OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity

[Josh Mitteldorf]

In the last few weeks, there is an "American People's New Economic Charter", a wiki document that is attempting to collect and organize thinking about what to demand on behalf of the 99%.  Just this morning, I joined the wiki and added a brief section on necessary voting reform.  Here is the text I inserted:

Since the introduction of electronic voting in 2002, there has been centralized manipulation of the machinery that counts our votes.  Statistics from exit polls, pre-election polls, and historical comparisons all indicate that the tilt is consistently toward the Republicans, and that it has increased and widened with each Federal election since 2002.  

(This story has been censored by the mainstream media, but it is well-documented at various sites on the Web, for example

http://ElectionDefenseAlliance.org and http://ElectionIntegrity.org and http://BlackBoxVoting.org)

 

The simple solution is a return to hand-counted paper ballots.  This will not prevent all election manipulation - there has always been ballot box stuffing in America - but it will stop the wholesale, centralized electronic fraud that has grown up in the last decade, and it will return control of the process to the local level.

[STCAS...@aol.com]

nice, josh.  but i wouldn't limit it to Federal races.  Walker and other govs?  state legislatures?  SOSes?   propositions?

[SHEILAR...@comcast.net]

Josh, thanks for doing this

Over the years there has been disagreement in the voting rights movement about whether to ask only for national HCPB elections or in all elections

It must be all, as Sally has said

Certainly the 7 ultra right wing govs that got elected, and all at the same time, would appear to be in rigged elections. 

And local politics affects national always

And, if we are saying the e-voting machines rig elections, why would we want to say that rigging local elections is all right?

Sheila

---

From: STCAS...@aol.com
To: jo...@mathforum.org, sheilar...@comcast.net
Cc: theparty...@yahoo.com, phylisi...@gmail.com, Verified...@aol.com, earthwo...@gmail.com, ron...@organicconsumers.org, cate...@gmail.com, jacqueli...@gmail.com, s...@alum.mit.edu, "mark miller" <mark....@nyu.edu>, election...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:33:25 AM
Subject: Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity

nice, josh.  but i wouldn't limit it to Federal races.  Walker  and other
govs?  state legislatures?  SOSes?    propositions?
 
 
In a message dated 10/25/2011 8:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jo...@mathforum.org writes:

In the  last few weeks, there is an "_American People's New Economic  
Charter_ (http://tapnec.wikispaces.com/) ", a wiki document that is attempting to

collect and organize  thinking about what to demand on behalf of the 99%.  
Just this morning, I  joined the wiki and added a brief section on necessary
voting reform.   Here is the text I inserted:

Since  the introduction of electronic voting in 2002, there has been
centralized  manipulation of the machinery that counts our votes.  Statistics from
 exit polls, pre-election polls, and historical comparisons all indicate
that  the tilt is consistently toward the Republicans, and that it has
increased and  widened with each Federal election since 2002.  
(This  story has been censored by the mainstream media, but it is
well-documented at  various sites on the Web, for example

_http://ElectionDefenseAlliance.org_ (http://electiondefensealliance.org/)  
and _http://ElectionIntegrity.org_ (http://electionintegrity.org/)  and
_http://BlackBoxVoting.org_ (http://blackboxvoting.org/) )

[SHEILAR...@comcast.net]

Dear V

THX for noticing this

I cannot believe I missed it

Sheila

---

From: "Victoria Collier" <earthwo...@gmail.com>
To: SHEILAR...@comcast.net, "phylisinmexico" <phylisi...@gmail.com>
Cc: STCAS...@aol.com, theparty...@yahoo.com, Verified...@aol.com, ron...@organicconsumers.org, cate...@gmail.com, jacqueli...@gmail.com, s...@alum.mit.edu, "mark miller" <mark....@nyu.edu>, election...@googlegroups.com, jo...@mathforum.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:38:15 PM

Subject: Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity

Please, let's stop misrepresenting this situation. This has not been
happening since 2002!

Centralized election rigging has been happening since the introduction of
computers into election night processes in the 60s.

Read "Votescam: The Stealing of America" to understand the history.

http://www.votescam.org

My father and uncle began their investigation into this issue in 1970, and
elections were being rigged then with computers, and with the complicity and
involvement of the mainstream media.

People only became AWARE of the issue after the 2000 election. HAVA brought
the Touchscreens in -- we'd been using computers for decades before that and
Optical Scanners can ALSO BE HACKED.

If the American public could be made to understand how long democracy has
been railroaded, they might stop believing they "asked" for the country they
now have.

--Victoria Collier

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM, <SHEILAR...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Josh, thanks for doing this
>
> Over the years there has been disagreement in the voting rights movement
> about whether to ask only for national HCPB elections or in all elections
>
> It must be all, as Sally has said
>
> Certainly the 7 ultra right wing govs that got elected, and all at the same
> time, would appear to be in rigged elections.
>
> And local politics affects national always
>
> And, if we are saying the e-voting machines rig elections, why would we
> want to say that rigging local elections is all right?
>
> Sheila
>

> ------------------------------
> *From: *STCAS...@aol.com
> *To: *jo...@mathforum.org, sheilar...@comcast.net
> *Cc: *theparty...@yahoo.com, phylisi...@gmail.com,

> Verified...@aol.com, earthwo...@gmail.com,
> ron...@organicconsumers.org, cate...@gmail.com,
> jacqueli...@gmail.com, s...@alum.mit.edu, "mark miller" <
> mark....@nyu.edu>, election...@googlegroups.com

> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:33:25 AM
> *Subject: *Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity

[Steve Freeman]

Victoria: you should revise Josh’s message to try to create a position that we can all agree on.

 

For my part, I believe e-voting produced a qualitative change. At least with the older system, there is a possibility of detection, a need to cover one’s tracks and thereby a limitation to the extent and brazenness of fraud. To the degree we can determine the extent of fraud empirically; it would seem to have jumped dramatically beginning with the 2002 federal elections.

 

As for the introduction of centralized rigging, it almost certainly precedes widespread computer use. The case can be made that it goes back to the introduction of secret ballot in the 1870s as a means to illicitly stymie a truly threatening progressive movement.

 

Once we have a document we agree on, we can also post it to the facebook group.

 

From: Victoria Collier [mailto:earthwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 October, 2011 12:38 PM
To: SHEILAR...@comcast.net; phylisinmexico
Cc: STCAS...@aol.com; theparty...@yahoo.com; Verified...@aol.com; ron...@organicconsumers.org; cate...@gmail.com; jacqueli...@gmail.com; s...@alum.mit.edu; mark miller; election...@googlegroups.com; jo...@mathforum.org
Subject: Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity

 

Please, let's stop misrepresenting this situation. This has not been happening since 2002!

 

Centralized election rigging has been happening since the introduction of computers into election night processes in the 60s.

 

Read "Votescam: The Stealing of America" to understand the history.

 

http://www.votescam.org

 

My father and uncle began their investigation into this issue in 1970, and elections were being rigged then with computers, and with the complicity and involvement of the mainstream media.

 

People only became AWARE of the issue after the 2000 election. HAVA brought the Touchscreens in -- we'd been using computers for decades before that and Optical Scanners can ALSO BE HACKED.

 

If the American public could be made to understand how long democracy has been railroaded, they might stop believing they "asked" for the country they now have.

 

--Victoria Collier

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM, <SHEILAR...@comcast.net> wrote:

[SHEILAR...@comcast.net]

The other remarks were made by Sally and Sheila - about the word "federal".  Here is the phrase, as Josh wrote it " ....Federal election since 2002" - it might have undergone some re-writing, I thought I saw it phrased a little differently.  But "federal" was in it both times, as was "2002".

More than federal elections have been rigged.  An example I stated in earlier email-  the 7 ultra right governors recently elected, and all at the same time.

Please, also remove the word "federal"

Thanks

Sheila

---

From: "Victoria Collier" <earthwo...@gmail.com>

To: s...@alum.mit.edu
Cc: election...@googlegroups.com, "Josh Mitteldorf" <jo...@mathforum.org>, "Sheila Parks" <sheilar...@comcast.net>, STCAS...@aol.com, theparty...@yahoo.com, "dael4" <da...@columbus.rr.com>, Verified...@aol.com, ron...@organicconsumers.org, cate...@gmail.com, jacqueli...@gmail.com, "mark miller" <mark....@nyu.edu>, "phylisinmexico" <phylisi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:37:19 PM
Subject: Re: an OWS 99% voting integrity document

Also -- last comment on this:

To say that the fraud apparently became more widespread after 2002 you also
have to take into account that hardly anyone was paying any attention to the
count before the 2000 debacle.

