<original post:>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=76285

1- Thanks for posting this Classwarrior. I just discovered it, and I'm glad you did it, since all my time (16-18 hrs/day) is consumed on building this and the National media blaster (see below).

2 - I will separate the two sets into Dems and Repubs; however, I prefer to send them to all in the blast. I want the GOP aware of the growing anger about the 2004 attempted (so far) theft. If anything comes of this, they're gonna find out anyway, right? ;~}

3 - I will also work on some kind of ez way to quickly send an em to your Senators only. Many of the autoresponders came back showing a definite pref to constituents. However, I think everyone should also blast all the Senators - again so they get a feeling for the growing anger.

4 - Those that have sent to all may have noticed there were 19 bad addys in there (still a supermajority - not bad). I think these Senators have gone to form mail. The dreaded enemy of blasters! I have some bu lists to check for alt addys; but:

if anyone knows of good em's for the following, please PM me.

senator@sessions.senate.gov
Alaska_Correspondence@stevens.senate.gov

Senator_Kennedy@kennedy.senate.gov
http://pryor.senate.gov/email_webform.htm
http://levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
http://mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html

dick@durbin.senate.gov.
http://collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htm
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<senator_lieberman@lieberman.dc.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<webmail@sarbanes-iq.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_lincoln@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_allard@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_campbell@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_dodd@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_craig@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_fitzgerald@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_brownback@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_roberts@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
<senator_dayton@exchange.senate.gov>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)

I may make a letter to mass mail to those that can't be blasted letting them know what a mistake it is to go to form mail since, they will be "out of the loop" on mass sentiments of the public. I plan to continue this blaster, the MSM one, and build a House one too. Since if the Chimp stays on, we will have much to fight (vote reform, Judge confmations, Artic drilling, SSI privatization, flat tax, social conservative agenda, etc.)

5 -

I still need help

I need someone to write a "send to a friend" letter to get others to em their Senators.
http://www.independentmediasource.com/senatevote_emailothers.htm.htm

Also, alternative messages and subject headlines would be nice for these pages: <The less time I spend composing the letters, the more time I have to build the pages, etc>
http://www.independentmediasource.com/senatevote_alt_msgs.htm
http://www.independentmediasource.com/voteintegrity_alt_msgs.htm

6 - If you sent a message, but didn't include one of the "senatewatch" ems at the beginning of each set, I can't update you. So PM me here with your email address.

Senate Blaster

Tell the U.S. Senators you want them to contest the Presidential election

The U.S. Representatives are ready to do it. All it takes is just one Senator to sign on too! In 2000, not even one would! Let's not let this happen again! Email them all and let them know how you feel!

http://www.independentmediasource.com/senatevote.htm

National media blaster

http://www.independentmediasource.com/voteintegrity.htm

doing doing done

Most likely early tomorrow. Happy T-Day.

NGU.

Hey Tom,

I posted this before. It's fine if we don't want to use it (it's a bit simplistic), I just wasn't sure if you had seen it in the other thread which is a few days old. Just an option which can be edited, added to, or manipulated as anyone wishes. Well done with the blaster!

How about we just add to the beginning:

Dear friend,
In light of overwhelming new evidence that the recent election was tampered with (by way of computerized tabulators, amongst other things), we urge you to join us in asking our Senators to contest the election if fraud is proven beyond a doubt. While several Congress members have already pledged to take action, an official contest to an election requires the signature of at least one member of the Senate. Please forward the following e-mail to members of the Senate to stress the importance of our democracy and ask that they do the right thing if it is conclusively shown that this election was fraudulently manipulated.

Happy T-Day, and NGU.

