Active petitions in over 75 countries Follow GoPetition

Petition Tag - election

91. Get Out PM Brown

Under Gordon Brown's "leadership", the UK has become a much more expensive and dangerous place to live, and he continues to do nothing about it.

View petition

92. I thought we lived in a democracy?

democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

The current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is destroying this country and everything it stands for. He may have been a good(ish) chancellor but as PM he is out of his depth. It is time for a General Election to be called in England.

Gordon Brown was not elected to Prime Minister by the people of England. Therefore he has no right to be there if we live in a democracy.

View petition

93. Withdrawing Our Vote for Barack Hussain Obama

Millions of Democrats who voted in this year's record-breaking primary season did so with inadequate and misleading information on the family history, political beliefs, affiliations, religious background, ties to criminals and terrorists, lack of understanding of rudimentary foreign policy matters, associations with racists and crackpots, failure to develop a coherent and consistent policy on any substantive matter facing the nation, lack of principles, lack of judgment, failure to admit errors, tendency to blame others for his own failings, failure to inquire and adjust his policies despite clearly changed conditions in Iraq, radicalism and anti-patriotism, ignorant promotion of economic policies opposed by virtually all economists, and routine lies, misstatements, backtracking, flip-flopping, false accusations, claims of victimhood, manipulation, selective editing and routine smearing of his opponents' statements and positions by the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party, BARACK HUSSAIN OBAMA.

View petition

94. Nominate Sebelius for Obama's VP

At the time of writing, Barack Obama is all but certain to become the US Democratic Party's nominee for the 2008 Presidential race. Attention is turning to who is most suitable to be his running mate. Several possible candidates have been suggested.

A name that has repeatedly emerged is Kathleen Sebelius. Mrs Sebelius is the Governor of Kansas, and has attained remarkable popularity over her gubernatorial tenure - despite Kansas being a heavily Republican state.

She has been rated among the US's top Governors, and should she be selected as the running mate for Mr Obama, it would give credence to the idea of building a new coalition of "red states" and "blue states" in 2008.

View petition

95. Senator Jim Webb for Vice President

Now that Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President, it is time for attention to turn to the selection of his running mate.

We propose that Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is the most compelling candidate the party can consider.

Read Sen. Webb's bio: http://webb.senate.gov/jim/

Senator Webb is an Annapolis graduate, a former Marine and combat veteran of Vietnam, and served two years as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy from 1987-89.

Who better to persuade anxious voters that they will be in good hands than this experienced national security and military affairs expert -- and a converted Republican, at that.

Senator Webb is also from the state of Virginia, which is a potential swing state in the November election. His inclusion on the ticket will help accelerate the movement toward a dramatically altered electoral map.

This is strictly a grass-roots (aka "net-roots") effort. Given the power of the Internet, voters around the country can, for the first time, take an active role in the selection of not only the Presidential candidates, but the Vice Presidential candidates as well.

If you agree that Jim Webb is the man who can put Barack Obama over the top in November, then please sign this petition -- and spread the word!

Follow the movement at http://jimwebb4vp.com

View petition

96. Support the European Presidency direct Election

Support the European Presidency direct Election.

View petition

97. Gore and Carter Stay Neutral!- Don't Ask Hillary to Stop!

Gore and Carter are Considering Asking Hillary to Step Aside preventing Millions of Voices from being Heard. Carter who touts Democracy around the world wants to strong arm Hillary Clinton into quitting the race.

Former VP Gore who has raised $300 Million dollars to promote Global Warming Awareness wants to risk all this to stop Americans from Voting? The same man who saw the Presidency stolen from him by disenfranchising thousands of Floridians!

View petition

98. Ordinance 08-13 in its present format is Unfair to Homeowners

Osceola County is proposing the introduction of a new Ordinance (08-13) which will not allow all landowners in communities to vote or stand for Board of Supervisors.

By only allowing US citizens with Osceola County registered voting access to vote or stand for election under Ordinance 08-13 and denying ALL landowners and full tax payers to vote, Osceola County is discriminating against us and dividing our communities, which will not be run fairly and equitably by and for EVERY landowner.

Indian Creek is 90% STR Homes, we feel as homeowners we should have an adequate voice in all aspects of the neighborhood.

View petition

99. Say NO to Ordinance 08-13 in its present format

Osceola County is proposing the introduction of a new Ordinance (08-13) which will not allow all landowners in communities to vote or stand for Board of Supervisors.

By only allowing US citizens with Osceola County registered voting access to vote or stand for election under Ordinance 08-13 and denying ALL landowners and full tax payers to vote, Osceola County is discriminating against us and dividing our communities, which will not be run fairly and equitably by and for EVERY landowner.