My dad and uncle were the ONLY really committed investigators before that,
with a few citizen groups involved, and many people contacting them from
around the country with stories of likely fraud in their communities based
on the tell-tale signs (courthouse computer has broken down, says the TV
news anchor, we'll be giving our vote projections now . . .).

With no checks on the system for decades, how can we say how widespread the
fraud was? Optical scanners operating at the county level were capable of
centralized rigging. The media itself was capable of NATIONAL centralized
rigging through News Election Services, which most people don't know
anything about.

To tell people this problem started in 2002 is doing a huge disservice to
everyone -- we need to understand how compromised our system has been, which
helps explain the steep slide into darkness we've experienced in the past 40
years.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Victoria Collier
<earthwo...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Though I should add that Lynn Landes finally did consistently acknowledge
> their work as a predecessor to hers.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Victoria Collier <
> earthwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I don't know whether or not you ever read Votescam. The extent and
>> brazenness of the fraud was quite significant before Touchscreens. It was
>> not just the computer counting, it was also the involvement of the media
>> networks and their own computers which controlled the final tallying and
>> reporting of voting results to the public. My father and uncle uncovered
>> fraud involving the networks reporting false results to the public on
>> election night in 1970. There is reason to believe the same kind of fraud
>> was taking place nationwide. Forged canvass sheets and falsified final
>> results. That's centralized election rigging.
>>
>> The Touchscreens made it easier, yes.
>>
>> Other suggestions have been made to this document, I don't want to be the
>> one to revise it. But my suggestion is to take out 2002, that's all. Just
>> don't put that date on it.
>>
>> I have to take this position not just because its historically and
>> factually accurate, but because I have stood by for too many years watching
>> the incredible work my father and uncle did for 25 years be wholly and
>> consistently ignored by later, post-2000, election investigators and it's
>> not okay with me anymore.
>>
>> Thanks
>> V

>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Steve Freeman <
>> steven.f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Victoria: you should revise Josh’s message to try to create a position

>>> that we can all agree on. ****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> For my part, I believe e-voting produced a qualitative change. At least
>>> with the older system, there is a possibility of detection, a need to cover
>>> one’s tracks and thereby a limitation to the extent and brazenness of fraud.
>>> To the degree we can determine the extent of fraud empirically; it would
>>> seem to have jumped dramatically beginning with the 2002 federal elections.

>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****

>>>
>>> As for the introduction of centralized rigging, it almost certainly
>>> precedes widespread computer use. The case can be made that it goes back to
>>> the introduction of secret ballot in the 1870s as a means to illicitly

>>> stymie a truly threatening progressive movement. ****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> Once we have a document we agree on, we can also post it to the facebook

>>> group. ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* Victoria Collier [mailto:earthwo...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* 25 October, 2011 12:38 PM
>>> *To:* SHEILAR...@comcast.net; phylisinmexico
>>> *Cc:* STCAS...@aol.com; theparty...@yahoo.com;

>>> Verified...@aol.com; ron...@organicconsumers.org;
>>> cate...@gmail.com; jacqueli...@gmail.com; s...@alum.mit.edu; mark
>>> miller; election...@googlegroups.com; jo...@mathforum.org

>>> *Subject:* Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> Please, let's stop misrepresenting this situation. This has not been

>>> happening since 2002!****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> Centralized election rigging has been happening since the introduction of

>>> computers into election night processes in the 60s.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Read "Votescam: The Stealing of America" to understand the history.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> http://www.votescam.org****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> My father and uncle began their investigation into this issue in 1970,
>>> and elections were being rigged then with computers, and with the complicity

>>> and involvement of the mainstream media.****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> People only became AWARE of the issue after the 2000 election. HAVA
>>> brought the Touchscreens in -- we'd been using computers for decades before

>>> that and Optical Scanners can ALSO BE HACKED.****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> If the American public could be made to understand how long democracy has
>>> been railroaded, they might stop believing they "asked" for the country they

>>> now have.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> --Victoria Collier****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM, <SHEILAR...@comcast.net> wrote:**
>>> **
>>>
>>> Josh, thanks for doing this****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> Over the years there has been disagreement in the voting rights movement
>>> about whether to ask only for national HCPB elections or in all elections

>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> It must be all, as Sally has said****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> Certainly the 7 ultra right wing govs that got elected, and all at the

>>> same time, would appear to be in rigged elections. ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> And local politics affects national always****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> And, if we are saying the e-voting machines rig elections, why would we

>>> want to say that rigging local elections is all right?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Sheila****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From: *STCAS...@aol.com
>>> *To: *jo...@mathforum.org, sheilar...@comcast.net

>>> *Cc: *theparty...@yahoo.com, phylisi...@gmail.com,

>>> Verified...@aol.com, earthwo...@gmail.com,
>>> ron...@organicconsumers.org, cate...@gmail.com,
>>> jacqueli...@gmail.com, s...@alum.mit.edu, "mark miller" <
>>> mark....@nyu.edu>, election...@googlegroups.com

>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:33:25 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity****

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> nice, josh.  but i wouldn't limit it to Federal races.  Walker  and other
>>>
>>> govs?  state legislatures?  SOSes?    propositions?
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 10/25/2011 8:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>>> jo...@mathforum.org writes:****

>>>
>>> In the  last few weeks, there is an "_American People's New Economic
>>> Charter_ (http://tapnec.wikispaces.com/) ", a wiki document that is

>>> attempting to ****

>>>
>>> collect and organize  thinking about what to demand on behalf of the 99%.
>>>
>>> Just this morning, I  joined the wiki and added a brief section on
>>> necessary
>>> voting reform.   Here is the text I inserted:
>>>
>>> Since  the introduction of electronic voting in 2002, there has been
>>> centralized  manipulation of the machinery that counts our votes.
>>>  Statistics from
>>>  exit polls, pre-election polls, and historical comparisons all indicate
>>> that  the tilt is consistently toward the Republicans, and that it has
>>> increased and  widened with each Federal election since 2002.
>>> (This  story has been censored by the mainstream media, but it is

>>> well-documented at  various sites on the Web, for example****
>>>
>>> _http://ElectionDefenseAlliance.org_ (

>>> http://electiondefensealliance.org/)
>>> and _http://ElectionIntegrity.org_ (http://electionintegrity.org/)  and

>>> _http://BlackBoxVoting.org_ (http://blackboxvoting.org/) )****

>>>
>>>
>>> The  simple solution is a return to hand-counted paper ballots.  This
>>> will
>>> not  prevent all election manipulation - there has always been ballot box
>>>
>>> stuffing  in America - but it will stop the wholesale, centralized
>>> electronic
>>> fraud that  has grown up in the last decade, and it will return control
>>> of
>>> the process to  the local  level.
>>>
>>>

>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Verified...@aol.com]

To me it seems the key here to possible agreement is a recognition of two stages in this process:  First, once computers were introduced into the tabulation tree (which V correctly points out was in the 1960s), opportunities began to arise for insiders to alter electoral outcomes without having to persuade dead voters to vote or living voters to vote more than once: that is, the transition from retail to wholesale fraud was underway.  Second, Steve is correct that a quantum leap in theft potential occurred around 2002, as the recording/tabulation tree became entirely computerized and, further, no longer relied on physical media such as punch cards. And it has become easier and easier to steal more and more as the infrastructural means have been refined and proliferated (all the way up to networked vote "processing," eminently susceptible to, and in fact designed for, man-in-the-middle attack). 

 

What this boils down to is that in 2010 you could steal an entire country with less peoplepower that in 1970 or 1980 or even 1990 it would have taken to steal a single race or the races on a single ballot. The room full of LWV drones altering punchcards--which would be rather visible and egregious if replicated in every county in the land--is not needed post-2002.

 

So the principle was there, and was certainly being "beta tested," for the last 40 years or so. But there was a change of several orders of magnitude in scope and throw-weight made possible by equipment and infrastructure that was not in place until around 2000, and has taken over virtually completely ever since.

 

It is, imo, erroneous to assert either that computer-based election theft began in 2002 or that it did not turn a very major corner in its impact around that time.--Jonathan

 

 

In a message dated 10/25/2011 4:02:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, steven.f...@verizon.net writes:

Victoria: you should revise Josh’s message to try to create a position that we can all agree on.

