The No Confidence Movement--what your town can do!

A new user, guvwurld, posted this link in another thread, but can't start his own threads yet, so I'm doing it.

What it is, is a resolution of no confidence in the election that your city or town can pass. You'll have to scroll down to get to it, but it is very worthwhile.

Obviously, in puke-controlled cities and towns, the resolution won't pass, at least not without a significant amount of public pressure. But in other places it ought to pass easily. I think they're doing an update to it, but what they have already looks good to me. Here's the link:

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/

I'm in San Diego, and we just elected a Democratic mayor. The pukes have gone to court to try to prevent her from taking office. If they win, we probably can't get this resolution passed here. But if they lose and she becomes mayor, I think it would pass. Also there are other cities in the San Diego area where it would pass easily.

If it looks as good to you as it does to me, print it out and take it to your mayor or city council member and see if you can get it passed. If there are enough no confidence resolutions passed, it could have a major impact. Globally, if not nationally.

I'm sure they'll have updates on their site.

I know I'm going to try to get it passed here, if I can. And spread it to people I know in places where it will probably pass easily.

don't just sit on your butt, wright letters to every one you know demanding your 14th Amendment Right to vote yes or no on WAR.

All Community's around the world Must do this, and we must do it fairly and with Audits.

1, Fricken Topic. Thats what we the Democrats of this world want for the winter season. Thats the only Present that you people can give to each other that has any meaning at all when you can give a gift as big as this. the right to Vote Yes or No on WAR!!

INTELLIGENT PEOPLE BAND TOGETHER. THIS IS THE ONE KEY THAT CAN SET YOU FREE!

If the write-in election for your new mayor holds up, you expect here to support a resolution of no confidence in the election?

it explicitly says 'federal' :evilgrin:

She's more interested in doing the right thing, than in being mayor. Her husband's a well-known surfer, and she's just an honest person who got on the city council and has been fighting for openness and honesty (amidst a bunch of crooked pukes) ever since. She happens to like public service, and she happens to be good at it.

She was a write-in candidate, so fraud didn't enter into this one. She ran against two pukes (the incumbent mayor, and a guy from the county board of supes), whose names were both on the ballot, and they sort of split the puke vote. We have more registered Dems than pukes here, her name's easy to spell, and everybody likes her (well, except for the crooked pukes, but that's understandable). I'm hoping to go to another one of her rallies today. The one I went to a couple of days ago was also a "Count Every Vote" rally, and this one, outside the Registrar of Voter's office, will be also. If it was up to her, this resolution would be passed already. Unfortunately, even if she becomes mayor, there are still some pukes on the council. But I think they also passed a "strong mayor" initiative (they never thought she'd win, and she was opposed to it), so she might be able to get it passed anyhow.

beach folks are just the coolests straight shooters.

Hey Senior Citizen - thanks for getting this thread started. I hope it won't be long before I can do it myself.

You can link directly to the No Confidence Resolution here:

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-resolution.html">http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-resolution.html

The update you mention is likely based on the teaser I put up about the "primer" coming out this weekend. I wrote that to let people know that there will soon be a post to the GuvWurld blog with more context and talking points for moving this forward.

Also, this has not passed anywhere, YET! It is brand new. I wrote it last weekend as a post-"election" update to prior work in this vein done this past summer. In July we got an earlier version of this taken up by the Arcata, CA City Council but they watered it down and made it ineffectual. Still, we generated a lot of local media attention and this community is familiar and receptive to having it re-introduced. It is indeed meant to be a two-track local/national strategy that does not depend on arguing Kerry won. Instead it counts on our ability to unify our voices behind one message: there is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of US elections.

And thanks for the direct link.

If those of us in areas where it can pass just copy it out and have it introduced at a city council meeting as soon as we can, and pass it on to anyone we know in other areas, we should be able to get some momentum going.

I only had time to glance at the update, but somehow I liked the appearance of the first one better. I'll have to compare them both when I get back in a couple of hours, and see if there's any real difference.

I'd advise anyone who is on this to edit and rewrite anything they think needs editing or rewriting. But the basic concept still looks excellent and effective to me.

I just got a response from a friend in Eureka CA that people in Arcata, a town next to them, are already working on it.

If you get responses or know of places working on this, please post them here.

If enough cities and towns pass a resolution of no confidence in the results of the federal election, at the very least, the world will know for sure that we aren't taking this lying down.

The really neat thing is that YOU, as a single citizen (or with your organization if you have one), can make up your own version of this, or just copy the one they have, take it to your local councilmember or a city council meeting, and get it introduced all by yourself. It doesn't necessarily mean you'll get it passed, but all publicity is good publicity.

WE ARE DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!

...

NO CONFIDENCE RESOLUTION (v5.0, last updated 11/10/04 5pm)

WHEREAS private corporate ownership of voting machines has inherent conflicts of interest, and has specifically led to partisan support

WHEREAS most voting machines made by private companies do not provide a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a permanent paper record of votes

WHEREAS no machine has ever proven to be infallible, and there is extensive documentation of thousands of so-called voting machine "glitches," including lost data, negative vote totals, tallies equaling more votes than there are registered voters, and persistent automatic vote swapping from a voter's chosen candidate to an opponent, with some of said "glitches" being severe enough to change an election's outcome

WHEREAS data from the 2004 U.S. presidential election indicate a high degree of fraud including, but not limited to, a non-random pattern involving optical scan machines in several states tallying significantly more votes for one candidate than could be expected based on exit polls, voter registrations or even voter turnout

THEREFORE be it resolved that the City Council of XX, rejects as fraudulent the results reported from the 2004 US presidential election

Be it also resolved that until:

All private corporations are divested of ownership in election machines, and clean money laws keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and

any future mechanisms for voting conform to a uniform national standard and produce a verifiable audit trail for every vote, and

all votes are cast on the same day, designated as a national holiday, with the exception of absentee ballots which will be granted to applicants meeting a narrow list of federally determined criteria, and

all votes are counted publicly in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and equal time provisions are observed by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and

presidential debates contain a minimum of three candidates, and are run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and

ranked choice voting, also called instant runoff voting, is implemented for federal elections

There shall be no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported from future US federal elections

Be it also resolved that fraudulent elections constitute denial of the Consent of the Governed, defined in the Declaration of Independence as the self-evident truth from which government derives just Power. This Council reserves the right to exercise remedies described therein.