View petition

100. Vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton!!!

Vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton! America needs a woman in office if girls want to be equal to boys.

For thousands of years men were more important than women. That will change when we prove that girls have the ability to be presidents!

So, vote for Hillary R. Clinton if you want REAL change!

View petition

101. Make the Popular Vote Count!

It is the Delegates that place a Presidential Nominee on the ballot.

It is the Electoral College that puts a President in office.

The peoples' votes do NOT count!

View petition

102. No more Electoral College

I have provided a website regarding the Electoral College.

The fact that one state has a higher "value" than another state is absolutely asinine.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

View petition

103. Let the Candidates Debate

We, the People, are taking our presidential elections back. We will not allow them to be hijacked by weapons maker GE (parent of NBC), corporate media (ABC/Disney, CNN, The Des Moines Register) or the insurance industry (AARP).

Prior to the Iowa and New Hampshire debates, presidential debate sponsors created, and then arbitrarily rewrote the criteria for candidates to appear on the nationally televised presidential debates. These debates are not simply media events, but an open channel to the American public.

Since nearly 60% of the American public uses these debates to take a look at the candidates and their views and positions on the issues, candidate access to presidential debates is not the right of corporations or the media but the right of the American people.

Corporate control of the media is one issue. Corporate media control of the information that is allowed to reach American citizens is much more dangerous, much more sinister, and much more un-American.

When 'big media' exert their unbridled control over what Americans can see, hear, and read, then the Constitutional power and right of the citizens to vote is being hijacked by multi-billion dollar corporations that want the votes to go their way.

We suggest the sole criteria used to determine a candidate’s eligibility for a nationally televised presidential debate is that candidate’s successful completion of ballot access in at least 20 states.

Candidates who have created organizations large enough to achieve this result prior to the first caucus are to be included in all nationally televised debates until the candidate declines to appear. It is not the right of the media or any corporation to determine whom the American people can hear.

The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and we now demand the right to freely hear all the speeches. Every American has the right to control their remote and their vote.

Each presidential candidate participating in the debates will be given an equal amount of time utilizing the following format. Candidates will appear alone on stage and have a fixed amount of time allotted to state their position. When all presentations are complete, all candidates will take the stage and answer questions from the audience. Each candidate will have the same number of questions.

Furthermore, if an online poll is done after the debates, the poll will not be reset during or after the debate; the results of the poll will be published regardless of which candidate wins the debate.

Debate moderators will not subject the American people to their personal views of any candidates during the actual debate; moderators are not running for office nor are they likely to be selected as a running mate. We, the people, wish to hear only from the candidates during the debate.

Thank you,

The Undersigned

Links
Mike Gravel Excluded from MSNBC Debates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfOGXugDJO8&feature=related

Ron Paul Excluded from January 6th New Hampshire Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2r29HcH5nA

Dennis Kucinich Excluded from January 6th New Hampshire Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woyL1eDFg88

Dennis Kucinich excluded from Iowa Debates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb1x_rs8fWs&feature=related

ABC Censors Dennis Kucinich/Refuses to Report Debate Poll Results http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2DGfXA8DlE&feature=related

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Want to Limit Candidates in Presidential Elections http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLT4wa0qmzM

View petition

104. Supporters of Paul & Obama Unite For A Recount In NH

Ron Paul had two precincts, Sutton and Greenville, that BOTH claimed to receive ZERO votes for him in the recent New Hampshire primary.

In the same ballot Rudy Giuliani received many more votes than would be expected for a candidate with no momentum from previous primaries and very low poll numbers in a state where he did not see fit to even campaign.

Barack Obama received significantly less votes than was predicted in the vast majority of polls whilst Hillary Clinton received significantly more votes than were predicted.

This coupled with the statistical analyses demonstrating that BOTH candidates potentially lost HUGE numbers of votes when comparing hand counts to machine counts (91% of the vote in New Hampshire was machine counted) should, in the interests of ensuring that a true representation of the will of the people is reflected in the results, be enough to drive any Paul or Obama supporter to sign this petition, regardless of party or candidate affiliation.

Given that both men are running for the office of President of the United States, an office that exists solely of the people, for the people and by the people, one assumes that they will both accept this request and represent the will of the people to demand this recount should enough signatures be accumulated.

View petition

105. Kenya Elections 2007 (President Kibaki Must Step Down)

Kenyans went for an Election period. It was 27th Dec 07. The Kenyan people voted and made their choice. The Kenyans were downplayed and a man was imposed on them as the president.