 

For my part, I believe e-voting produced a qualitative change. At least with the older system, there is a possibility of detection, a need to cover one’s tracks and thereby a limitation to the extent and brazenness of fraud. To the degree we can determine the extent of fraud empirically; it would seem to have jumped dramatically beginning with the 2002 federal elections.

 

As for the introduction of centralized rigging, it almost certainly precedes widespread computer use. The case can be made that it goes back to the introduction of secret ballot in the 1870s as a means to illicitly stymie a truly threatening progressive movement.

 

Once we have a document we agree on, we can also post it to the facebook group.

 

From: Victoria Collier [mailto:earthwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 October, 2011 12:38 PM
To: SHEILAR...@comcast.net; phylisinmexico
Cc: STCAS...@aol.com; theparty...@yahoo.com; Verified...@aol.com; ron...@organicconsumers.org; cate...@gmail.com; jacqueli...@gmail.com; s...@alum.mit.edu; mark miller; election...@googlegroups.com; jo...@mathforum.org
Subject: Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity

 

Please, let's stop misrepresenting this situation. This has not been happening since 2002!

 

Centralized election rigging has been happening since the introduction of computers into election night processes in the 60s.

 

Read "Votescam: The Stealing of America" to understand the history.

 

http://www.votescam.org

 

My father and uncle began their investigation into this issue in 1970, and elections were being rigged then with computers, and with the complicity and involvement of the mainstream media.

 

People only became AWARE of the issue after the 2000 election. HAVA brought the Touchscreens in -- we'd been using computers for decades before that and Optical Scanners can ALSO BE HACKED.

 

If the American public could be made to understand how long democracy has been railroaded, they might stop believing they "asked" for the country they now have.

 

--Victoria Collier

 

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM, <SHEILAR...@comcast.net> wrote:

Josh, thanks for doing this

 

Over the years there has been disagreement in the voting rights movement about whether to ask only for national HCPB elections or in all elections

 

It must be all, as Sally has said

 

Certainly the 7 ultra right wing govs that got elected, and all at the same time, would appear to be in rigged elections. 

 

And local politics affects national always

 

And, if we are saying the e-voting machines rig elections, why would we want to say that rigging local elections is all right?

 

Sheila

 

---

From: STCAS...@aol.com

To: jo...@mathforum.org, sheilar...@comcast.net
Cc: theparty...@yahoo.com, phylisi...@gmail.com, Verified...@aol.com, earthwo...@gmail.com, ron...@organicconsumers.org, cate...@gmail.com, jacqueli...@gmail.com, s...@alum.mit.edu, "mark miller" <mark....@nyu.edu>, election...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:33:25 AM

Subject: Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting integrity

nice, josh.  but i wouldn't limit it to Federal races.  Walker  and other
govs?  state legislatures?  SOSes?    propositions?
 
 
In a message dated 10/25/2011 8:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jo...@mathforum.org writes:

In the  last few weeks, there is an "_American People's New Economic  
Charter_ (http://tapnec.wikispaces.com/) ", a wiki document that is attempting to

collect and organize  thinking about what to demand on behalf of the 99%.  

Just this morning, I  joined the wiki and added a brief section on necessary
voting reform.   Here is the text I inserted:

Since  the introduction of electronic voting in 2002, there has been
centralized  manipulation of the machinery that counts our votes.  Statistics from
 exit polls, pre-election polls, and historical comparisons all indicate
that  the tilt is consistently toward the Republicans, and that it has
increased and  widened with each Federal election since 2002.  
(This  story has been censored by the mainstream media, but it is
well-documented at  various sites on the Web, for example

_http://ElectionDefenseAlliance.org_ (http://electiondefensealliance.org/)  

and _http://ElectionIntegrity.org_ (http://electionintegrity.org/)  and
_http://BlackBoxVoting.org_ (http://blackboxvoting.org/) )

The  simple solution is a return to hand-counted paper ballots.  This will
not  prevent all election manipulation - there has always been ballot box
stuffing  in America - but it will stop the wholesale, centralized electronic
fraud that  has grown up in the last decade, and it will return control of
the process to  the local  level.

 

--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.

[Victoria Collier]

This message came only to me, Josh, so I'm posting it to the whole group.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm not speaking for a movement, only for myself and my family, and truly for the American people who deserve to know the whole truth.

Strategically, I don't really see a greater impact in minimizing what happened before 2002. If anything it just adds to the general confusion of a country that has been going into the toilet for 40 years.

If you read almost any progressive article these days discussing the tragedy of America, EVERY single one will give an average 40 year timeline to encompass the general trend downward in all respects.

No one ever says why it's 40 years, but you see it again and again.

I'd like to propose that we lost total control of our democratic system about 40 years ago with the institution of secret computerized vote counting, and everything went spiraling down alongside it since.

People are desperate and need answers. I think we should be telling them the full truth. They also know the corporate media is absolutely evil -- and it is. And they have NO IDEA the role the corporate media has played in our elections.

Anyway, I'll stop now. Thanks for taking it all into consideration.

V

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Josh Mitteldorf <jo...@mathforum.org> wrote:

Dear Victoria-
    I have read Votescam, and I'm glad to acknowledge you have a better right than I to speak for the election integrity movement.  The statement I posted was supposed to be a start, and I'm glad that it's prompted thought and discussion.
-Josh

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Victoria Collier <earthwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

And for the record, if anyone questions my frustrated tone here, I will make it clear that it continues to be incredibly difficult to witness the work of my family, who sacrificed far more than anyone else in this movement to date, ignored. This is personal to me.

When you put the timeline on this issue at 2002 and minimize or dismiss what went on before, while not discussing the role of the corporate media at all, you are simply ignoring all the work Jim and Ken did, and that gets me very frustrated because it has been the case for so long.

Just tell the full truth. That's all I'm asking.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Victoria Collier <earthwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

J,

You can't say with any certainty what NES has been doing or not doing for the past 40 years.

As far as the LWV goes, they had their role to play, and they should be investigated, but they are not the entity that was capable of wholesale centralized vote rigging for the past 40 years. We have had a corporate media cartel -- NES, later VNS -- operating with no oversight, with the capacity to shift votes at the state and national level from a secret, heavily guarded headquarters, where no citizens or journalists were allowed, with no check on that system whatsoever.

The same corporate media that has been in charge of the censoring of all major vital stories important to the People since the Kennedy assassination. 

A corrupt, uber powerful, corporate media, that shapes the thoughts of the people and the direction of our society.

They have literally been in control of elections for 40 years, because of the use of computers to tally votes. No one ever questions the results they hear on the TV, and no one checks them against any official record. When my father and uncle did so, they found the official record was falsified to match the phone TV results.

In the meantime, we have seen a rapid slide toward corporatism during that same period -- about 40 years.

Let's do the math. 

I just can't agree with your watered down assessment of what was possible before 2000 or 2004.

And I really balk at doing anything other than providing the truth to the American people. That is what I see as our job, not putting our own spin on it based on what we feel is most palatable.

However, that is EXACTLY what the later generations of EI people have done -- and why they assiduously have avoiding touching Votescam's larger picture of conspiracy.

I can understand this, but at the same time, I've seen little or no results from it. Where is the EI popular movement? Where is the outrage it might generate? Instead we've had watered down information and language that has failed to spark any kind of populist fury and in the end has not painted an accurate picture of the extent and depth of the fraud.

Anyway, that's my position and my strong feeling, and again it is my job to continue to push my father and uncles work into this conversation where it is always ignored based on one excuse or another.

If other EI people don't want to support me in that, I'm not going to argue about it, truly, because I don't have time, but just keep doing my work as I can and getting the truth to people so they can make their own informed decisions.

-- V

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM, <Verified...@aol.com> wrote:

V

 

Based on your more recent emails my sense is that you would disagree strongly with at least paragraphs two and three in my email below.

 

It is true that, to the extent the networks were "in on it," they could have posted and retrofitted virtually any numbers they wanted to, especially since no one outside your family and a few helpers were even bothering to check.

 

My intuitive sense, though, is that they were quite selective in their targeting (doing a favor for this one, making sure that one didn't get too far).

 

These were operations that still would have caused them (the networks, the NES, and their affiliates) immense 'discomfort' had they been exposed, so they were just as rigorous about keeping things under wraps as the riggers of the present--they would lie, cover-up, threaten, and kill if necessary. That certainly has not changed.

 

Since the Uroseviches came on the scene, though, I do think the scope has changed, as well as the goal. These are true true-believers who, I think, have a meta-goal of perpetual rule. I don't think that the bastards were thinking in those terms in 1970, though I could be wrong.

