|
2. Key Organizational Elements
a. At the State Level, within each state, have a "State Coordinator", e.g. a Texas State Coordinator.
b. At the County Level, within each separate State, establish multiple "County Coordinators", one for each county
(e.g. Travis County Coordinator).
c. At the Local Level, within each county, establish multiple "Precinct Teams", one such Team per Voting Precinct
(e.g. Precinct Team 502, within Travis County).
d. Have new volunteers, and potential affidavit submitters, find their local "Precinct Team", and/or otherwise volunteer
for other positions, by looking on the RonPaulVoteCount.com website to be directed toward, first, their State Coordinator,
then their County Coordinator, then their Precinct Team for their area.
e. Plan to Collect/Submit Affidavits
i. Collect Affidavits from only Ron Paul voters on Election Day, or within a short time period after (see below for suggestions),
and submit each to the designated "Precinct Team" Member.
ii. Count the Affidavits
iii. Compare with Official Results
iv. Report Counts to "County Coordinator"
v. Report Counts to "State Coordinator"
vi. Pursue Further Action Within a Short Time Period, if Significant Discrepancies Found
f. Toward the Inter-State level...
Spread the message of the RonPaulVoteCount Affidavit approah so that more and more precincts/communities throughout the Country
can set up their own "Precinct Teams". Each such "Precinct Team" would be set up in the best manner decided
for that community of volunteers, by that community of volunteers. Basically, each resulting "Precinct Team" would
set this all up in recognition of whatever resources and/or limitations they may have available. They can also refer to this
web site as a "Central Hub" for resources that have already been compiled, so that such "Precinct Team"
can already have a head start in organizing via the resources/documentation already thought through and compiled by others.
g. Maintain Independence from other Organizations
i. No Affiliation with Official Government Vote Count.
ii. No Affiliation with Ron Paul Campaign.
iii. Strong Affiliation of local people banning together to insure their votes are counted and applied correctly.
h. Keep It Simple
This Movement is merely seeking, for each precinct, to have a group of neighbors see if their votes were counted and applied
properly. Basically, it's just a bunch of guys/gals counting the votes among a group of them with a common interest, comparing
such count with what the Election Administrator got, and, if the results are different, asking "What's the Deal?",
and taking further action with DOCUMENTED evidence.
3. Methods for Obtaining Affidavits from Voters, and then Submitting them to the "Precinct Team"
A main goal of obtaining/submitting the Affidavits is to have them in the hands of a central Precinct Team Coordinator within
a week of the Election, or whatever time period is appropriate for that Precinct's state/situation. Each Precinct Team is
best in deciding for themselves what will work best for them. For instance, one Precinct Team may have enough volunteers/resources
to be able to staff a table outside of the Polling Place, where they may have a Notary Public available, and a means of collecting
the Affidavits by the Precinct Team, right there on Election Day. But a separate Precinct Team, with less resources/volunteers,
may choose to adopt an approach of having each Voter obtain a Notary Public's signature "on their own", and mail
it in (or drop it off) to the Precinct Team Coordinator within a designated time period. The below is a Link to a separate
page of some options.
4. Beneficial Elements of the Uniqueness of the RonPaulVoteCount Approach
The RonPaulVoteCount Approach seeks to have the Affidavits that are obtained state ONLY that the testifier voted for Ron Paul.
Other issues/races are not intended to be considered. We just want to keep things simple, and count only the # of votes
for Ron Paul, and compare that # to the "official" vote count. Benefits arising from this aspect include:
a. The Collating of votes/results is simplified;
b. The Simplicity of the Approach Increases the Opportunities for Widespread Participation and Success;
c. The Nonconsideration of Other Races/Issues/Candidates Reduces Complexity, and Increases the Opportunities for Widespread
Participation and Success;
Only one Vote Count # is needed to be compared with the corresponding # obtained by the Election Administrator. For instance,
if the Precinct Team counts 345 Affidavits received from Voters who attest to having voted that Election Day (i.e. Early Voting
is NOT considered), and the Election Administrator reports that only 230 votes were tabulated for Ron Paul from the electronic
voting machines that reported only the results of the voters who voted that day, then there is obviously a reason to refute
the official results.
d. There Are No Complications that Would Arise from Attempting to Have a Scientific Study of All Election Results;
This approach is NOT asserted as a broad cross sectional scientific analysis, or a "parallel election", or an "exit
poll". The approach is just checking whether or not the results tabulated by the Election Administrator for one candidate
(Ron Paul) is sufficiently different from what RonPaulVoteCount's collected Affidavits show.
e. Also Count Absentee Ballot Votes, and Early Voting Votes, as Well as Polling Place Election Day Votes by MAILING IN,
or DROPPING OFF, Your Affidavits to the Precinct Team Coordinator for Your Precinct (i.e. there is no need to station at each
early voting place). See further below for description of why it is important to quantify these votes, too, if the opportunity
is available in your particular precinct.