<edit: Hmm.. you can't receive PM's yet. Go kick a bunch ti build it up. ;~} Hopefully you see te message here.>

So I will PM you. For others curious: I'm not sure how to meld the two together since the previous (url below) addresses the Senator(s) directly. Anybody want to do a little rewrite so it flows smoothly addressing the potential new emailer? This is a team effort, so that would be fine (Faye fixed the punctuation ;~} ).
http://www.independentmediasource.com/senatevote.htm

Hi all,

I have on occasion lobbied on behalf on community college issues in California, and here are a few things I found helpful in my interaction with our representatives:

1) Be polite. If enraged, just say so honestly and politely.
2) Mention that you are a constituent. Make sure to write your own reps directly mentioning where you live, and then blast everyone else, making sure to mention any groups you are active with (i.e. League of Women Voters, Church groups, Soccer Mom's United, whatever...) Give them a sense of the demographic you represent, and always remember that your audience is keenly aware of its responsibility to serve their constituency first.
3) When writing your reps, make sure to research the most recent things they have worked on that you like, or any other significant thing they have done that has positively impacted you, and PRAISE THEM FOR IT. This is key, because it shows that you are tuned in to what they do, and are willing to support them if they look your direction.

Lobbying as a citizen or a small citizen group is not tough, and if we use some proven techniques, we could get quite good at it. :)

Hope that helps!

Warmly,

George

NGU.

Good tips.. How 'bout writing a letter?

Sounds like you have good expeience, and I would like to have more alt messages available. The more the better. Either way, I'm accumulating the tips, and will soon complile them on a page in the blaster section of my site.

NGU.

Thanks for all your work. I had another idea, and directed people to your site in another post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79322
What do you think?

Senate one, "MSM one, and build a House one too. Since if the Chimp stays on, we will have much to fight (vote reform, Judge confirmations, Arctic drilling, SSI privatization, flat tax, social conservative agenda, etc.)"

How about this one too?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1389958
Have you demanded you Senators filibuster Torture Gonzales yet?


This is how I'm thinking now. Progressivism is a big tent, and we have our work cut out for us. This could be a powerful tool for us.

What I need from anyone that wants to use this tool is:

1 - A letter to the receiver (either Senator, media, House Rep (soon)), and subject headline.

2 - A letter to "email to friends" motivating them to blast too ,and subject headline.

I will provide:

1 - The web page(s), and set it all up.

2 - Email my address book, inviting them to participate in the current blast. (I hoping to accumulate (from those that blast) a large address book of people that are willing to blast em's. When I em them, they can choose, or not, to participate in the specific blast.

One of the nice things about this is that I can quickly set up the page(s), like I did for the senate blaster (it took me less then 24 hours), and I can run many simultaneously.

:kick:

NGU.

more than one... here's a kick for the cause. :) -G

The law calls for one Congressperson and one Senator. But we'll take all that we can get.

NGU.

I recommend:

(1) Don't use the 'canned' subject lines or 'canned' message body. Media will quickly catch on that they are getting many copies of the same message.

(2) Keep it short. Put in a couple of quick comments, or it won't get read.

(3) Use 2 or 3 facts, whichever ones you find most convincing.

(4) Put the addresses in the BCC: field, not TO: This will prevent your target from seeing he/she is merely one of many in a spam list.

...but while I'd agree that we shouldn't use "canned" subjet lines, for they're a tip-off, canned messages are actually a good thing. Please see my thread on the subject at the "Frame the Debate" forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=252x482

NGU.

What frames the debate, what KKK Rove does, is to repeat a very very short message or phrase many times over a 1 to 3 day period. If we're going to be repeating things, we need to assign a catch phrase of the day (as Rove and Norquist do) to all Dem operatives. This phrase could be embedded in dozens (hundreds) of unique and individual paragraphs and sound bites. The paragraphs will be forgotten, but the phrase will stay behind.

Repeating a long message will have little effect on framing the debate, but will stick out quickly as spam.

"(4) Put the addresses in the BCC: field, not TO: This will prevent your target from seeing he/she is merely one of many in a spam list."

During the stop the war effort, I received email messages saying that said person would not except messages sent to multiple organizations.

I'm not sure if the senate works that way, I believe I got them from media organizations.

I sent them individually from CSPAN. I'm going to check to see if they still have that feature. You could have your form fill in information saved to address each congress person automatically and then just cut and paste the letter.

Definitely send to the repukes also. I even got up the nerve to send to Tom Delay, and he is the stuff of screaming nightmares.

PS--I always try to make the point in the subject line of the email--it's highly unlikely that they open many of the emails, and they'll know which category to count them as, ie support or dissent.