 

In any event, the means are certainly there now to achieve that meta-goal without breaking a sweat and I think it is important to convey that. There may be a trade-off here in telling this story between respect for history and strategic impact. If we're good we can achieve both, but I don't think blurring over key points of tactical inflection (e.g. 2002) is the way to do it, any more than eliminating or truncating what was afoot prior to those points.

 

J

[Sheila Parks]

I am also standing with Victoria here in that I thinkfeel we do need to tell the full truth - otherwise who will believe us and most important, why should they?

Sheila

J,

-- V

V

 

 

J

 

To: SHEILAR...@comcast.net; phylisinmexico

 

http://www.votescam.org

 

 

--Victoria Collier

 

 

Sheila

 

---

From: STCAS...@aol.com

To: jo...@mathforum.org, sheilar...@comcast.net

jo...@mathforum.org writes:

Charter_ (http://tapnec.wikispaces.com/ ) ", a wiki document that is attempting to

collect and organize  thinking about what to demand on behalf of the 99%. 

Just this morning, I  joined the wiki and added a brief section on necessary

voting reform.   Here is the text I inserted:

Since  the introduction of electronic voting in 2002, there has been

centralized  manipulation of the machinery that counts our votes.  Statistics from

 exit polls, pre-election polls, and historical comparisons all indicate

that  the tilt is consistently toward the Republicans, and that it has

increased and  widened with each Federal election since 2002. 

(This  story has been censored by the mainstream media, but it is

well-documented at  various sites on the Web, for example

_ http://ElectionDefenseAlliance.org_ ( http://electiondefensealliance.org/) 

and _ http://ElectionIntegrity.org_ ( http://electionintegrity.org/)  and

_http://BlackBoxVoting.org_ ( http://blackboxvoting.org/) )

The  simple solution is a return to hand-counted paper ballots.  This will

not  prevent all election manipulation - there has always been ballot box

stuffing  in America - but it will stop the wholesale, centralized electronic

fraud that  has grown up in the last decade, and it will return control of

the process to  the local  level.

 

--

To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.

 

Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.

 

If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.

Sheila Parks, Ed.D.
Founder
Center for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots
Belmont, MA 02478
617-932-1424
DEMOCRACY IN OUR HANDS
www.handcountedpaperballots.org
she...@handcountedpaperballots.org 

[Richard Charnin]

HAVA took effect in 2002. It is instructive to look at the trend in
uncounted votes the corresponding exit poll discrepancies since 1988.
Net uncounted votes peaked in 1988 and have been in decline ever
since.

WPD (within precinct discrepancy was low in 1996 and 2000. Clinton
was the incumbent.
WPD (within precinct discrepancy was high in 1988, 1992, 2004, 2008.
Bush 1 and 2 were incumbents.

One can surmise that vote miscounts were primarily due to mechanical
voting machines (punched cards and levers) prior to 2002.
But the installation of DREs and optical scanners (and central
tabulators) enabled electronic vote switching in 2004 and 2008.
HAVA had the desired effect.

In Florida 2000, there were 185,000 net uncounted punch cards ballots
(more votes cast than recorded). In 2004, 238,000 net STUFFED ballots
(more votes recorded than cast)
In Ohio 2000, there were 118,000 net uncounted punch cards ballots
(more votes cast than recorded). In 2004, 143,000 net STUFFED ballots
(more votes recorded than cast)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=13

Elec Cast Recorded NetUnct WPD Incumbent
2008 132.3 131.4 0.9 10.2% Bush
2004 125.7 122.3 3.4 7.4 Bush
2000 110.8 105.4 5.4 2.0 Clinton
1996 105.4 96.3 9.1 1.9 Clinton
1992 113.9 104.4 9.4 5.4 Bush
1988 102.3 91.6 10.6 7.4 Bush (VP)

> steven.f.free...@verizon.net writes:
>
> Victoria: you  should revise Josh’s message to try to create a position
> that we can all agree  on.  
> For my part, I  believe e-voting produced a qualitative change. At least
> with the older  system, there is a possibility of detection, a need to cover
> one’s tracks and  thereby a limitation to the extent and brazenness of fraud.
> To the degree we  can determine the extent of fraud empirically; it would
> seem to have jumped  dramatically beginning with the 2002 federal elections.  
> As for the  introduction of centralized rigging, it almost certainly
> precedes widespread  computer use. The case can be made that it goes back to the
> introduction of  secret ballot in the 1870s as a means to illicitly stymie a
> truly threatening  progressive movement.  
> Once we have a  document we agree on, we can also post it to the facebook
> group.  
>

> From: Victoria Collier  [mailto:earthworkpa...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 25 October, 2011 12:38  PM
> To: SHEILARUTHPA...@comcast.net; phylisinmexico
> Cc:  STCASTL...@aol.com; thepartyparty2...@yahoo.com;
> VerifiedVote2...@aol.com;  ron...@organicconsumers.org; catem...@gmail.com;
> jacquelinejane...@gmail.com;  s...@alum.mit.edu; mark miller; election...@googlegroups.com;  
> j...@mathforum.org
> Subject: Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting  integrity
> Please, let's stop misrepresenting this situation. This has  not been
> happening since 2002!
>
> Centralized election rigging has been happening since the  introduction of
> computers into election night processes in the  60s.
>
> Read "Votescam: The Stealing of America" to understand the  history.
>

> _http://www.votescam.org_(http://www.votescam.org/)

>
> My father and uncle began their investigation into this  issue in 1970, and
> elections were being rigged then with computers, and with  the complicity
> and involvement of the mainstream media.
>
> People only became AWARE of the issue after the 2000  election. HAVA
> brought the Touchscreens in -- we'd been using computers for  decades before that
> and Optical Scanners can ALSO BE  HACKED.
>
> If the American public could be made to understand how long  democracy has
> been railroaded, they might stop believing they "asked" for the  country
> they now have.
>
> --Victoria Collier
>

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM, <_SHEILARUTHPA...@comcast.net_
>
> (mailto:SHEILARUTHPA...@comcast.net) >  wrote:

>
> Josh, thanks for doing  this
>
> Over the years there  has been disagreement in the voting rights movement
> about whether to ask only  for national HCPB elections or in all elections
>
> It must be all, as  Sally has said
>
> Certainly the 7 ultra  right wing govs that got elected, and all at the
> same time, would appear to be  in rigged elections.
>
> And local politics  affects national always
>
> And, if we are saying  the e-voting machines rig elections, why would we
> want to say that rigging  local elections is all right?
>
> Sheila
>

> ____________________________________
>
> From: _STCASTL...@aol.com_ (mailto:STCASTL...@aol.com)
> To: _j...@mathforum.org_ (mailto:j...@mathforum.org) ,
> _sheilaruthpa...@comcast.net_ (mailto:sheilaruthpa...@comcast.net)
> Cc: _thepartyparty2...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:thepartyparty2...@yahoo.com) ,
> _phylisinmex...@gmail.com_ (mailto:phylisinmex...@gmail.com) ,
> _VerifiedVote2...@aol.com_ (mailto:VerifiedVote2...@aol.com) , _earthworkpa...@gmail.com_
> (mailto:earthworkpa...@gmail.com) , _ron...@organicconsumers.org_
> (mailto:ron...@organicconsumers.org) , _catem...@gmail.com_ (mailto:catem...@gmail.com)
> , _jacquelinejane...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jacquelinejane...@gmail.com) ,
> _...@alum.mit.edu_ (mailto:s...@alum.mit.edu) , "mark miller"  
> <_mark.mil...@nyu.edu_ (mailto:mark.mil...@nyu.edu) >, _election...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:election...@googlegroups.com)

> Sent: Tuesday,  October 25, 2011 10:33:25 AM
> Subject: Re: OWS, the 99%, and voting  integrity
>
> nice, josh.  but i wouldn't limit it to Federal races.  Walker  and other  
> govs?  state legislatures?  SOSes?    propositions?
>

> In a message dated 10/25/2011  8:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  _j...@mathforum.org_ (mailto:j...@mathforum.org)  writes:

>
> In the  last few  weeks, there is an "_American People's New Economic  

> Charter_ (_http://tapnec.wikispaces.com/_(http://tapnec.wikispaces.com/) )