Although initial planning was, in the interest of simplicity, to not include Early Voting Votes, or Absentee Ballot Votes,
recognition has been made that, to combat the full range of potential for vote fraud, the entire breadth of the voting options
must be considered. With counting that entire range of voting options, RonPaulVoteCount can compare the total vote at both
the "Precinct Level", AND at higher levels where the tallying is typically performed. Recognition exists in the
Vote Integrity movements that at the tallying level is where a significant portion of Vote Fraud can occur.
Furthermore, by having such additional results, further Test Case Data Points (of testing whether or not the particular
system, like electronic voting machine) are obtained, which gives more opportunities to find if discrepancy exists.
f. Important Basic Aspect of the Approach Needed for Understanding its Configuration and Application
1. A VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the structure of the way this RonPaulVoteCount Movement is set up takes into account that it
does NOT matter if the approach is not fully implemented everywhere, because the approach is not really trying to do any kind
of Parallel Election, or similar. Instead, the approach seeks to have many data point test cases of testing of the voting
system. If any one of those tests shows a shortcoming, i.e. false results, then there is obviously a problem And, with the
widespread, rapid, EASY implementation that the approach has inherent in it, such tests are essentially conducted over widespread
areas of each state. So, potentially, hundreds of test cases in a given state. If discrepancies in the results are found
in a significant number of such test cases, then a conclusion is much more easily made of vote fraud, and such a conclusion
is much more likely to result in an overturning of the so-called Official Results, which could result in a rerunning of the
election, with Hand Counted Paper Ballots in Full Public View.
2. With such an approach, there will end up being MANY different precincts that will participate. Each one of these precincts
will be a separate Test Case of the voting system in place there (e.g. testing whether the Electronic Voting Machine came
up with the same answer that RonPaulVoteCount got). In effect, then, in a given state, the approach can end up with hundreds
of different tests being conducted. In order to prove voter fraud of any sort, a discrepancy in the voting totals need be
found in only one of those hundreds of test locations. And, with hundreds of such tests going on, there is much more likely
to be at least dozens of locations where problems will be found (presuming, of course, that vote fraud is indeed prevalent
and widely dispersed). And, another important aspect is that, with widespread distribution of such so-called Test Cases of
the voting system (whether it is electronic voting machines, tabulation of paper ballots, or whatever), there would be demonstration
of widespread fraud (again, if it exists).
3. So, in summary, the RonPaulVoteCount approach seeks to essentially gather many Test Case data points to be able to
have as wide a net as possible to be able to view the potential for widespread vote fraud. And it does not matter how large
or small of a precinct each one of those Test Cases represents. The approach can just see, widespread, how much of a problem
there is in any given state.
5. If An Individual Area Does Not Yet Have Enough Volunteers or Resources to Do RonPaulVoteCount Exactly the Way Suggested
on the Web Site...
Full recognition is had that every area of the country, or of each state, will not be able to have sufficient volunteers or
resources to operate in exactly the ways suggested on the web site. That is why the approach being promoted is completely
open to adaptation as appropriate. However, strong appeal is made to, within your state, have all efforts be consistent with
the approaches worked out with your State Coordinator. Obviously, the layout that you and the State Coordinator work out
should not be so restrictive so as to hamper the ability of an individual precinct, or county, to adapt the approach to what
works best in that area for them. But, the adapted approach should still strive to fit in with the overall approach. Part
of the reason is that it is usually on the state level that the official election configurations for that state are made.
Due to this aspect, the RonPaulVoteCount State Coordinator should make sure, for instance, that the RonPaulVoteCount setup
in the state is sufficiently able to adapt its structure to be able to most easily compare the results RonPaulVoteCount gets
with whatever is obtained by whatever sublevel of government quantifies the votes. For instance, in most states, for the
primary, it is believed that there is not a statewide tally that is used to decide how bound delegates are apportioned. Rather,
it may be done at the county level. So the RonPaulVoteCount State Coordinator should, at the very least, coordinate to have
a structure in place whereby the RonPaulVoteCount members can come up with a total # they count for Ron Paul voters in the
county, and be able to compare, apples to apples, with the same type of number obtained by the official count. As a further
example of adaptation, one of the participating state coordinators is currently having her state organized in such a way that
all affidavits can be submitted to a central group of P.O. Boxes, where a large group of more centralized volunteers, over
the course of a number of days, will separate such affidavits by county, and then be able to compare the total number of affidavits
in each pile with the corresponding number reported by county officials. Other configurations are possible. What an individual
state, via the State Coordinator helping to configure, decides to do should be adapted to whatever situation they have there.
Once the state line is crossed into another state, such other state can have a completely different configuration.
|
 |
|