Yeah, it depends on what mail program the recipient is using, and how they have it configured. If it displays all the headers, revealing a blank "TO" field, or says "No recipient disclosed" they may just blow it off. However, individually addressing 392 messages (using addresses found at the senate blaster/media blaster site) is not something very many people will bother to do.

You are absolutely right about the subject line. Make it unique, and make it something they can quickly sort into yes/no bins on simple categories.

for those that desire it.

I usually do 20 or so at a time. It's worth doing the media blast but then doing some individually also. You get tired but it gives you the feeling that at least you tried.

=======
republicans

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/officials/membersearch/?lvl=C&type=memname&searchlast=&submit.x=11&submit.y=12&submit=go&party=REP&chamber=&state=
=======
democrats

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/officials/membersearch/?lvl=C&type=memname&searchlast=&submit.x=17&submit.y=12&submit=go&party=DEM&chamber=&state=
=======
independent

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/officials/membersearch/?lvl=C&type=memname&searchlast=&submit.x=7&submit.y=6&submit=go&party=IND&chamber=&state=
=======

Check the "Remember Me!" box, it saves a lot of time.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/officials/membersearch/?lvl=C&type=memname&searchlast=&submit.x=9&submit.y=13&submit=go&party=&chamber=S&state=

Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't help myself. ;~}

But, seriously, I'm not sure whether its better to direct people to use the "To: (with all visable), or "Bcc:" (none visable), and leave the TO blank (didn't know you could do that), or address it to one individual and BCC the rest. When I sent out a press release (to announce my web site)to over 13,000 media with a prog I have, it suggested I address to myself, and put everyone else in the Bcc.

At this point, I'm not sure whether I should instruct users to use the Bcc or To field. Feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks

The most commonly used email program (Outlook Express) has no BCC field.

...and it definitely had a BCC field. Check your options.

it's not set up by default, and it's not even available in outlook express general program (options). I had to search the help for "bcc". It's in the actual email sub-program under view (select all headers). Unfortunately, this is not something people will intuitively do/figure out - so I guess its time for another tutorial.

<EDIT: See #48 above, now I'm not sure it would be wise to instruct people to use the Bcc field.>

Thanks again for pointing it out, and following up.

:D

Sounds like you have good expeience, and I would like to have more alt messages available. The more the better. Either way, I'm accumulating the tips, and will soon complile them on a page in the blaster section of my site.
Thanks

SUBJECT: "Please Investigate And Report On The Election Irregularities"

"As you know, the national news media are rapidly losing credibility and audiences. Many people simply don't trust the media any more, because the media have failed to fulfill their responsibility to investigate and report genuine hard news. The 2004 election provides you with an unprecedented opportunity to get the scoop on your competition, with a story of national, even global importance. If you choose to ignore this story, you do so at your peril, because your audience will be judging you on this, and will seek out information from other outlets if it's not available on yours.

Here are just a few of the hard facts that indicate serious problems with the 2004 election:

(1) Bev Harris of http://www.blackboxvoting.org has obtained 'official
copies' of polling place vote count receipts from Volusia County officials. She has also obtained the original receipts signed by poll workers, by rescuing them from bags marked 'shredder' outside Volusia County offices. The counts shown on the two sets do not match.

(2) The Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly General
Accounting Office) has decided to investigate the election, based on over 57,000 complaints received from voters.

(3) The Wyoming Secretary Of State's official web site at
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/profile.htm is reporting 106% voter
turnout.

It's your choice. Investigate now or lose credibility and audience share when the story comes out on your competitors later.

Thank you,
______________
"

I'm building the alt msg section for the Nat Media Blaster right now. Yours will go in shortly.

Thanks for the effort.

:D

:kick:

NGU.

Which is not bad out of 392, but I can send you the list if you'd like (will take some compiling on my part).