> ", a wiki document that is  attempting to  
>
> collect and organize  thinking about what to demand on behalf of the 99%.  
> Just this  morning, I  joined the wiki and added a brief section on
> necessary  
> voting reform.   Here is the text I inserted:
>
> Since  the  introduction of electronic voting in 2002, there has been
> centralized  manipulation of the machinery that counts our votes.  
> Statistics  from
> exit polls, pre-election polls, and historical comparisons all  indicate
> that  the tilt is consistently toward the Republicans, and  that it has
> increased and  widened with each Federal election since  2002.  
> (This  story has been censored by the mainstream media,  but it is
> well-documented at  various sites on the Web, for  example

> __http://ElectionDefenseAlliance.org__
> (http://electiondefensealliance.org_/)  (_http://electiondefensealliance.org/_
> (http://electiondefensealliance.org/) )  
> and __http://ElectionIntegrity.org__(http://electionintegrity.org_/)  
> (_http://electionintegrity.org/_(http://electionintegrity.org/) )  and
> __http://BlackBoxVoting.org__(http://blackboxvoting.org_/)  
> (_http://blackboxvoting.org/_(http://blackboxvoting.org/) ) )

>
> The  simple  solution is a return to hand-counted paper ballots.  This will
> not  prevent all election manipulation - there has always been ballot box  
> stuffing  in America - but it will stop the wholesale, centralized  
> electronic
> fraud that  has grown up in the last decade, and it will  return control of
> the process to  the local  level.
>
> --
> To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com.  Please review
> the "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI  messages widely and invite members to join the group at

> _http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite_
> (http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite) .

>
> If  you're not a member and would like to join, go to

> _http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity_
> (http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity)   and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension

[Verified...@aol.com]

 

 

In a message dated 10/25/2011 7:26:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, earthwo...@gmail.com writes:

If you read almost any progressive article these days discussing the tragedy of America, EVERY single one will give an average 40 year timeline to encompass the general trend downward in all respects.

No one ever says why it's 40 years, but you see it again and again.

This is true (most put the turning point just after the 60s, many seeing it as mostly backlash against the threat of disorder posed by the 60s), though the first Kennedy killing puts it back almost 50years. Things were pretty ugly back in the 50s and 60s too, so it's not that easy to figure out where it all "began."

I'd like to propose that we lost total control of our democratic system about 40 years ago with the institution of secret computerized vote counting, and everything went spiraling down alongside it since.

I agree with this statement, except that I still think the loss of control was more graded and didn't become "total" till more recently. I think, though, that it's vain to argue about this because I believe that none of us knows enough for certain to make a blanket statement that is not at least in part conjecture. The statement above probably works well as a basic, simple narrative, whether or not it is literally true.

People are desperate and need answers. I think we should be telling them the full truth.

We know a great deal that is true but, and I hope you don't think I'm splitting hairs about this, I don't think we know "the full truth." I wish we did. I wish statistics and patterns equated precisely with the actions (crimes) that we believe generated them. I think it's important to tell people what we know, but also to be careful to distinguish among fact, likelihood, and conjecture. For example, we can strongly infer crimes from the coverups undertaken ostensibly to hide them, but this is still inference and not "truth."

They also know the corporate media is absolutely evil -- and it is. And they have NO IDEA the role the corporate media has played in our elections.

This story should be told. I think, however, that "truth" vs. "spin" is a false dichotomy here. We are in the position of having to tell a grisly story. The telling of any story (even, say, a trip to the bakery to buy rolls) has an element of selectivity and an element of emphasis. Much of this is common sense and we do it unconsciously (we don't talk about how we tied the shoes we wore to the bakery or the length of the laces), but in the present case there is a shitload of material going down many layers and we have to make it coherent and digestible as well as true. I agree that we should not shy away from what we believe to be the truth because we're afraid it will offend or confuse. But I also don't think there is some magic simple all-encompassing truth that we know for certain and can present as such down to the bare facts supporting our broad narrative. The story as I truly perceive it is a mixture of fact, probability, and conjecture and I feel personally dishonest presenting it (or at least the parts of it I know) as anything other than that. -- Jonathan

[Victoria Collier]

Also, I think it's really important NOT to oversimplify the details while we are telling the full narrative -- meaning mostly that there isn't one "they" who are rigging, and the rigging shifts and changes each time with many different circumstances -- seems like it's a rigging war, actually.

I think 2000, for example, was another coup. VNS called it for Gore. They were boldly challenged by the Bush crime family who had the strings to pull in Florida through Jeb and on the Supreme Court through Scalia. VNS did NOT want the spotlight shone on them, that's certain, they had been happily operating in their secret little rat hole for decades. There was a lot of damage control to do after that, and they had to shape shift again. I'm not even certain yet what happened after the Tauzin hearings.

The political factions are also shifting with the rise of the Tea Party and the Koch brother empire. The lunatic extremists are now a very distinct faction threatening their own full take-over. How much access do they have to the actual levers of election theft? 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Victoria Collier <earthwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jonathan, I'm sorry to be blunt, but you already know how I feel about this.

I've watched an entire decade of post-2000 election reform activists essentially refuse to say "fraud" and "conspiracy" -- and if they ever do, it's usually with ten minutes of establishment ass-kissing and caveats and qualifications and falling over themselves to appear "responsible" and certainly never to be associated with those wacky folks who claim our elections are being stolen -- not COULD BE, but ARE -- and have been for decades.

They do not talk about the Votescam investigation, the proven fraud, the role of the media, etc -- until they've given up hope in anyone giving a shit about what they have to say anyway. Then they start looking at the whole story, and telling the full truth.

The full truth is simply that we know we lost control of our vote count when computers were instituted. How quickly the insider fraud spread, how it was used, is a story we haven't fully sewn together yet, probably never will. Optical scanners could rig votes at the county level long before HAVA, and those electronic vote totals were fed electronically to NES and VNS. We know that HAVA was the Super-flu of the virus, but it sure as hell wasn't the beginning.

We know that the corporate mainstream media, through NES and VNS, has been capable of rigging our elections since the mid 60s -- at least, rigging the reported results, and possibly also manipulating centralized vote counting computers with modems if there was communication back and forth. Though honestly I don't even know why they would need it -- no one was watching that process at all and the media could have given any reasonable results -- and since it was so often supposedly "50/50" to the end, not too hard to push it either way.

Fact is, we don't know what the hell they've been doing at NES/VNS, cause it's a secret. Hey, how about a Congressional investigation? Oh yes, there was one, and Billy Tauzin kept me locked out of it. Ended up they just gave VNS more money.

We know, because of Votescam, that people high up in the chain have been covering up vote fraud evidence for decades, like our good friend Antonin Scalia. And look at what Antonin Scalia did in 2000. But no one knows his history, they think he started assisting in the stealing elections in 2000. Don't know history, bound to repeat it, right?

However you want to package it all up, it needs to be the whole story, the whole picture -- not beginning in 2002, that's for sure, or 2000.

I've been watching all these election fraud videos tonight that I'm archiving on my website, and there is so much "gee, this system sure COULD lead to fraud!" and then . . . ? Nothing. No talk of the existing evidence of fraud. No outrage. Lou Dobbs interviewing Bev Harris (wow, an instance of media coverage!) and everyone shaking their heads and clucking about how insecure the system is and . . . that's it, folks. Cut to commercial.

I'm so fucking tired of these games, so tired of this bullshit. Massive rigging in Dade County in 1970 using the computer and we're supposed to believe this wasn't going on all over the country in key states every single election since then?

I'm sorry, but I just don't care about perceived "60s backlash" or any other punditry, I care that after Kennedy was murdered in a coup we also lost control of our vote count, our democracy, and we've been losing more and more of it ever since, and there's barely anything left at all.

What will it take for us to just tell the truth? We have NOTHING to lose.

[Victoria Collier]

Jonathan, I'm sorry to be blunt, but you already know how I feel about this.

I've watched an entire decade of post-2000 election reform activists essentially refuse to say "fraud" and "conspiracy" -- and if they ever do, it's usually with ten minutes of establishment ass-kissing and caveats and qualifications and falling over themselves to appear "responsible" and certainly never to be associated with those wacky folks who claim our elections are being stolen -- not COULD BE, but ARE -- and have been for decades.

They do not talk about the Votescam investigation, the proven fraud, the role of the media, etc -- until they've given up hope in anyone giving a shit about what they have to say anyway. Then they start looking at the whole story, and telling the full truth.

The full truth is simply that we know we lost control of our vote count when computers were instituted. How quickly the insider fraud spread, how it was used, is a story we haven't fully sewn together yet, probably never will. Optical scanners could rig votes at the county level long before HAVA, and those electronic vote totals were fed electronically to NES and VNS. We know that HAVA was the Super-flu of the virus, but it sure as hell wasn't the beginning.

