THE VOTE.Here is the rundown on the very important issue going on right now concerning Fathers' Rights and Family Law Reform.
Change.org was giving voters the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates in Iowa. The top voted 5 questions were to be asked during debates. The voting on the questions was hosted by the Des Moines Register. There were two questions immediately put into the voting mix:
Republicans: "Would you support Social Security Title IV D and Family Law Reform".http://tinyurl.com/upvote1
Democrats: "Do you support a presumption of equal parental fitness, regardless of gender, being enshrined in law in accordance with the 14th Amendment?" http://tinyurl.com/upvote2
This circulated quickly around Fathers' Rights groups, parental equality groups, and Parental Alienation awareness groups. These questions were in the top 5 by January 23, with the first question to the GOP taking first place by a large margin. The question to the Democrats became the #2 voted question and still remains firmly at #2.
On January 25th, we discovered that the Des Moines Register had already taken a snapshot of the questions that had been voted upon, on January 20th. This meant that our questions would not be asked of the candidates in Iowa, as we had not posed our questions until Jan 21.
They told us, however, that the questions would be asked in the upcoming New Hampshire debates. The voting would still be taking place on the Change.org website, and now would be hosted by The Concord Monitor. So, with the voting open and the countdown ticker to January 31, we continued to push the vote. People interested in this issue came together in an amazing and big way.Not only did we continue to push the vote, but added 2 more questions--one to the GOP and the Title IV D question to the Dems:
QUESTION 3 (GOP): "What is your stance on equal constitutional parental rights for all parents and any needed reforms to the family law system to ensure them?" http://tinyurl.com/jgcowug
QUESTION 4 (DEM): "Would you support social security title IV D and family law reform?" (same question posed to GOP) http://tinyurl.com/jha689g
Questions 3 & 4 also have been steadily moving up toward being in the top 5.
This brings us to the current situation, so please bear with me.
The Iowa town halls were held Thursday night. Keep in mind that our questions weren't supposed to be in those debates because they had already closed the voting for the Iowa questions before we started the voting on the above questions. We understand that our questions would not have made it into the Iowa forum because of the timing. But, The Des Moines Register and Change.org did not keep their word on their top 5 promise.
One of the questions they asked, that was not even in the top 5 was
"What are you going to do to ensure women are valued the same as men -- before 2059?" https://
Besides the infuriatingly false premise on which such a question is based, it was not even remotely NEAR the top 5 questions upvoted at that point.
Which brings us to the current voting for the upcoming New Hampshire town halls.
Yesterday morning, we noticed that the Concord Monitor had removed their sponsorship from the Republican and Democratic primary questions that have been voted upon over the last week. The voting is still going on, mind you, but now their logo has been removed from the countdown ticker. You can see the voting rankings STILL going on(with countdown tickers) for both primaries here:
They have not bothered to take it down or explain whether or not the thousands of votes on these questions will be acknowledged in any state, primary, or town hall debate. We still do not know-- nor have they indicated--if they plan to ask these top voted questions AT ALL, at least without cherrypicking what they WANT to ask as opposed to what the people have voted upon to be asked.
Instead, yesterday morning, Change.org and Concord Monitor added a new voting scheme with the same deadline (Jan 31st, a day to go). None of our questions are at the top of their new "Popular in New Hampshire" voting scheme. It is also obscure and hard to navigate to. They are buried way down below many other questions under the new setup that they changed last minute.
We have gotten nothing but a runaround with inquiries into this, nor an explanation as to whether we are wasting our votes by continuing to vote on the page that we've been voting on for the last week.
They have also backpedaled and have said that the questions posed to the candidates will not be selected based on the top 5, but instead 5 questions will arbitrarily be selected from the top 10, with a bonus "editors' pick" question.
One response to one of our members' inquiries were that "we are asking the questions from New Hampshire residents, since it is in New Hampshire" How in the world, and by what criteria, do they determine if a question is a "New Hampshire" question?!
This is a national election and all questions posed to the candidates are about national concerns. Only the venue is in New Hampshire.
Their explanation is WEAK at best, and deliberately false and manipulative at worst.
--Please continue to vote on all 4 of the original questions(linked here) on the original voting forum. Something may come of it. It may not.
QUESTION 1 (GOP) http://tinyurl.com/upvote1
QUESTION 2 (DEM) http://tinyurl.com/upvote2
QUESTION 3 (GOP) http://tinyurl.com/jgcowug
QUESTION 4 (DEM) http://tinyurl.com/jha689g
--Contact The Des Moines Register, Concord Monitor, and Change.org and let them know that we demand answers on why this manipulation has been allowed to occur. They shouldn't pretend to give the people a chance to be heard and disregard them at their whim. It is a violation of journalistic integrity.
--Lets quickly overtake the current voting, in the forums they switched up on us. Here are the links:
Let them know that we will be heard. They ignore us because they think that we aren't significant enough to make enough noise to matter.
Thank you for taking the time to read and even more thanks if you decide to take any of the actions we are asking. Our children deserve much-needed reform in this system, and it warrants national attention from those who presume to be our leaders.
With respect, Derek