"Help Wanted"

You're absolutely right. Below is my list. I was going to post "help wanted" for this blaster later today. It's very time consuming to try to track down new (alt?) addy's for these; but it can pay off. For example I Googled "Paula Zahn email address": Paula.Zahn2@cnn.com was found on one of the resulting pages, replacing paulazahn@cnn.com. It would be nice if others worked on this since there is still quite a lot of things left to do on the blasters that only I can do on my end.
Thanks

btw: 21 of the bad addys are the "latimes". They might have gone to form mail. If they did, I will probably eventually make a mass em to send them suggesting what a mistake this is, since they could be out of the loop of mass sentiment, while their competitiors are not.

50 bad  
goodman@globe.com
<info@commongroundradio.org>

<opinion@thewire.ap.org>
<news@bet.com>

PAULAZAHN@CNN.COM

LIVE@CNN.COM

INSIDEPOLITICTS@CNN.COM

<john.goldman@latimes.co>

<jim.rainey@latimes.com>
 
<johnthor.dahlburg@latimes.com>

<karin.howard@latimes.com>

<ed.chen@latimes.com>

<max.boot@latimes.com>

<pete.king@latimes.com>

<pj.huffstutter@latimes.com>

<ralph.vartabedia@latimes.com>

<richard.meyer@latimes.com>

<richard.schmitt@latimes.com>

<bob.ourlian@latimes.com>
 
<david.johnson@latimes.com>

<david.lamb@latimes.com>

<eddie.sanders@latimes.com>

<robert.scheer@latimes.com>

<ron.brownstein@latimes.com>

<sonni.efrom@latimes.com>

<tomasalex.tizon@latimes.com>

<vicki.kemper@latimes.com>

<walter.roche@latimes.com>


ROBERT.KUR@NBC.COM
 <jothomas@nytimes.com>
<croberts@npr.org>

nick_lemann@newyorker.com
joe_klein@newyorker.com

jeanne.cummings@awsj.com
kspitzer@usatoday.com

<hugh_sidey@time.com>

<jtapper@salon.com>

<edit@salon.com>

<hugh_sidey@time.com>

<edit@salon.com>

<jtapper@salon.com>
kjurgensen@usatoday.com
tavis@npr.org
Editor/WAS/US/Reuters@notes.reuters.com

patricia.wilson@reuters.com
<colburn@smtp-store.nytimes.com>

<jothomas@smtp-store.nytimes.com>
<hprzybyla@bloomberg.net>

<hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net>

<dkeil@bloomberg.net>

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/officials/membersearch/?lvl=C&type=memname&searchlast=&submit.x=9&submit.y=13&submit=go&party=&chamber=S&state=

subject title is: Please contest our fradulent Presidential election

body of email: your letter from blaster site plus link to fraud stories


2004 COLLECTED VOTE FRAUD STORIES
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html

Dear Senator:

I urge you to join Representatives John Conyers, Jr.,
Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler, and others in Congress, by
demanding an investigation into the possible election fraud
that took place on November 2nd. Further, should widespread
election anomalies be proven beyond a doubt, Senators must
band together and support those in Congress in contesting
the results. Certainly, as a politician, you realize that
our system of voting is the basis of our democratic
society, and ensures that you will be elected to office if
you run a good campaign and the people vote for you. Even
the mere fact that doubts have now arisen as to the
validity of the election on November 2nd warrants a federal
investigation to ensure that our democratic system has not
been compromised. Particularly with regard to Diebold's
Optiscan machines, the results vary widely from data about
voter registration, expected results, AND exit polls.
Paired with the fact that both Diebold and ES&S (the
companies that supply most of the country's voting
machines) are strongly partisan, the questionable results
demand a much closer look at the integrity of the election.
Diebold has written and admitted to a documented letter to
President Bush to assure him that the company would deliver
Ohio to him, and has documented accounts of encouraging
election officials to utilize holes in software security.
Their software has been proven repeatedly to be easily
hacked into. The voters have NO paper trail to validate
their votes. We therefore, can only rely on you, our
official voice in government, to act on our behalf and
ensure the integrity of our democratic process.

Please ask yourself if you are willing to accept ALL of the
following points without further investigation:
To believe that Bush won the election, you must also
believe that the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm
election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were
wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that
Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was
exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule
#1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That
the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his
final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule -
an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely
lose the election - was wrong; that it was just a
coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there
was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there
was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had
no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than
Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of
Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that
voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and
with no software publication, which have been proven by
thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores
of ways, were not tampered with in this election.