We know that the corporate mainstream media, through NES and VNS, has been capable of rigging our elections since the mid 60s -- at least, rigging the reported results, and possibly also manipulating centralized vote counting computers with modems if there was communication back and forth. Though honestly I don't even know why they would need it -- no one was watching that process at all and the media could have given any reasonable results -- and since it was so often supposedly "50/50" to the end, not too hard to push it either way.

Fact is, we don't know what the hell they've been doing at NES/VNS, cause it's a secret. Hey, how about a Congressional investigation? Oh yes, there was one, and Billy Tauzin kept me locked out of it. Ended up they just gave VNS more money.

We know, because of Votescam, that people high up in the chain have been covering up vote fraud evidence for decades, like our good friend Antonin Scalia. And look at what Antonin Scalia did in 2000. But no one knows his history, they think he started assisting in the stealing elections in 2000. Don't know history, bound to repeat it, right?

However you want to package it all up, it needs to be the whole story, the whole picture -- not beginning in 2002, that's for sure, or 2000.

I've been watching all these election fraud videos tonight that I'm archiving on my website, and there is so much "gee, this system sure COULD lead to fraud!" and then . . . ? Nothing. No talk of the existing evidence of fraud. No outrage. Lou Dobbs interviewing Bev Harris (wow, an instance of media coverage!) and everyone shaking their heads and clucking about how insecure the system is and . . . that's it, folks. Cut to commercial.

I'm so fucking tired of these games, so tired of this bullshit. Massive rigging in Dade County in 1970 using the computer and we're supposed to believe this wasn't going on all over the country in key states every single election since then?

I'm sorry, but I just don't care about perceived "60s backlash" or any other punditry, I care that after Kennedy was murdered in a coup we also lost control of our vote count, our democracy, and we've been losing more and more of it ever since, and there's barely anything left at all.

What will it take for us to just tell the truth? We have NOTHING to lose.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:31 PM, <Verified...@aol.com> wrote:

[Verified...@aol.com]

V

 

I do know how you feel about this and I respect those feelings deeply. I share many of those feelings, again deeply. But there remains the open question of where we make our stand and on what. Is it that the vote counting system is inherently insane ("here now, just look at the freakin thing and don't ask us to prove a single goddamn thing about actual fraud, because you just can't count votes this way with any legitimacy!") or that these identifiable massive frauds have actually occurred and here's who's in on it and here's the evidence we have.

 

Whatever else I feel, I certainly haven't been part of that "entire decade of post-2000 election reform activists [that] essentially refuse to say "fraud" and "conspiracy" . . ."  In paper after paper and article after article, I made the distinction between the Lou Dobbses and John Bonifazes of the world who could not get past the word "vulnerability," and the evidence of ACTUAL theft I was presenting. It's right there in Landslide Denied: "the ever-growing catalog of reported vulnerabilities in America's electronic vote counting systems are not only possible to exploit, they are actually being exploited. To those who would rush to find "innocent" explanations on an ad hoc basis for the cascade of mathematical evidence that continues to emerge, we ask what purpose is served and what comfort is given by relying on a series of implausible alibis to dispel concerns and head off effective reform?" (emphases in original)

 

So we are in violent agreement and I've torn just as much of my hair out as you have yours over this maddening situation and over the Michael Waldmans and John Bonifazes and all the rest of the self-satisfied, stuffed-shirt enablers. What I've also tried to do though is put my feelings aside when I'm trying to figure out where to make our stand. Because I got very tired of analyzing and presenting all that evidence of actual theft and realizing it made most readers so sick that they just turned away. I began to think perhaps the better case was the "inherent insanity" case, or "vulnerability" after all.

 

I don't know and I've tried to continue presenting both, with shifts of emphasis depending on the audience. There's been no question in my experience that the wall of never-happen-here denial goes up a lot higher when I try to present evidence of actual fraud than when I highlight the insane vulnerabilities and ask how you can trust such a system going forward. On the other hand people tend to respond to the actuality of a disaster (think global warming) much more forcefully than to the mere potential for one. This is a strategic/tactical dilemma that to me is just as important as where our hearts are, and I don't think it has a simple pronouncement-style solution.

 

J

[Victoria Collier]

Jonathan,

Maybe the difference between our perspectives is that I don't have much of a strategy, per se, in presenting the information. I think the full truth of what we all know -- separately and together -- needs to be presented and the chips will then fall where they may. It's not up to us how the public receives it, and we can't control every reaction. We're not involved in social engineering, just truth telling. Truth has its own power, and it outlives us. How this country's democratic experiment was destroyed is a story that we are part of telling, and I just want to tell it honestly. 

You may have been more honest in telling your own part of the story over the years, but you, like all the rest except for one or two, never mentioned my family's work. I understand why, but there it is.

When the new investigators came on the scene, they felt no need to honor or even acknowledge the work and sacrifices of anyone who came before them (and often times even those who were working at the same time!), or to tell the full story of fraud that was uncovered before 2000. It was ALL about post 2000, and now even post 2002.

Again, this is wrong for so many reasons, but mostly because it just doesn't give Americans a full understanding of how long we've known about these abuses, and how deep and wide the corruption runs.

When I spoke with David Dill on the phone, after reading the Holt Bill in horror, he admitted to me that he "was aware of Votescam" (they all say that) but that he didn't know the details of the investigation (never seem to want to know), and at the end of the conversation he said that it was clear I understood the voting system better than he did. He didn't even understand basic issues of chain of custody.

Did that change his position on the Holt Bill? No. 

Amy Goodman interviewed Rush Holt on Democracy Now and was absolutely ignorant in her questioning. She had no idea of the terrain of the issue, it was pathetic, and she has forcefully rebuffed all efforts of myself and others to educate her over the years.

Now on the cusp of 2012 we have an entire generation of lefty kids raised on Democracy Now! who have no idea what the hell Democracy really is -- and many of those young people are in the streets today as part of the Occupy movement.

How do we get through to them? How do we explain that they've never seen the system actually working, but they shouldn't lose all belief in it, they should fight to take it back?

How do we speak in simple terms that reach them emotionally? This isn't about spreadsheets and data, it's about climate change and the War on Drugs and Terror, and Monsanto, and the economy, and jobs, all the thing they care about -- we've got to connect all these issues back to the vote.

And we have to tell them that this has been going on their ENTIRE LIVES. That they were literally born into a corrupted system, they have never known real democracy -- that will resonate with them because its true. I'm 36 and its true for me.

Truth resonates, that's what I'm trying to say. We have nothing left to lose, so lets just tell the truth. Maybe the power of that will have effects beyond our hopes.

[Verified...@aol.com]

I was discussing with Catherine this morning our approach to the material at a prospective teach-in at OccupyBoston. What emerged for me as we spoke was a sense of just where the potential of OWS vis a vis elections is really strong.

 

What's very new and different about OWS is that, for the first time in a long time, substantial numbers of individuals are conceiving their duty to our democracy as more, a great deal more, than simply toddling down to vote or even working for candidates or sending money to some cause. They are, in the flesh and with determination, leaving the comfort of homes and offices to fulfill a newly perceived responsibility to our polity. It is the concrete essence of participatory democracy. What we are asking of The People when we demand HCPB (especially if it is for all elections) is an equivalent commitment of presence and labor, the fulfillment of a personal duty to our democracy.

 

It strikes me that if this equivalence can be shown to the OWS people--their effective radical redefinition of democratic duty acknowledged and praised--and shown how it can be extended to an equivalent presence as vote counters on that day on which, assuming we are to remain a representative democracy, protest becomes (or does not become) political power--we're most of the way home.

 

I've presented our grim story publicly dozens and dozens of times, in nearly as many ways (more data, less data, more conspiracy, less conspiracy, more strident, less strident, etc.) and the one constant is that the first question back is almost always "What can we do?" If we can't answer that question concretely and empoweringly then all the rest goes for naught--people feel enraged and disempowered simultaneously and go into fetal position. People ask, "Should we write LTEs? Should we call our Senator? Should we vote write-in? Should we boycott elections?, etc." I have had a hard time waxing enthusiastic about any of these tactics. I always have just told them to keep talking about it, keep ruining people's days.