------


Okay, what do you like, what don't you like, how would you improve this?

Do you think it could pass your city council as it stands?

If not, what would you change?

The resolution is still in the same place (and always will be):

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-resolution.html

Only now most of the claims are backed up with links. Some could be improved by pointing to alternate articles so I'm open to substitution suggestions.

And like I said earlier, over the weekend I'll publish a "primer" which will be talking points and an overall strategy guide for how I imagine this rolling out.

I know a lot of DU readers have been hitting my blog so thanks for the warm welcome here!

:kick:

:kick:

it's "non-confrontational" sounds innocent enough, will help get this off the net and onto the street--go with this one--again, F word can come later.....

I am actively working on the primer, as promised. In doing so I came across these New Mexico numbers, surely worthy of mention:

http://lnvb.westside.com/NewMexico/NewMexicoByCounty.html

It is a cool page that appears with tabs at the bottom like Excel. Go to the 2004 Counties tab and look at the turnout.

More later...

This primer is meant as a guide to the talking points and strategy of the No Confidence Movement, growing in support of the No Confidence Resolution.

The No Confidence Movement is a peaceful popular revolt in pursuit of significant electoral reform.

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-movement-primer.html

Only the Strategy Overview is published. I'll finish the talking points tomorrow. It doesn't say it up there but this idea is really meant to be applied with a "think global, act local" approach.

I need a break!

But then let's get to work.

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-movement-primer.html

I did not have anything to do with this petition. I have signed it and encourage others to do so and pass it on. No Confidence will continue independently of this.

http://www.petitiononline.com/uselect/petition.html

To: United States Congress
TO: All members of the Congress of the United States of America; all Senators and Members of the House of Representatives

A Petition to immediately and without delay open a joint investigation into potential wrongdoing in the Presidential Election of 2004, specifically to investigate the potential of voting machine manipulation or purposeful malfunction, especially electronic voting machines manufactured and supplied by Diebold, Inc.; Electronic Systems & Software (ES & S); Sequoia Voting Systems, and others, and also to identify and investigate all allegations of improper conduct by election officials, workers, observers, challengers and operatives and employees of both major parties concerning the voting process including intimidation, dissemination of improper information, manipulation of registration records, improper handling of actual voting ballots and, in general, any and all potential improprieties which could have led to improper or inaccurate election results.

More...
http://www.petitiononline.com/uselect/petition.html

Great thread. Great info. I am passing it on and kicking the thread.

by petitioning no confidence in the machines. make them understand the costs will be too high for the district to bear if they put garbage in and they get mistakes and challenges because they went "Diebold".

I won't retread much of my recent history here since the GuvWurld blog has been devoted to the No Confidence Movement since the very first post back in April.

I'm all for strategizing and coordinating talking points so Patrick's remark above brings up two things:

1. There were originally six objects of infinite skepticism, the targets of No Confidence: the Administration, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the corporate media, the election machines and the election machine manufacturers. Measuring for a track record of honesty and consistent performance of their charged responsibility, there is no BASIS for confidence in any of the six.

2. Ruthless honesty dictates unmitigated use of the No Confidence argument on all six - that is, letting any of these go by at any time allows for reinforcement of a bogus frame, thereby falling short of ruthless honesty. That said, there have been many meetings on this topic and virtually all input has tended toward a narrower focus.

Ultimately this is just a moment to moment strategy question. I mean, you don't tell each person you meet everything you know. For the purposes of mass consumption, and I suspect to the liking of more city councilmembers, a simpler and narrower focus will be more palatable. When in extended conversation, I often stretch the No Confidence concept to cover the big six above, plus I tie in to the myth of democracy.

I just submitted the resolution to the City Council of Eureka, CA along with an open letter published here. I do not feel strongly that this letter is a good model to follow though the primer was created to offer talking points and strategy for a variety of letters. Please share your efforts for others to draw upon.

Kick it !!!!!!!!1

I love that phrase, "puke-controlled cities and towns."

Efforts to pass no confidence resolutions can do much to shift the fight to reality-based ground, which is a critical first step. See this thread for more.

"We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse" -Colin Powell

www.blackboxvoting.org

Lots of good reserch and cold hard facts.

Please see the latest entry in the GuvWurld blog for some additional perspective on "ruthless honesty," debunking doublespeak, and the track record of progressives.

A Kick for our Right To Vote!!!

http://blog.democrats.com/node/901

Wed, 12/1/04, 7pm
Redwood Peace and Justice Center
1040 H Street
Arcata, CA

We have a group that met for the first time the day after the "election" and has met weekly since. Tomorrow we will vote whether to adopt an action plan aimed at building support for the No Confidence Resolution at the Eureka and Arcata City Councils.

This meeting is open to the public and you need not have attended prior meetings to participate. Even if you live outside Eureka/Arcata but can get here from elsewhere, this will be worth your time to see first hand how the No Confidence Movement can be initiated and coordinated in your community.