If you have any doubts, please fight for us, the people who
trust you to act for the people in government. Force this
issue to light and demand that our votes be verified for
accuracy. And if widespread election fraud is proven beyond
a doubt as a result, contest the election. We can't do it
without you, and it is your job to serve us as our voice.
After all, if this problem isn't immediately addressed,
next time, it could be your own seat which is stolen.

Sincerely,

I e-mailed Nighthorse Campbell because I had seen him on Bill Moyers' show last week as head of Indian Affairs Committee investigating the multi-million dollar rip off of Indian tribes by Republican lobbyists who were associated with DeLay. I lauded him for his integrity in investigating them, and reminded him of extensive civil rights violations of Native American and other voters.

The Subject line I used for the blaster was

Please Fight For Our Democracy

and I wrote a short message:

Dear Senator:

Please stand up for our democracy and support the investigation of election irregularities that have been widely reported. Regardless of partisan aims, our democracy is too great an accomplishment to let slip away!

Please help vote fraud come to light now lest we lose our precious heritage forever. In the Ukraine they are demonstrating in the streets over the same situation found here, exit polls that do not match the official outcome. Untold numbers stood in line forever to vote. Are we going to say now that their vote doesn't count? Your courageous efforts in this regard will not be forgotten. You will be remembered and supported as someone on the side of this once great democracy.

I will use the subject line too.

http://www.independentmediasource.com/senatevote2_06.htm

#6

Thanks to Du'ers :D

http://www.independentmediasource.com/senatevote2_06.htm

By request: Set 1 is Dems plus one independent. Set two is "the other guys". I still prefer that you send a msg to all Sens; but that's up to you. In the future, there may be reasons to send only to one side, so now the option is there.

NGU.

n/t

... Here are the Senators I thought would be the best candidates a couple days ago.

Lautenberg, Corzine, Boxer, Jeffords (a real maverick and he'd be a coup, being a former Republicant), Schumer, and Murray (tho I think you're wrong about her being naive).

To your list I'd add Feingold (another true maverick), Durbin (a real Progressive now in our Senate leadership), Dorgan, Kennedy (JK's homeboy), and Dayton, just off the top of my head.

It's good to know we're spoiled by choice, and it won't be easy for most of 'em to turn us down this time, thanks to F911.

NGU.

Others came back undeliverable. We will have to help to update these

Highly recommend a reference to Solomon's Validate the Vote Op Ed in your letters (included at the end of this post).

I also recommend asking each Senator you contact to take the following two actions:

Action 1

Issue a statement calling upon each state to subject its election to independent audit to validate the results and investigate charges of discrimination. Good quote from the Op Ed:

No reasonable argument can be offered against disclosure and accountability. We can afford whatever expense, inconvenience, distraction and possible embarrassment may be caused by an election audit and congressional investigation. What we cannot afford are unresolved doubts about the legitimacy of our democratic government.

The audit must include an investigation into whether or not the voters in the state were given an equal opportunity to exercise their voting rights, regardless of racial, socio-economic, absentee, overseas, military or civilian, partisan, or whatever status.

<See the "What We Require" section of this declaration for thoughts about scope.>

Action 2

Issue a statement to put states on notice that you <the Senator> shall object to and vote to reject the Electoral Votes from any state that fails to validate its election. No matter what the margin of victory.

And further, because the results of a discriminatory election are unacceptable, you <the Senator> shall object to and vote to reject the Electoral Votes from any state that has failed to demonstrate that minority voters, poor voters, overseas voters, or voters from one or the other party were afforded an equal opportunity to exercise their voting rights (equal opportunity in qualifying/registering to vote, casting their vote, and having their vote counted).

Argument: If you allow the results of a discriminatory election to stand because the margin of victory is large, you are taking the position that election officials are free to discriminate to any degree so long as their state leans heavily for one candidate or the other. This is an Immoral, Un-American, and Unacceptable position. Electoral votes given pursuant to a discriminatory election are to be rejected. Period. There must be consequences.

See this document for talking points.