 

But that is not it, not enough. We finally have crowds of people, all over the country, who, if they recognized it as part of their duty to democracy, a natural extension of what they're doing and giving now in their encampments, could assemble at county clerks' offices en masse and hand over signed commitments to serve as vote counters on Election Day, providing ample peoplepower to count all of the ballots observably and stripping the election admin poobahs of their "HCPB is utterly impractical" cover. If they were rebuffed (as most would be), their next step would be to Occupy The Counting Zone and again "offer" their services free of charge as counters (this would be accompanied by an explanatory proclamation and would be streamed). The next step would be the blocking/disabling of the computers. How far it would have to go would be determined by circumstances and responses. That does not have to be pre-determined.

 

What does need to be put before the Occupiers everywhere we can find them is the connection in democratic duty between what they are doing now, what they are offering now and sacrificing now, and the opportunity to focus that offering and sacrifice like a laser on the choke point of our democracy. In answering the "What can we do?" question with a "something very much related to what you are already doing" answer, I think we would tap into their outrage, inspiration and participatory zeal. The precise back story, the sordid details of election rigging, would seem at that point less critical in sealing the deal. We could each present that story as we see it and feel it. The key imo is the inspiration to positive and, for the first time, effective action, with the focus on what a democracy actually depends upon to survive and flourish. -- Jonathan

[Victoria Collier]

I swear -- this is my last comment, and thanks for reading all my thoughts (those who are reading!).

Jacqueline -- my father died in September 1998. That November, ABC News posted the results of the off-year election on their website. Only, it was the day before the election. 

The furor that resulted had my phone ringing, and I wrote about this in the final chapter of the last printing of Votescam.

I had to tell all the people calling that my father was dead, that he couldn't speak any longer about this issue. And there were people who cried. Literally. Tears. And they told me what a hero he was. And they despaired that anyone would take his place to keep speaking the truth about how our democracy is being stolen.

Goddamnit. The WHOLE TRUTH MATTERS. It matters to people who WANT to hear it, and who have the RIGHT to hear it.

When it comes to Democracy specifically, I don't believe in playing games with people, withholding information from them based on your own idea of what they are willing and ready to hear. You can't shove it down their throats, but you can present it and let them decide. Democracy is based on information -- an educated populace. 

Present it clearly and thoughtfully, with passion and urgency, and speak from the heart, and they will respond. And if they don't, they likely never will. You can't control it.

I read recently that the corporate criminals insiders at the SEC have rigged the system so that for years they have been wiping the records of all previous charges of fraud that didn't develop into full investigations. Meaning the charges against Goldman Sachs, for example, where there was no "smoking gun" are erased from the record. Shredded! That's like erasing the record of a child molester -- then when he is picked up for possible rape, there is no knowledge of previous charges for the cops to build a case.

So, it isn't just about understanding the timeline of this particular type election fraud, which is important in and of itself, it's understanding that long before 2000 there was a body of evidence that helps to build the larger case against election thieves, and that's important for very obvious and clear cut reasons.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Victoria Collier <earthwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jacqueline, how can you possibly say that how long the fraud has been going on is a secondary issue? That blows me away. I can't even think of another crime scenario where anyone would say such a thing. 

How about incest? (Yes, we found out he's been raping his daughters, but we're really not interested in knowing how long that's been happening).

How about insider trading fraud? (Yes, we found out they've been gaming the system and the company and the market for millions but we're not going to investigate how long they've been doing it for)

It sure as hell is not secondary to me -- yes people have been messing with the system of democracy and elections since it was created, but they did not have the possibility of doing it secretly until the computers and the media combined in the 60s. 

I have no idea why hiding or minimizing that reality is helpful. It isn't to me, and I won't do it -- I won't treat people like children who need to be managed. That's just not my role.

I'm also more concerned right now with talking to people who in many ways are already awake -- the people in the Occupy movement, and those who support it. I'm interested in how to get them to care about representative democracy itself, which many of them don't any longer. Care enough to try to claim it as their own system. Part of doing that is explaining in full honesty how and why it is not under their control.

People wake up at their own speed, in their own way, and we can't control that. Someone who still "can't handle the truth" is not my first concern right now. There are millions sleeping -- there are also millions awake without enough information. I think I'm going to focus on that last group, they need to see the whole picture.

Isn't it somewhat hopeful to realize that our system has been hijacked for so long? That maybe we didn't vote for a lot of the bastards of the past 40 years and that we aren't as insane a country as we appear to be based on our leadership?

I don't know, that kind of makes me feel better about humanity.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:16 AM, jacqueline janecke <jacqueli...@gmail.com> wrote:

good morning, 

 

all timelines aside, it seems to me that the URGENCY of the story of election fraud lies in NAMING and EXPOSING ALL the FORCES that are secretly involved, in some ways operating behind the scenes  (computers with proprietary software that is programmed by companies owned by rightwing fanatics) or under the radar of accepted technology (centralized tabulators - the mysterious middleman) and are not accountable or even observable (NSV and VSN) and continue to enable (media, polls, supreme court....)  

we now know, thanks to citizen's united, the average american understands the obscene amount of money that is being poured into elections.   the fact that the moneyed elite or corporations are buying candidates is the new reality for many, thanks to the fact that it's now a blatant bidding war.   this show is playing center stage, in the consciousness of most concerned americans.   now that people can see that elections are bought, we need to expose the interior plot and introduce them to the rest of the players....the hidden characters are stage right and stage left and some are hiding in the orchestra pit and the dressing rooms.  we're not even sure who the playwright is (someone in the 1%, if we follow it all the way upstream, i'm guessing) but we can certainly lay out the characters and why they make the entire election show a charade.   all we need to do is expose the players, show the vulnerabilities of the entire show, and the doubt that that plants will fuel the cause considerably.   to lay out the proof which IS THERE already, takes a concerned and enlightened audience that is ready and willing to take in a lot of information.  i don't think we have that audience yet.    

as someone who was recently "convinced" of the existence and thus the enormity of the problem of stolen elections, it took a combination of EXPERIENCES and INFORMATION to get me on board.   first of all, it took a local election that was stolen right under my nose.   it took experts weighing in on the situation, in real time, while my heart and mind was reeling with the sudden impact.  it took understanding the introduction of the electronic voting equipement after the debacle in florida 2000 and the lack of oversight of the proprietary software.  it took votescam to show the history of collusion and to further expose the players.  it took the jeannie's and dael's of the world who spoke directly to and verified the trauma that the realization produced. it took the supreme court recount to "feel" the cover up and to see the psyOps in full play.  it took more reading, more viewing of youtube videos, more digging for facts.  it took the richard charnin's of the world to expose the number game.  it took the pain in jonathan's voice to make the wider horror of it all sink in.  it took stumbling across sheila's articles.   it's NOT a one moment realization.   

i may not be a real good test case, but if there's anything i've seen as i have talked to people in wisconsin since april, it's the importance of exposing the players/the machines/the media that are essentially operating unseen or unknown.   plant some doubts based on the secrecy and vulnerabilities and proof.   HOW long it's been going on is a secondary issue.  in some form, it's been going on as long as there have been elections.   i understand and deeply sympathize with Victoria's position....i can't argue with the desire to speak the truth to americans.  never.  i  would LOVE her family's work to be acknowledged by the EI movement and the world, consistently and officially....and for the truth of that time frame (mid-1960's to 2000) to be included in the EI picture.....but strategically, at this juncture, we have an opportunity to add some narrative to the nation's greivances.  we can't say it all in one sitting without losing the audience, which is unfortunately accustomed to digestible soundbites.   let's not get tied up in knots over HOW long but let's expose WHO as best we can.  that's my take as i watch the debate here.   fwiw. 

respectfully, 

jacqueline

[Verified...@aol.com]

 

 

In a message dated 10/26/2011 12:26:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, earthwo...@gmail.com writes:

But Jonathan, if we have no candidates, this strategy has no focus.

Nonviolent agreement. It would be much better to have candidates, but HCPB is a process that needs to be introduced by hook or crook and independent of the outcome value of the election(s).

I'm hoping the 99% movement creates a platform that candidates can endorse. Those candidates could then become the center around which we can engage in the actions you describe.

Yes, absolutely what I have in mind.

We might also begin identifying the best candidates now (Elizabeth Warren comes to mind, and no one else) who we could possible rally around and reach out to now.

Working on EW, will keep posted

And the Walker recalls.

But we can't get the 99% excited about Obama or other mainstream Democrats, nor should they be. 

Violent agreement

A 99% Platform could be endorsed by the better Dem candidates, but it would likely include renouncing corporate money, and I don't think any of them will do that while running as a Dem in the current system . . . 