The end result is violence in the country and innocent people being killed.

We need peace in our country and this can only be gotten through justice.

I suggest that Justice prevail and nobody should be imposed on the Kenyan people as a president, otherwise there was no need for election.

PRESIDENT KIBAKI MUST STEP DOWN.

View petition

106. Kenya's Flawed/Rigged Election On 27 Dec 2007

Mr. Kibaki must step down and give way for Mr. Raila A. Odinga - the people's president because Kibaki is in the office illegally and has imposed himself on Kenyans.

Even though Kenya has struggled to gain democratic space, the behavior of Mr. Kibaki takes Kenya years back into colonial era.

The evidence does not need more corroboration since:
The just ended Kenyan election ECK Boss admits, Yes, vote tallying had problems, admits Kivuitu. And when he demanded all constituency tallies, he found some figures were not the ones he had personally seen, he said. As of Tuesday, he added, the commission had not received the official Form 16 from four constituencies. The forms give the actual figures from constituencies signed by the returning officer.

It is those forms that had raised a furor when ODM leaders disputed the results, arguing that 49 constituencies had not submitted them and that the ECK was merely using a computer generated form that could be done anywhere. He said the officer had shown him forms of two constituencies — Juja and Kieni — whose results had been tampered with and the returning officer had not counter-signed, as is the normal practice. A shocked Mr Kivuitu said: “What surprised me was the files I saw yesterday (Tuesday) were very clean and the two files I saw (previously) were very dirty because of the cancellation.” He had informed his commissioners that he was dissatisfied.

Three issues to note:

1. No Going to Kenyan Courts: The matter cannot be resolved in the Kenyan courts because at the hall where the rigging and manipulation was taking place was the Justice Ministers Martha Karua and Internal Security Minister John Michuki. They were privy to what was taking place and maybe part of the rigging. So they cannot be trusted.

2. No Fare Judgment: Chief Justice took part in swearing the rigged in president at night knowingly the vote was rigged. Thus he is also part of the election problem facing Kenyans now and since judiciary is under his docket, there may not be a fair hearing.

3. Need for interim Government: As indicated by the Kenyan Attorney General Amos Wako that an independent investigation into vote results that led to President Mwai Kibaki's disputed re-election. This may not be possible since all the documents to be relied upon during the exercise have been severely tampered with by the government agents, stolen from KICC by the government that’s determined to erase all the evidence to cover her tracks in the melee and or lacks credibility.

This only gives way for an independent arbiter that can be impartial in the fact-finding mission while an interim government is in place while waiting for fresh elections. This must be within a short time say, three months at most.

All Kenyans know is that Kibaki did not win the elections but has robbed Kenyans.

View petition

107. Petition Prime Minister to honour his party`s pre-election policy

In reliance of the Prime Minister's pre-election promises we the undersigned hereby petition the Prime Minister to Ban Live Exports in accordance with ALP`s then stated policy.

The petition of the undersigned protests in the strongest possible terms against the live export of Australian animals and the ALP broken pre-election promises.

The Prime Minister is aware that the ALP pre policy promises aired on ABC Landline regarding the cruel live export trade have been broken by his Government within weeks of the 2007 elections.

During transportation the animals are subjected to inhumane conditions resulting in unacceptably high death rates and suffering. Upon arrival they suffer extreme cruelty and barbarism prior and during slaughter- practices that are illegal in Australia.

View petition

108. Democratic elections in Kenya 2007

Hon Kibaki, allow the will of Kenyans to prevail, agree to re count, the Presidential ballots of last year's election, and step down should you be proven to have won it wrongly.

Be a true leader, and let the true winner be the Fourth President and have a dignified legacy.

View petition

109. Odinga for President

The 2008 presidential elections we recently held in Kenya had an unacceptable outcome.

It's obvious the incumbent rigged the result which is believable, yes, believable! Use your signature as your voice and petition now!!

