Skip to main content

View Diary: Proper Framing of the Voting Fraud Issue (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not powerful enough (none)
    You want to position the argument in a way that people will not say "Oh the democrats are just crying foul".

    When you link the issue to them in an emotional way, they take interest. Thus the need to frame this in terms of freedom and patriotism.

    Example:

    Americans may have experienced election tampering when exercising their freedom to vote.

    •  Our votes are pure (none)
      They must not be defiled!

      Something simple lie that.

      •  Correcting mistake in spelling above (none)
        something simple "like" that, it should read.
        •  Yeah, but... (none)
          ...the disenfranchised were Democrats or anti-Bush voters--a huge voting and pressure block.  How do you get them fired up?  We need passionate support to get this done--and there is a lot of passion and anger out there (not among Bush supporters).  How to direct it at the best, most doable, most fundamental and most critically important goal (paper trail, open source code)?  

          If you do a weak "good government" meme ("ballot integrity") or a "religious" meme ("violation of the sacredness of the ballot"), or whatever, WILL this get them juiced?

          The growing evidence of fraud can be the electrical current that powers this vitally important campaign, and that reverses Kerry voter emotional depression (very important).

          Since when do we take our cues from the corporate media, or mainstream Democrats?

          How well have they served us in the past?  

          Apparently, the NYT is already touting electronic voting as having worked smoothly in this first big test (see upthread).  How do we counter blindness like that?  

          Not by shilly-shallying around with religious or mainstream "memes."

          We have to support those gathering the evidence, put it all together, and shout "fraud." Very, very, very loud!

          One more argument for "Fraud!" in red letter boldface 1,000 pt. type. The mainstream "good government" meme on electronic voting has been around for years now, and look at the result!

          Verifiedvoting.org--a great group, a very useful web site--but who cares?  I only found them recently myself, and I've been aware of this issue for some time, and was looking for information.  It took me an entire day, and several emails, to find out for sure that the current bills in Congress (this last summer, prior to the election) did not mandate a "paper trail" in '04, and were stuck in committee.  

          (Thence to calls to my liberal Democratic representatives in Congress, who had zero interest in this matter.)

          (Verified Voting felt the bills were still worth supporting, because just having such a bill pending--even for post-'04 elections--was successfully helping to put pressure on state election officials to require a paper trail.)  

          Here's a url for you:  www.fraud'04.org. (I just made it up.)

          All in all, I think we should go with the strong, razzle-dazzle, electrifying word "fraud"--or at least not ask others to give it up.  If THEY think it's fraud, let 'em say it.  

          There is already enough evidence to support it.  You don't have to prove Bush lost; the attempt itself is illegal and disreputable--and that is easily established with Strauss and all the other crap they did.  Add to this a few exit poll stats, and that 1/3 of the national vote was unverifiable--and it's already a strong case for "fraud," which will only grow with time.

          And if Bev Harris says there was fraud, I believe her--as opposed to the delusion on TV (or at the NYT).  She would know.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site