which is another good idea but is rarely done in practice, esp. on DREs). Is this right?

In the case of paperless DREs, where there can be no independent auditing of vote totals, this is even more important, because it's a way of determining if the machines have been rigged before the election and especially if errors were made. Once the votes are "in the can" with paperless DREs it's too late so anything you can do beforehand is invaluable.

[IndyOp]

43. Jones did not say 'easily' - I interpreted him to say 'the most easily' as

in more easily detectable than some other methods of cheating, such as programs like Clint Curtis'. As you point out, manipulating the settings means that the precinct totals will match the county and state totals -- that is less likely to happen if central tabulator manipulation happens.

We do still have some cases of election fraud that do look like central tabulator manipulation -- like the case in Alaska 2004 -- the Alaska Democratic Party has sued to get access to the precinct level data because the sum of the total votes in precincts for Bush was much higher than the total votes for the entire state for Bush. I think I have that right. If I do, it means that the precinct totals were the ones being manipulated while the election was in progress to 'stuff the electronic ballot box' --

:kick:

[Bill Bored]

44. Not sure about AK. I think there were some reporting problems

where things didn't add up. But a canvass of precinct totals would certainly straighten all that out and I don't see why they just don't do one. I do agree that Diebold and/or the state shouldn't be holding back the information the Dems are seeking, but from what I recall, the problem may have just been due to reporting district level results incorrectly in certain races in overlapping districts.

[Wilms]

51. Audit & Recount Links

Public Verification of Software Vote Counts and California’s Manual Count Law

By Kim Alexander, President, California Voter Foundation

snip

Seven Steps to a Meaningful Manual Count

1. Require a statistically significant sample size for the manual count - currently, the sample size varies in states from 1 - 10 percent.

2. Include all ballots cast in the election for possible inclusion in the manual count (i.e. early voting, absentee and provisional ballot).

3. Select the precincts to be counted at random.

4. Make the process for selecting precincts to count open to public observation.

5. Prepare and publish the procedures for conducting the manual count prior to the election.

6. Set the date for the manual count well enough in advance to provide ample time to publicize it (at least one week).

7. Publicize the date, time and location of the manual count on the election agency's web site and through a media advisory.

snip

http://www.calvoter.org/issues/votingtech/manualcount.html


Includes the following resource links:

Manual Audit Requirements

by Pam Smith and Bob Kibrick

September 22nd, 2005

A number of states have enacted requirements for mandatory manual audits (in randomly selected precincts) of the voter-verified paper records produced by the voting systems in use in those states.

snip

Verified Voting has compiled a document that lists these mandatory manual audit requirements along with citations of the relevant legislative text. This document is available as a PDF-format document that includes links to the cited legislation.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5816

Recounts: From Punch
Cards to Paper Trails

electionline.orgexamines the rules in each state governing recounts, with a particular focus on the impact of voter-verifiable paper audit trails (VVPATs), absentee and provisional ballots. As with most election issues, federalism has produced a variety of rules governing the same process.

Less than half the states allow voters to request recounts after elections, while 16 states have in their law rules that mandate statewide recounts in races where the margin of victory fails to exceed a certain threshold.

A survey of state election officials, conducted during August and September 2005, examined what factors trigger vote recounts as well as how they are conducted and funded.

Additionally, source documents, including state election codes, were used to determine how recounts are held in each state.

snip

.pdf http://www.electionline.org/Portals/1/Publications/ERIPBrief12.SB370updated.pdf

State Recount Laws

Dan Tokaji, Assistant Professor of Law &
Samuel Stoller, Class of 2006, Moritz College of Law

Below is a chart summarizing the recount laws of the 50 states. They are broken down into four categories: (1) automatic - recounts that take place automatically, regardless of the margin of victory, (2) candidate initiated - recounts that may be requested by a candidate, (3) voter initiated - recounts may be requested by voter, (4) close election - recounts take place if the margin of victory falls beneath a prescribed numerical threshold. A description of state recount laws is found below each state's listing.

snip

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part5/procedures_recount04.html

[McCamy Taylor]

53. Raise awareness with Civil Rights inspired protest NOW!

I have posted this already, but this needs to be treated as CRIMINAL activity which the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are refusing to prosecute. Most of the election abuses which are occuring are forbidden under the Voting Rights Act. Most are being committed by a small minority of Americans in a few states. These bad apples are trying to take control of America from the rest of us.

Expose these thugs for what they are. Everytime there is a repressive law, take some action that shows the public how repressive it is. If Blackwell wants voters registration forms hand delivered by the one who registered the voter, hand deliver it to Blackwell, ONE AT A TIME, then get at the back of the line that stretched around the block and prepare to deliver the next one. Keep the line going forever. If Florida says no one can test Diebold machines and you have a Diebold machine, test it and invite the media and tell them you expect the police to come and shut you down. If you are in Florida and you are afraid to register voters for fear of fines or prosecution, organize buses to take all the would be voters to Brother Jeb's office or home where HE can register them (or the home/office of some other state officials, say the legislators who came up with this law). Dare local law enforcement to prosecute.

If you can find some e-voting equipment, do magic shows. A tour around the country to demonstrate the amazing things that can be done with these machines would be lots of fun--especially if the police show up.

Most important of all, each time there is a local violation of federal voting law, loudly call upon Al Gonzales to take care of it and blame him and Ashcroft for creating a climate in which locals feel free to commit such election crimes.

There really needs to a march in DC, with some kind of marker like crosses in a field to represent ever vote that has ben lost through disenfranchisement e-vote switching or non-tallying of votes since W. entered office. On second thought, that would be a lot of crosses. Maybe a bunch of paper origami cranes strung together would be more feasible.

[Wilms]

54. .

[drm604]

55. See my posts in this other thread for some ideas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1369167&mesg_id=1377642

How about this - we publicly announce that we will be doing specially designed exit polls. We do not announce any specifics such as what locations will be polled, only that they are designed specifically to detect fraud or machine error. We also announce that there will be lawsuits against election boards and voting machine manufacturers in any precinct where fraud or error is detected. That in itself may discourage some activities. Of course we would need some guaranteed financial backing so that it's not just a bluff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1369167&mesg_id=1379402

By announcing the polls and the followup lawsuits we may, at the very least, dissuade laziness and carelessness on the part of election boards and thus make them more vigilant. I think the plan needs to include poll watchers along with exit pollsters. We should be ready to launch legal actions over any significant irregularities that are noted. We should also be ready to launch legal actions against any attempts to suppress voting or registration. We should somehow ahead of time be monitoring expected turnout versus available voting equipment. We should very visibly and publicly single out and question any individuals who are obviously engaged in any kind of suppression. We should also launch an educational publicity campaign, telling the general public what to look for and where to call.

I think an important part, since we can't possibly hit every precinct in the country, is to somehow hide exactly where we will poll. We should have polling teams ready for general areas and then give them their specific locations immediately beforehand. That may even be how exit polls have been done in the past, I don't know.

We need to get as many groups involved as possible. This includes the obvious political and civil rights groups as well as less obvious ones like AARP, veterans, environmental groups, and unions. Basically any group that is fed up with the current administration, even if voting rights hasn't been on their agenda in the past.

Any idea how to go about creating a PAC or getting an existing one, like Moveon, interested in our ideas?

[Tiggeroshii]

56. Get a Senator to strongly support reforming HAVA

to the point where hava is no longer in effect and things are back to the way things were before 2002 where the votes at least moderately reflected the intentions of the people. Nowadays you'll never know.

[emlev]

57. Join in the Declarations of No Confidence

See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=434216&mesg_id=434216