BIOGRAPHY
FULL NAMES: Raila Amolo Odinga
PARTY: Orange Democratic Movement (ODM)
POLITICAL HISTORY: Detained without trial for six years following August 1, 1982, coup attempt by Kenya Air Force personnel. Initially charged with treason, detained after nolle prosequi entered by state; 1982
Six months after being released, detained again for a year; 1988
One year after being released, detained again for a year; 1990
Political asylum in Norway for four months; 1991
Returns to Kenya to help found the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy, the first new political party to be registered after the restoration of the multiparty state in Kenya; 1991
General election: Wins Langata parliamentary seat on a Ford-Kenya ticket; 1992
Resigns from Ford-Kenya, joins the National Development Party (NDP); 1996
Wins Langata by-election on NDP ticket; 1997
General election: Successfully defends Langata seat; 1997
Presidential candidate: Achieves third place in field of 15; 1997
Appointed minister for energy; 2001
Leads NDP into merger with Kanu. Elected Kanu secretary-general; 2002
Leads Kanu breakaway faction (Rainbow Alliance) to join Liberal Democratic Party (LDP); 2002
Teams up with National Alliance Party of Kenya, a group of opposition parties, to form National Rainbow Coalition (Narc); 2002
General election: Ensures opposition unity by taking a rear seat and publicly backing Mwai Kibaki for president; 2002
Signs Memorandum of Understanding regarding cabinet power-sharing in event of Narc election victory; 2002
Successfully defends Langata seat on LDP ticket; 2002
Narc ousts Kanu from power it has held since Independence; 2002
Appointed minister for roads, public works and housing, but Kibaki reneges on Memorandum of Understanding power-sharing agreement; 2002
After Draft Constitution proposed by assembly of representatives (Bomas Draft) is changed to reflect government self-interest, leads group of parties opposed to changes to become Orange Democratic Movement. ODM leads nation in ‘no’ vote in referendum on constitutional changes, and wins by more than one million votes; 2005
Replaced as Minister for roads and public works; 2005

BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Assistant lecturer, department of mechanical engineering, University of Nairobi ; 1970
Partner in Franz Schineis & Partners, engineering consultants; 1971
Established Standard Processing Equipment Construction & Erection (Spectre, later East African Spectre Ltd), engineering company that later specialised in the manufacture of liquid petroleum gas cylinders; 1971
Appointed group standards manager, Kenya Bureau of Standards; 1974
Two-month programme at British Standards Institution, London: Standards and specification writing, product testing and quality control; 1975
Two-month programme at US National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and University of Denver, Colorado; 1976
Promoted to deputy director, Kenya Bureau of Standards; 1978

DATE OF BIRTH: January 7th, 1945
PLACE OF BIRTH: Maseno Church Missionary Society Hospital, Nyanza
SPOUSE: Ida Anyango Oyoo
CHILDREN: Fidel; YOB: 1973
Rosemary; YOB: 1977
Raila Jnr; YOB: 1979
Winnie; YOB: 1990

HOME: Opoda Farm (Bondo District, Nyanza) and Nairobi
CAMPAIGN WEB SITE: www.raila07.com
EDUCATION:
UNIVERSITY /COLLEGE
Otto von Guericke Technical University, Magdeburg, Germany (graduated with MSc in Mechanical Engineering); 1964 - 1969
Herder Institute (high school). Leipzig, Germany; 1962 - 1964
SECONDARY /HIGH SCHOOL
Maranda Primary and High School, Nyanza; 1954 - 1962
PRIMARY SCHOOL
Kisumu Union Primary School, Nyanza; 1952 - 1953
BOOKS:
ABOUT SELF
Raila Odinga: An Enigma in Kenyan Politics

View petition

110. Kibaki Must Step Down

The international community is very much aware that Mwai Kibaki and his Party of National Unity (PNU) rigged the December 2007 Kenyan presidential election.

In recognition of this fact, the European Union, Britain, and the United States have refused to recognize the Kibaki government as legitimate.

As members of the international community, we do not intend to allow this blatant act of disregard for the rule of law and for the will of the people of Kenya to go unchallenged.

The list of evidence of election irregularities compiled in this petition contains widely known facts and has been corroborated by various news sources.

1) All polls taken before the election favored Raila Odinga and his party, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), with Odinga leading Kibaki by a margin of 4%. A mid-December report by the government's own intelligence service gave Raila Odinga an even larger lead of 8% to 15% over Mwai Kibaki. As the election drew near, the Steadman poll, which is conducted under the leadership of George Waititu, a close friend of Kibaki's, showed Kibaki catching up to Odinga although the total for the three leading candidates added up to 101%.

2) The Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) reported that Muslim voters, most of whom were expected to favor Raila Odinga, were denied voter cards in the leadup to the election.

3) Prior to the election, Raila Odinga warned that Mwai Kibaki and his party planned to illegally deploy Administrative Police (AP) as poll agents for the purpose of intimidating voters. While Mwai Kibaki originally denied these allegations, subsequent events showed that Odinga was correct--the East African Standard reported that 65,000 APs were in fact illegally deployed to various parts of the country.