Yes, a lot of work to do to get it to the point where the vast majority of elections will mean enough to send in the troops on behalf of the result. On the other hand the HCPB beachhead is imo the key, and it could be established in any election, even one with no white knight and even one not worth rigging. You got to start somewhere and the two strains (how and who) could evolve in parallel. -- Jonathan

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:05 AM, <Verified...@aol.com> wrote:

I was discussing with Catherine this morning our approach to the material at a prospective teach-in at OccupyBoston. What emerged for me as we spoke was a sense of just where the potential of OWS vis a vis elections is really strong.

 

What's very new and different about OWS is that, for the first time in a long time, substantial numbers of individuals are conceiving their duty to our democracy as more, a great deal more, than simply toddling down to vote or even working for candidates or sending money to some cause. They are, in the flesh and with determination, leaving the comfort of homes and offices to fulfill a newly perceived responsibility to our polity. It is the concrete essence of participatory democracy. What we are asking of The People when we demand HCPB (especially if it is for all elections) is an equivalent commitment of presence and labor, the fulfillment of a personal duty to our democracy.

 

It strikes me that if this equivalence can be shown to the OWS people--their effective radical redefinition of democratic duty acknowledged and praised--and shown how it can be extended to an equivalent presence as vote counters on that day on which, assuming we are to remain a representative democracy, protest becomes (or does not become) political power--we're most of the way home.

 

I've presented our grim story publicly dozens and dozens of times, in nearly as many ways (more data, less data, more conspiracy, less conspiracy, more strident, less strident, etc.) and the one constant is that the first question back is almost always "What can we do?" If we can't answer that question concretely and empoweringly then all the rest goes for naught--people feel enraged and disempowered simultaneously and go into fetal position. People ask, "Should we write LTEs? Should we call our Senator? Should we vote write-in? Should we boycott elections?, etc." I have had a hard time waxing enthusiastic about any of these tactics. I always have just told them to keep talking about it, keep ruining people's days.

 

But that is not it, not enough. We finally have crowds of people, all over the country, who, if they recognized it as part of their duty to democracy, a natural extension of what they're doing and giving now in their encampments, could assemble at county clerks' offices en masse and hand over signed commitments to serve as vote counters on Election Day, providing ample peoplepower to count all of the ballots observably and stripping the election admin poobahs of their "HCPB is utterly impractical" cover. If they were rebuffed (as most would be), their next step would be to Occupy The Counting Zone and again "offer" their services free of charge as counters (this would be accompanied by an explanatory proclamation and would be streamed). The next step would be the blocking/disabling of the computers. How far it would have to go would be determined by circumstances and responses. That does not have to be pre-determined.

 

What does need to be put before the Occupiers everywhere we can find them is the connection in democratic duty between what they are doing now, what they are offering now and sacrificing now, and the opportunity to focus that offering and sacrifice like a laser on the choke point of our democracy. In answering the "What can we do?" question with a "something very much related to what you are already doing" answer, I think we would tap into their outrage, inspiration and participatory zeal. The precise back story, the sordid details of election rigging, would seem at that point less critical in sealing the deal. We could each present that story as we see it and feel it. The key imo is the inspiration to positive and, for the first time, effective action, with the focus on what a democracy actually depends upon to survive and flourish. -- Jonathan

In a message dated 10/26/2011 11:05:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, earthwo...@gmail.com writes:

Jonathan,

Maybe the difference between our perspectives is that I don't have much of a strategy, per se, in presenting the information. I think the full truth of what we all know -- separately and together -- needs to be presented and the chips will then fall where they may. It's not up to us how the public receives it, and we can't control every reaction. We're not involved in social engineering, just truth telling. Truth has its own power, and it outlives us. How this country's democratic experiment was destroyed is a story that we are part of telling, and I just want to tell it honestly. 

You may have been more honest in telling your own part of the story over the years, but you, like all the rest except for one or two, never mentioned my family's work. I understand why, but there it is.

When the new investigators came on the scene, they felt no need to honor or even acknowledge the work and sacrifices of anyone who came before them (and often times even those who were working at the same time!), or to tell the full story of fraud that was uncovered before 2000. It was ALL about post 2000, and now even post 2002.

Again, this is wrong for so many reasons, but mostly because it just doesn't give Americans a full understanding of how long we've known about these abuses, and how deep and wide the corruption runs.

When I spoke with David Dill on the phone, after reading the Holt Bill in horror, he admitted to me that he "was aware of Votescam" (they all say that) but that he didn't know the details of the investigation (never seem to want to know), and at the end of the conversation he said that it was clear I understood the voting system better than he did. He didn't even understand basic issues of chain of custody.

Did that change his position on the Holt Bill? No. 

Amy Goodman interviewed Rush Holt on Democracy Now and was absolutely ignorant in her questioning. She had no idea of the terrain of the issue, it was pathetic, and she has forcefully rebuffed all efforts of myself and others to educate her over the years.

Now on the cusp of 2012 we have an entire generation of lefty kids raised on Democracy Now! who have no idea what the hell Democracy really is -- and many of those young people are in the streets today as part of the Occupy movement.

How do we get through to them? How do we explain that they've never seen the system actually working, but they shouldn't lose all belief in it, they should fight to take it back?

How do we speak in simple terms that reach them emotionally? This isn't about spreadsheets and data, it's about climate change and the War on Drugs and Terror, and Monsanto, and the economy, and jobs, all the thing they care about -- we've got to connect all these issues back to the vote.

And we have to tell them that this has been going on their ENTIRE LIVES. That they were literally born into a corrupted system, they have never known real democracy -- that will resonate with them because its true. I'm 36 and its true for me.

Truth resonates, that's what I'm trying to say. We have nothing left to lose, so lets just tell the truth. Maybe the power of that will have effects beyond our hopes.

[Libertelli, Joe]

Victoria, et al.

 

I think the idea of organizing a teach-in is terrific.  

 

I have spoken with several leaders of the civil rights legal community, most notably Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conf. on Human and Civil Rights, and suggested to them that this ongoing vote theft represents the largest disenfranchisement of minority voters (and others) in history and is ongoing.  I have asked if they would be willing to sit for a briefing on this - and their answer is "yes!"  I have asked the dean of my law school if we could hold such a briefing here - and her answer is "yes!"   A friend has offered to donate $1,000 to help start the effort so long as past fraud is covered and the civil rights leaders participate. 

 

My problem, though, is that while I've read Steve's book and some others, I am not sufficiently well educated on the issue to design such a briefing - which I define as a presentation of the issue that includes the best arguments and evidence in light of the best counter-arguments and evidence.  It's a tight training-like experience, not a wooly conference.  It's the kind of advocacy training you'd conduct to prepare an attorney for an appellate argument. 

 

Jonathan and Steve, among others,  have agreed to help.  Steve has suggested we do it for the next MLK Jr. day in January, which is a great notion.  It seems like Victoria would be able to provide a longer historical perspective, which I think is essential - in fact, I have written a quick "history" of election fraud and suppression exactly because if people don't know the (often) documented history, it will be harder to believe the ugly current reality. 

 

In any case, is there any interest in taking the "teach-in" concept to the University of the District of Columbia in January?   I would be happy to deal with nuts and bolts, invite the civil rights bar, help publicize, fundraise, and to work with a team of experts on the briefing. 

 

Joe

 

Joe Libertelli, Director of Alumni Relations

UDC David A. Clarke School of Law

4200 Connecticut Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20008

 (202) 274-7338

 

 

---

From: election...@googlegroups.com [mailto:election...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Victoria Collier
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:07 PM
To: jacqueline janecke
Cc: Verified...@aol.com; s...@alum.mit.edu; election...@googlegroups.com; jo...@mathforum.org; sheilar...@comcast.net; STCAS...@aol.com; theparty...@yahoo.com; da...@columbus.rr.com; ron...@organicconsumers.org; cate...@gmail.com; mark....@nyu.edu; phylisi...@gmail.com
Subject: [ei] Re: my take

--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 

Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.

[Lucius Chiaraviglio]

> Nonviolent agreement. It would be much better to have candidates, but HCPB is a process that
> needs to be introduced by hook or crook and independent of the outcome value of the election(s).

By hook or crook?  Bad choice of words there -- may I point you to the election of 1876?

--
Lucius Chiaraviglio | luc...@verizon.net (main)
        | lchi...@gmail.com (photos)
        | lchi...@yahoo.com (alternative)
        | luc...@post.harvard.edu (fwd only)