Query Letter for Agents and Publishers

Query Letter RE: Book Proposal Entitled

INTERNET VOTING NOW! HERE'S WHY. HERE'S HOW.

Dear {Specific Name}


SECURITY! Of course, this is what most folks worry about first when the subject of Internet voting comes up. The convenience offered by Internet voting in all US elections is easy to see – voting from home, work, etc., with no more treks to the polling place, where parking may be difficult to find and one may have to wait in line, perhaps in inclement weather. But because the fear factor looms large in many minds, security must be the first topic addressed in a book that advocates taking such a revolutionary leap forward. Chapter One thoroughly discusses the security issue, as well as the short history of Internet voting in the United States. (There were three small initial trials in the presidential election of 2000, and, among other things, a large project in 2004.)

I also show in the first chapter that Internet voting security technology is as sophisticated and reliable as the security technology used daily by the US military, international e-commerce and finance, as well as online banking and shopping.

My book’s main point is that Internet voting can be used to make US presidential elections both far more convenient and democratic than they are currently. I beef up the argument in favor of such a radical reform with a discussion of “The Original Intentions of Our Founding Fathers for Presidential Elections,” which is the title of Chapter Two. Drawing from sources that include The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes on the Philadelphia Convention, Washington’s Farewell Address, and quotes from the US Constitution, I show that the authors of the Constitution originally hoped that its procedure for presidential elections would deter political parties from coming to dominate the process. Well, that didn’t work, and I offer some reasons why. I also show that they intended their procedure, centered on the Electoral College, to be as orderly and conducive to reason and deliberation as was their convention in Philadelphia.

To invite criticisms from colleagues, I posted Chapter Two as an essay on SSRN, a website used by professors of law, political science, and other social sciences. So far, the paper has had over 2700 online reads, and almost 250 downloads. People have learned about it by word of mouth. I have received numerous comments via email, many of which have praised the work and offered helpful critiques. While I have posted all the chapter drafts there as essays, the polished products are available on request. (The drafts are at http://ssrn.com/author=1053589 Click on the chapter title to go to the page where the statistics are displayed. The essays on Polanyi listed there are not part of the book).

In Chapter Three I contrast our country’s current presidential election practices with the original intentions of the Constitution’s Framers as discussed in Chapter Two. It’s a poor match, indeed. Among other things, they anticipated a cost free process, and we have a money-dependent process because the costs of campaigning are so high. For example, candidate Obama raised and spent over $740,000,000 in his 2008 campaign. They hoped for a nonpartisan process, and ours is thoroughly partisan. But this need not be.

Chapter Four shows how Internet voting, rightly organized, can fully satisfy the hopes of the Framers for a deliberative process that would cost the candidates nothing. Let Citizens United be the rule, when organized along the lines I set forth, big spending will have little or no effect on the decision-making of the American voter.

In Chapter Five I revisit the security issue, for a final rebuttal of the critics of Internet voting. And in the book’s Conclusion, entitled “What is to be done,” I suggest how Internet voting can be implemented, and I outline other uses for Internet voting in American politics. Here is the last paragraph,

"The potential for electronically democratizing American politics and government is only limited by what the American people want for themselves. If they want a government that does it all for them, so they can stay out of politics and watch TV, surf the Net, play with e-toys, or whatever, then that is what they will have. However, our Founding Generation’s spirit of Liberty through self-government once drove them to fight, sacrifice, and sometimes die in the American Revolution. If that spirit is still alive in our generation, then that spirit will find its way to realization through an electronic democracy based on Internet voting."

While a work of advocacy, the tone is friendly and has a scholarly restraint. The book is intended for the educated reader who is interested in thinking about the possibilities the Internet raises for change in American politics and history. It will appeal especially to those who would like to see some fresh thinking about how to reform our money-corrupted presidential election process.

My Ph.D. is in political science, from the University of California, Santa Barbara, 1985. Over the past 20 years I have taught American politics at UCSB, and in the Los Angeles junior college system. I have also taught citizenship to adult immigrants during that time.

I have two books on Amazon.com. One, entitled The New Election Game, was published in 1987. It reviewed the history of presidential campaign finance reform, and, inspired by Buckminster Fuller, proposed a system of telephone voting after watching debates on TV. Little did I know that the PC Revolution would soon make that idea obsolete. The second book, Progressive Logic (2005), is a study of the underlying principles of value shared by Progressives throughout American history.

I have been actively promoting my ideas for Internet voting online for over three years. Some of my essays can be found on the website Internet Evolution, at http://www.webcitation.org/5ZbugIFU0 and on the website Op Ed News at http://www.opednews.com/author/author36599.html where I have eight articles listed.

Even though this mss is not yet a book, interest in the idea is strong. I have been interviewed online, on the radio, and on TV.

Online: http://www.webcitation.org/5v0Z2RKPk
Jumping in Pools: Interview with Dr. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
The first question is, “How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?”

For a radio interview by Jim Fetzer, go to
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to February 10, 2010

Blip TV twice:
http://blip.tv/file/3750735 and http://www.blip.tv/file/3886970/

Public Speaking includes:
Center for Inquiry, September 19, 2010, Hollywood, AM; Costa Mesa, PM
http://www.webcitation.org/5v0OgtKiK

If you would like to see some, or all, of the chapters, I can send them to you as email attachments, or hard copies by mail, at your request.

Sincerely,

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation

Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
Book on Internet Voting in progress: All chapter drafts can be read/downloaded (for free) at
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
Face Book: http://tinyurl.com/BillonFB
Twitter: wjkno1

Email of Support for Senator Sanders

Friends!

Email your Senators and Congressperson in support of Bernie Sanders!
Here is one sample letter:

Hon. Senator X/Congressperson Y:

I'm a constituent and I urge you to give all the support you possibly can to Senator Sanders as he opposes the deal President Obama recently made with the Repubs.

Millions for the Billionaires and a 13 month extension of unemployment checks is not acceptable for me. There must be a better way to extend the unemployment benefits. This is only the beginning of Obama’s “middle way wisdom.” Next they will demand 50% cuts in Social Security and Medicaid, and our President will “wisely” agree to 25%.

President Obama is missing the big picture. The social structure of the United States is changing. The gap between rich and poor is so vast now that no other industrial nation comes close. This is something NEW.

Costs of higher education are shutting out average families. Congress gave Billions to the superrich corporations to bail them out from their own stupid investments, and promised us that trickle-down would create jobs. Guess what? The more we gave the superrich, the higher unemployment went. Our infant mortality rate belongs in Africa, not here. What does this add up to?

Our nation is slipping into an Age of Neofeudalism. Democracy requires a strong middle class. As that erodes, our country will become one of peasants and Lords. This is the long term goal of the Repubs. If we don't fight this starting now, who will, and starting when?

Sincerely,