4) Prior to the election, the impartiality and credibility of the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) was jeopardized by Mwai Kibaki's control over the appointment of foreign observers. The East African Standard reported that ECK Chairman Samuel Kivuitu had himself accused the Kibaki "government of selectively inviting international observers for the December polls." Member of Parliament William Ruto of ODM also voiced concern, stating that "Kibaki has gone against a precedence that even brought him to power. The President alone has appointed ECK commissioners. He alone has picked foreign observers. When you put these two issues in the wider picture of the run-up to elections, you see we have a reason to doubt the fairness of the coming polls."

5) Early in the election, when Raila Odinga went to cast his vote at a polling station in his constituency of Langata, he found that his name was missing from the poll register. Furthermore, names beginning in 'A,' 'E' and 'O'--traditionally Luo and Luhya names--were missing.

6) Raila Odinga's ODM party firmly secured the Parliament, winning more than 45% percent of parliamentary seats--that is, at least 95 out of 210 electable seats--compared to Mwai Kibaki's PNU party which secured only 37 seats in total and lost 22 of its original 32 seats. The ouster of the majority of Kibaki's cabinet was regarded by many as a bold statement to the degree to which the majority of the electorate had lost confidence in the Kibaki administration.

7) In Garsen, a mob destroyed 35 ballot boxes on suspicion of rigging.

8) One constituency, Maragwa, reported 115% voter turnout.

9) Although voting ended on Thursday, December 27, the announcement of results from some polling stations was delayed for more than two days because:
a) The aforementioned irregularities compelled numerous complaints from candidates of both parties.
b) ECK returning officers from disputed polling stations could not be located by Kivuitu and had turned off their cell phones.

10) Samuel Kivuitu, chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK), himself acknowledged that the delay would have allowed time for these missing officials or others to rig votes. "This is where cooking could be taking place," said Kivuitu.

11) The ECK failed to address the majority of these concerns raised by Raila Odinga, his ODM party, and the general public and proceeded to announce the obviously illegitimate results, thereby failing in its responsibility to the people of Kenya and lending validity to the debacle.

12) After the ECK announced the results, declaring Mwai Kibaki the winner, the East African Standard reported that an ECK officer alleged that there had been "blatant and shameless alteration of documents" primarily by "information technology officials." This officer said that the Coast and upper Eastern provinces were most affected by rigging, but also named the constituencies of Moyale, Laisamis, Saku and Matuga.

13) A Reuters article also quoted an "election observer who asked not to be named" as having "very little doubt" that the election was rigged.

14) Furthermore, before Kivuitu declared Mwai Kibaki the winner, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, chief European Union election monitor, stated that there was ``a big question mark over the tallying of results.''

15) After Kivuitu declared Mwai Kibaki the winner, Lambsdorff repeated his misgivings. "We regret that it has not been possible to address irregularities about which both the EU and the ECK have evidence ... some doubt remains as to the accuracy of the result of the presidential election as announced today," said Lambsdorff.

16) Lambsdorff has again gone on record as saying that the tallying process lacked credibility.

17) Prior to Mwai Kibaki's secretive swearing in ceremony, the Kenyan government suspended all live television broadcasts. Coverage of post-election violence, including the government's use of armed police in suppressing demonstrators, has therefore been difficult to verify. In view of the above irregularities, this has had the effect of further eroding any semblance of democracy.

18) Finally, tallies reported by the ECK differed from those announced at polling stations and on television news broadcasts. The New York Times reports that, "The European Union said its observers in one constituency last week witnessed election officials announce that President Kibaki had won 50,145 votes, but on Sunday the election commission increased those same results to 75,261 votes."

Taken as a whole, this evidence is more than enough to declare the presidency of Mwai Kibaki illegitimate and to install the legitimate winner, Raila Odinga, into that office.

View petition

111. Restore the balance between Scottish and English MPs

I love Scotland, its people and many of its products (notably beef and whisky); my wife and I have enjoyed many happy stays north of the border.

However, it appears to me that the number of Scottish, especially Labour, candidates to English constituencies for Parliament is extremely high.

In Scotland, to put oneself forward as a candidate for public office, as an Englishman (or woman) is to invite ridicule and certain crushing defeat, as a result of the incredible anti-English feeling that is generated in such contests north of the border.

View petition

112. Removal of Illegal Bank Penalty Fees

Many of the Penalty Fees being charged by banks are not enforceable and should not be charged.

Since 2004 with the release of the Rich Report, the banking industry and the Government became aware that Penalty Fees charged by banks (such as Honour / Dishonour fees) are illegal. The law only entitles banks to recover their costs, not to profit from these fees.

In the UK, Banks have now handed back over a Billion Pounds wrongly deducted from customers accounts. The Government Via the UK Office of Fair Trading has moved to formally set maximum amounts that banks can charge to recover costs.