And, finally, if you send a snail mail letter, consider enclosing the We the People Do Not Concede flyer (filename=wedemandscrollparch.jpg). Email host@unioncountyfordemocracy.org if you have a problem downloading it or printing it.

----------



By Ian H. Solomon

November 26, 2004

MOST MAINSTREAM newspapers have already dismissed stories of voting fraud and voting rights violations in the November election as baseless or irrelevant. Sen. John Kerry's concession is supposed to demonstrate that there is no story here. Give up, go home, it's all over.

But it's not over.

The legitimacy of our democratic process is an issue more important than Mr. Kerry's future or the results of 2004. That legitimacy has been called into question repeatedly over the past few weeks, and doubts will linger as long as credible indications of error, negligence, disenfranchisement and fraud are not addressed.

We would like to believe that voting irregularities were identified and corrected, that participants fulfilled their duties appropriately, that the machines performed reliably and that the total discrepancy between voter intention and recorded results was less than the margin of victory in relevant contests.

But that conclusion must be reached on the basis of evidence, not blind faith. My own observations as a volunteer poll watcher in Florida do not give perfect confidence.

As many experts had warned, the electronic voting machines used across the country were vulnerable to glitches and possible tampering, including the over-recording of votes and the "disappearance" of valid votes.

We experienced a troubling number of memory card failures where I was based in Volusia County, for example, and we tried to minimize the disruption to voters even though data security was compromised. In Franklin County, Ohio, a machine error resulted in an extra 4,000 votes for President Bush. In Guilford County, N.C., a machine error cost Mr. Kerry 22,000 votes. Similar problems were experienced in Nebraska, Indiana and other states. These glitches that we know about have reportedly been fixed, though a re-vote is necessary in a different North Carolina county.

Disturbingly, several Web sites have demonstrated the ease of hacking into the AccuVote TS machines made by Diebold Election Systems, the company that for $2.6 million recently settled a lawsuit by California over voting machine problems. Another major manufacturer of electronic voting machines, Election Systems & Software, has also been subject to criticism for machine breakdowns and vulnerability. There is no evidence of fraud, but neither manufacturer has assuaged widespread concerns about inappropriate partisanship and unreliability.

There is also reason to question the competence of election officials in resolving registration and voting problems. Many voters were denied the opportunity to cast a regular ballot or to vote within a reasonable period of arriving at the polls.

At one heavily black precinct in Volusia County, for example, more than 10 percent of those turning out to vote were unable to cast a regular ballot. Many of these voters simply departed after waiting in line for several hours and then being told by poll workers that their provisional ballots "would not be counted." Knox County in Ohio reported voters waiting in line for over nine hours. In Warren County, Ohio, observers were barred from monitoring the vote-counting process.

How can we expect voters - especially young, disadvantaged or newly registered voters - to have faith in our voting system? How can we expect our allies to take seriously U.S. efforts to hold elections in Iraq and elsewhere? How can we be confident that the most fundamental principles of American democracy - one person, one vote; rule by the people; transparency in government - are not in jeopardy?

American legitimacy demands that the news media, the parties and all political leaders take seriously the challenges presented by the 2004 election: We need an audit of the election process, validation of the election results and corrective measures to ensure the legitimacy of future elections.

To begin with, that means supporting the audit efforts already under way. Recounts are expected in Ohio and New Hampshire, and election results may be contested in Florida, New Mexico and other states. Grass-roots organizations have requested voting data from precincts across the country, and scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California, Berkeley and other universities have begun to analyze surprising voting patterns.

This should be a priority for Congress, with vigilant participation by independent news organizations. The complete process - from registration through vote tallying, including all equipment and procedures - must be thoroughly and publicly assessed.

No reasonable argument can be offered against disclosure and accountability. We can afford whatever expense, inconvenience, distraction and possible embarrassment may be caused by an election audit and congressional investigation. What we cannot afford are unresolved doubts about the legitimacy of our democratic government.

Ian H. Solomon is associate dean of Yale Law School.

Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun -- reproduced here for educational/information purposes.

:kick:

NGU.

Have you posted this on other sites? It needs to be everywhere (and there sure are an amazing amount of groups out there now!)

Good work!!!