Re: Donation plan? and more

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Thu Oct 28 2004 - 17:48:28 CDT

> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 12:05 pm, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > Arthur,
>
> > I don't know if this fundraising idea will work. As I
> > mentioned, I think it boils down to getting one million
> > visitors to our web site in the next few weeks.
>
> Then we need to do a press release on Nov. 3, something to get
> us /.ed and in at least some of the media.
>
This is one thing I have been planning. We need to assess the situation in
light of the events of NOV 2, write something up and send it out. It's
quite a bit of work.

> EFF just put out a press release about pollworkers, including me
> and Barbara Simons, being told not to tell voters that paper
> ballots are available. I have been interviewed by KQED, the LA
> Times, and Consumer Reports. The Mercury has a front-page story
> today on the paper ballot issue.
>
> Matt Zimmerman of EFF wants to work with us further, so we may be
> able to get them to do a press release specifically about us
> right after the election, or we may be able to get a mention in
> some of the releases they will be doing on other topics.
>
> Then we need a more organized and continuous media campaign. I'm
> pretty sure we could do an article or two for Mother Jones, and
> we ought to be able to get on Democracy Now. I'm sure we can get
> on Air America Radio with Al Franken or one of their other
> hosts. There should be some Libertarian publications with
> sufficient interest. We should contact Forum at KQED, Talk of
> the Nation (NPR), and other such shows.
>
> We should get local politicians working the issue, including Joe
> Simitian, Zoe Lofgren, and Mike Honda, and create a national
> campaign, including Dennis Kucinich and DFA (Dean/Democracy for
> America), among others. We want Nancy Pelosi to have us on the
> radar, and Tom Daschle or his successor in the Senate.
>
> > There are a
> > number of variables, especially with the election outcome
> > pending, that could make this more or less likely.
>
> It's all quite likely regardless. Even if the election isn't
> close, there may be hundreds or thousands of court cases about
> various irregularities that those of various persuasions would
> like rulings on before the next time.
>
You have a huge number of ideas, Ed. Following through with any one of them
takes a lot of effort -- especially phone calls and emails, and even some
personal meetings. We really need to list all the ideas people have and get
people to sign up to own each task. Our other Ed (Kennedy) might get this
kind of thing going on our Wiki. The last thing Ed said we need to get a
link to the wiki on openvotingconsortium.org. I agree, but that's yet
another task on MY todo list.

David Mertz wrote something earlier today that I deeply appreciate:
http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/October.2004/0145.html

> My prediction: There will be enough close votes in swing states
> to put the overall result in moderate doubt, and there will be a
> full court (haha) press from the apparently losing side to
> reverse it. Then there will be a media circus even bigger than
> Florida 2000. ......
>
I doubt it but we will find out soon enough. I might wish for that but
something tells me I should not wish for such a thing. I always tell my
kids, "be careful what you wish for."

My prediction showed up in this article on openDemocracy.net
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-120-2150.jsp

> ... We have to catch the wave.
>
Yes, we need to catch the wave however it comes.

Alan D.

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Nov 1 15:28:53 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 15:28:58 CST