In Australia however, despite this knowledge, banks are continuing to take these fees from customers accounts and only under direct threat of court action from individual customers are refunding these fees. A free report along with a template letter for requesting a refund from your bank is available at www.loanchecker.com.au/bank-fees

The Government has failed to act to protect australian citizens from what amounts to theft on a massive scale.

Senator Steve Fielding introduced a private members bill to refer the matter to a senate committe which should have reported its findings prior to the election. This report however was delayed by the coalition controlled senate to report after the election in order to avoid this matter becoming an election issue.

It is our intention with this Petition to put the issue back on the agenda and for both parties to publicly confirm that they will act to enforce the return of these penalty fees to banking customers.

View petition

113. Petition for lowering the voting age in Canada to 13

Though children are unexperienced at life, they are still people, intelligent people just like any of you. And at thirteen have learned enough to vote. Even if the price is getting a license to vote I do not care, I accept your conditions as long as you make our voices heard.

In early times, we did not even vote. In later times, only some men could, later all men could, then all women could, and now I believe we can make the world a better place for all of thirteen year old people are allowed, even as youth to have their voices heard.

Therefore, I ask that you consider lowering the voting age to thirteen.

View petition

114. Petition for General ANBOL Election and Agency Shop Election

The most recent Memmorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Newport Beach and active employees with job titles of Lifeguard I, II and III is currently expired.

The petition

View petition

115. AONTAS Demand Your Right To Learn

AONTAS Pre-Election Campaign 2007

Over 300,000 people participate in adult learning in Ireland each year.

These learners have a right to a better service than is currently provided.

AONTAS, the National Association of Adult Education, is making 10 key demands in advance of the forthcoming general election. These demands are outlined on the AONTAS website www.aontas.com

If you would like to share your experience of barriers to adult and community education please contact AONTAS on mail@aontas.com. If you would like to join AONTAS please visit our website

View petition

116. Kiley Rae Prososki is the Student Body's Choice for Student Ex Officio at Metropolitan Community College and Should be Inaugurated, Not Disqualified

Student Ex Officio is the only student-elected position at Metropolitan Community College. Its purpose is to allow the student body to choose a representative to express student concerns, opinions, and interests directly to the to the Board of Governors, who run the college. The election took place on November 14, 2006. Kiley Rae Prososki, one of eight candidates, won the election by virtue of receiving the most votes in her favor.

Kiley Rae Prososki met with Dr. Terry Murrell on November 6, 2006, to go over the election rules, then immediately began campaigning. Kiley made sure to explain the rules to everyone assisting her campaign in order to keep it honest and legal. Enlisting approximately 15 friends to help, she is the only candidate to campaign at all 5 Metro campuses and to visit South, Fort, and Elkhorn several times each. The focus of Kiley's campaign was a little bit of humor and a lot of personal interaction.

On the other hand, several of the other candidates did not campaign. Of the candidates that did campaign, most waited until 1-3 days before the election to campaign by bringing a limited number of flyers to several campuses.

On the day of the election, Kiley's campaign began early with a visit to the Elkhorn Valley Campus. She later went to finish the day campaigning at the South Omaha Campus (SOC), mainly in the Industrial Technology Center, but also a limited amount in the Mahoney building.

One of the campaign rules states that during the election hours, candidates may not campaign within 100 feet of the designated polling computer. There is no rule against candidates being near the polling computer whatsoever.

Being very aware of the campaign rules, Kiley made sure to avoid campaigning anywhere near the polling computer. While she did stop in the commons several times, she simply replaced campaign flyers and sat down at tables to chat with friends. This is perfectly legal and in accordance with the campaign rules. She refrained from campaigning in the "off limits" area because she knew it could get her disqualified, and she knew that one of her opponents was keeping an extremely close eye on her as well.

The night of the election, one of Kiley's opponents, Nancie Velasquez, filed a complaint alleging that she saw Kiley violating rules by campaigning within 100 feet of the designated polling computer at the SOC.

Because this was considered a formal complaint, a four-member Election Disputes Committee was appointed to review the evidence.

The evidence against Kiley included Ms. Velasquez's statement; the statement of a friend of Ms. Velasquez alleging that Kiley approached her, offered her a brownie, and told her to vote for Kiley; and the statements of two staff members, in which both of them said that they saw Kiley at the SOC commons, however they could not confirm that Kiley was campaigning.

In Kiley's response, she clearly denied the allegation stating that because she was so aware of the campaign rules, she is confident she made no infraction on any of them both during her campaign efforts and the night of the election. Kiley's campaign assistant, Kristel Eyrich, confirmed this statement, as Kristel was with Kiley during the evening of the election at the SOC. Additionally, two Metro staff members including a Public Safety Officer and a custodian wrote statements confirming that they witnessed Kiley and she did not break any campaign rules, as they were nearby during the entire evening. Kiley included copies of her campaign flyers and handouts, as well as a summary of her campaign efforts to be included in the file that the Election Dispute Committee would review.

When the Election Disputes Committee met on the morning of November 16th, 2006, they voted on two questions:
Question 1: Is there substantial enough evidence to show that Kiley broke the campaign rules?
Question 2: (if so) Did Kiley's actions substantially alter the outcome of the vote?

Enough (three out of four or more) members of the Election Disputes Committee ruled "Yes" to both questions, thus disqualifying Kiley.

Ms. Velasquez became the recipient of the highest number of votes at the South Omaha Campus (not the overall election) and was named the President of the Student Advisory Council at the SOC. When she was informed by Dr. Terry Murrell that Kiley was disqualified due to her complaint and that she was awarded the position, she immediately withdrew herself from the election and the position. Dr. Terry Murrell told her he thought that was the best idea.

Essentially, Kiley's disqualification was a result of gossip and manipulation. She won votes by her extensive and organized campaign efforts, not by attempting to bribe voters with brownies too closely to the polling computers on election day. She was accused of such behavior by a candidate who waited until the night before the election to begin campaigning, and who knew that Kiley was the favorite going into the election. The evidence against Kiley comes down to her opponent and her opponent's friend's statements, as the two Metro staff members could not confirm that they saw Kiley breaking campaign rules. Kiley, on the other hand, provided clear evidencem, including two staff members statements confirming she conducted her campaigning in accordance to the rules, and she supplied her campaign materials to show that voters clearly picked her due to her presence in the week and a half leading up to the election.

Because of the rules set forth in the election memorandum, there is no appeal process and the decision of the Election Disputes Committee is final.

The Metropolitan Community College student body chose Kiley Rae Prososki as their new Student Ex Officio by voting for her on November 14, 2006. The Administration of the college chose to ignore the votes of the student body and to disqualify Kiley on virtually zero evidence.

Metro students, whether or not they participated in the election, have been cheated and used by the Administration of their college. They have seen the results of a system that failed and watched the college simply try to sweep the incident under the rug and quietly move on. They witnessed the Administration turn a blind eye, instead of correcting a wrong and giving value to each and every Metro students' vote. The Administration has silenced the very voice it chose to give the student body by creating the position of Student Ex Officio.

View petition

117. Disqualify Andrew C. Anderson and Revoke his title of Student Ex Officio

The position of Student Ex Officio is Metropolitan Community College's way to get student voices, opinions, and interests to the Board of Governors. This important, student-elected position has a strict set of campaign rules that all candidates must follow, or they risk disqualification.

Andrew Anderson, a candidate who campaigned mainly at the Elkhorn Valley Campus, was in clear and blatant violation of the rule that states candidates are not allowed to campaign within 100 feet of the designated polling computer on election day.

Because his behavior was not reported within 24 hours of the closure of the polls, he was not disqualified, and won the position of Student Ex Officio by default.

These rules were clearly set forth in the election memorandum, however students who witnessed his behavior are appalled that this candidate who so clearly accumulated many of his votes by cheating is now representing the student body.

View petition

118. Mitch Landrieu for Governor

Louisiana deseparately needs better government to move forward.

The author of this petition would like it known had I campaigned for Mitch Landrieu as Mayor of New Orleans he would have won. I regret campagning for his opponent in that election. New Orleans remains in chaos. Hopefully, Mr. Landrieu will reconsider running as Governor to get the entire state moving forward as we continue into the 21st century.

View petition

119. Vote out College

The electoral college is one of the many compromises written into the t United States Constitution in 1787. The founding fathers devised the electoral college to elect the president but they did not anticipate the emergence of national political parties or a communications network able to bring presidential candidates before the entire electorate.

Providing that the president be chosen indirectly through the “electoral college” rather than directly by the voters in November was one of the founders’ hedges against “popular passion.” In the beginning, the electors had very real powers to work their will. Now, their sole function is to confirm a decision made by the electorate six weeks earlier.

Under the Constitution, each state is authorized to choose electors for president and vice president, the number always being the same as the combined number of U.S. senators and representatives allotted to that state. With 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States, plus three electors for the District of Columbia provided by the Twenty-third Amendment, the total electoral college vote is 538.

Makeup and operation of the electoral college itself are tightly defined by the Constitution, but the method of choosing electors is left to the states. In the beginning many states did not provide for popular election of the presidential electors. Today, however, electors are chosen by direct popular vote in every state.

When voters vote for president, they are actually voting for the electors pledged to their presidential candidate. (Electors are named by state party organizations. Serving as an elector is considered an honor, a reward for faithful service.)
With the political parties in control of presidential politics, the function of the electoral college has changed drastically. Rather than having individuals seek to become electors and then vote for whomever they please for president, the parties have turned the process upside down by arranging slates of electors, all pledged to support the candidate nominated by the party.

In the earliest days of the electoral college, quite the opposite was true. Electors cast their votes for individual candidates rather than for party slates, with the majority winner being elected president and the runner-up, vice president. This made for some bizarre situations, as in 1796 when the Federalist John Adams, with 71 votes, became president and the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, with 68, vice president- roughly equivalent in modern times to an election in which Bush and Dukakis would end up as president and vice president.

In 1800 Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, each won an identical number of electoral votes, forcing the election into the House of Representatives, which resolved it in Jefferson’s favor. It was to avoid any similar occurrence that the Twelfth Amendment was passed in 1804. This amendment required the electors to cast two separate ballots, one for president and the other for vice president. This is the only constitutional change that has been made in the electoral college system, other than to add three electoral votes for the District of Columbia in 1961.

Presidential and vice presidential candidates of a party run as a team. In most of the states, it is the names of the candidates rather than the names of the electors that appear on the ballot; in the other states, both candidates and electors are identified. The victor in each state is determined by counting the votes for each slate of electors; the slate receiving the most votes (the plurality, not necessarily the majority of the votes cast) is declared the winner.

To be elected to the presidency a candidate must receive an absolute majority (270) of the electoral votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority, the House of Representatives picks the winner from the top three, with each state delegation in the House casting only one vote, regardless of its size. Only two U.S. elections have been decided this way (1800 and 1824).

The vice president is elected at the same time by the same indirect winner-take-all method that chooses the president, but the electors vote separately for the two offices. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, the Senate picks the winner from the top two, each senator voting as an individual. The Senate has not made the choice since 1836.

Pro/Con -
Another problem cited by critics is the possibility of “faithless electors” who defect from the candidate to whom they are pledged. Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party candidate. And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia elector, who bolted to George Wallace.

The main danger of faithless electors is that the candidate who wins the popular vote could wind up one or two votes short of a majority in the electoral college and could lose the election on a technicality. This prospect becomes more probable when there are third-party or independent candidates who could negotiate with electors before they vote.

Those who argue in favor of retaining the present system state that there is too much uncertainty over whether any other method would be an improvement. They point out that many of the complaints about the electoral college apply just as well to the Senate and, to some extent, to the House. They fear that reform could lead to the dismantling of the federal system.

View petition

120. Inquiry into medical animal testing in the UK

Doctors and research scientists are increasingly speaking out against animal testing. All animals are different, so they feel the results from animals can't be applied to humans, and it is dangerous for human patients if we try to do so.

In 1997 Labour came to power in the UK. One of their pre-election pledges was to hold an historic investigation into the medical relevance and safety for human patients of using animal experiments.

The medical relevance of animal testing has come under more doubt since then, but they have still refused to honour the pledge.

Among the developments in that time were:

§ 83% of doctors, in an independent poll, supported the idea of an independent evaluation.

§ A 2004 paper in the British Medical Journal concluded that "the contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation."

§ Scientifically evaluated cell culture tests have been discovered to be 80-85% accurate: easily more accurate than animal testing.

§ Adverse drug reactions have been estimated to be our fourth leading cause of death: killing over 10,000 people a year in the UK and costing the NHS £466 million, according to medical journal studies. All drugs contributing to this have passed tests on animals.

An Early Day Motion raised by a concerned MP requesting such an inquiry attracted the support of hundreds of MPs across the parties and was among the 1% most popular EDMs. The MP consulted with doctor's group Europeans For Medical Progress (see www.curedisease.net) who actively supported the move.

UK CITIZENS - SUPPORT THIS CRUCIAL INQUIRY
If you live in the UK, your MP has until November 2006 to sign EDM92 - go to www.vote4animals.org.uk and enter your postcode to find ways of contacting him or her. It takes about 5 minutes.

See http://www.vote4animals.org.uk/edm92.htm and www.curedisease.net for more reasons why we need this inquiry.

For more about why animal experiments don't work, see www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk.

FREE NEWS LIST
Email vivisectionkills@hotmail.com to receive free email medical news and details of what you can do about this.

View petition