Electionline.org ????

Just started looking into this site. It is supposedly non-partisan but it doesn't seem to have any information saying there's anything wrong with our voting system.

It seems they either go so overboard in being non-partisan that they won't really look at the facts, or it's a front to perpetuate the lie that our election system is fine.

They only seem to post news links to MSM misinformation articles, like today's USA Today article.

Anyone more familiar with these folks?

I thought it was just me that could not find anything really relevant.

...Election Reform Commission"? --something to do with forming that "commission," or they were invited to "testify," or something? And everybody was wondering, who the hell is that? (--none of the good groups having been invited?). Sorry, I didn't hang on to the details, but it seems like I read something along those lines.

-------

Google seems to have cached electionline.org, and I don't know if the site is still active (but see below, a May 6 article). Here's what I found at:

Safari Google search:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7uvNEYEi1XgJ:electionline.org/+&hl=en&client=safari

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=electionline.org&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

or try

Foxfire Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=electionline.org&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

"electionline.org also provides research on questions of interest to the election reform community and sponsors conferences where policymakers, journalists and other interested parties can gather to share ideas, successes and failures.

"After the November 2000 election focused public attention on the American election system, The Pew Charitable Trusts made a three-year grant to the Project (via the University of Richmond) to establish a clearinghouse for election reform information.

"We invite you to contact us with ideas and questions about the issue, or to share news of what is, what’s happening, or what’s interesting in election reform.

"To contact electionline.org:

1101 30th Street NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20007
202.338.9860
202.338.1720 (fax)
info@electionline.org (general inquiries)
media@electionline.org (media inquiries)
publications@electionline.org (publication requests and inquiries)
feedback@electionline.org (website comments and suggestions)"

-----

They link to a 5/6/05 story by that crap rag, the SF Chronicle, furthering the vile smear campaign against former CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley (who sued Diebold, decertified their machines in CA, and provided Californians with a paper ballot option for 2004--the nation's leading Sec of State on electronic voting accountability):

"California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson met with federal officials Thursday to reassure them the state's federal voting funds are not being misspent, following allegations of political use of the money by former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley.   - By Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle (story)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/06/MNGKLCL3TR1.DTL

(God, this stinks!)

-----

I can't figure out what's going on with this web site. Google seems to have it cached, as if it were inactive, and there is a USA Today editor's note that says that it is "no longer being updated," but it has this fairly recent news link (5/6). Anybody?

the American Center for Voting Rights. They popped into existence a couple days before the Commission was announced. These guys have been around since 2001. The more I look at their website the more I can't figure out what their purpose is.

I sent them an email asking why they don't post any news items about what is really going on in election reform. They post that stupid article in USA Today today, which is nothing but misinformation, but they don't have anything about the decertification in PA. The only "alert" they have posted from the last 3 months is "Soaries resigns"

For something called Electionline, and for having grant money to spend, they sure don't seem to do much of anything.

It seems to be part of the Election Reform Information Project. It got a $3.5 million grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts. It is being administered through the University of Richmond.

Here is a little blurb from a press statement from the University of Richmond on November 1, 2001 regarding the project.

The project is not dedicated to advocacy, nor are we committed to any specific solution to the problem of election reform," said executive director Doug Chapin, a former congressional staffer. "Rather, the goal will be to offer everyone with an interest in the issues -- advocates, policymakers, officials, journalists, scholars, and concerned citizens -- a forum for learning about, discussing and evaluating the whole array of information and ideas related to the issue of election reform."

Following the 2000 election, governments, organizations, and individuals have been studying the question of how to reform our nation's electoral process. Yet, because these election reform efforts are decentralized, there is a significant risk that prospects for reform could suffer without an opportunity to share the information generated by the various participants in the reform process.

The link of the whole press release is here.

http://oncampus.richmond.edu/news/press/nov01/electionreform.html


Mr. Chapin also had this to say about the 2004 election.

Doug Chapin, director of electionline.org, an online election information organization, said the voting process was smoother than most expected, “nothing along the lines of a massive meltdown as some had expected, either because of what happened in 2000 or because of how close this election was expected to be.”

Here's the link.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0411/04/a09-325408.htm

I'm still trying to find out who was a congressional staffer for.

means that their eyes were closed the entire time...

It seems that he was the Democratic counsel to Senate Rules committee before becoming the director of this election "reform" group.

1. Who do they claim to be?

"The Pew Charitable Trusts" are a major source of funding. I'm aware of them only through PBS. Anyone have an opinion on them?

electionline.org, produced by the Election Reform Information Project, is the nation’s only non-partisan, non-advocacy website providing up-to-the-minute news and analysis on election reform.

http://www.electionline.org/index.jsp?page=Press+Center

These phrases, "non-partisan, non-advocacy" and "election reform" would seem to preclude them claiming the election was stolen.


2. Did they say it was won fairly?

Here's a link to their publications.
http://www.electionline.org/index.jsp?page=Publications

Second publication down...the blurb reads;

While the result of the 2004 presidential election exceeded the margin of litigation, it fell far short of the margin of concern. Problems around the country, including malfunctioning machines, inconsistent procedures for counting provisional ballots and long lines in some states indicated election reform is not finished, but rather at a midpoint. This post-election analysis looks at what went wrong, what went right and what changes could be likely in the future to address the old and new concerns raised on November 2.

Anyone care to read between the lines on the bolded portions?


3. Have a look at the news archive.
http://www.electionline.org/index.jsp?page=Electionline%20Today2%20Archive
Half of the stories I've posted I got from there. No, they don't link BradBlog. They seem to link stories from the MSM and regional publications with stuff like what kinds of machines are counties looking to buy and the concerns that are being expressed. Plenty of relevant stuff to reform, but sorry, no, not to fraud of the previous election.

I find it a good place to go to see what the MSM are saying.


4. Is this useful?
http://www.electionline.org/interactiveMap.jsp?page=Interactive+Map

Somebody has got to post it. A few others do. But it's nice even if it doesn't allege fraud.


5. Considering it's their stated aim to be "non-partisan, non-advocacy", have they done a fair job with the list of reform groups?
http://www.electionline.org/index.jsp?page=Organizations


Wilms asks:

Is it possible for someone to help the reform effort without knowing or believing that the 2004 'malfunctions' rose to the level of credible accusations of fraud and/or a changed outcome?

Is it possible for someone to help the reform effort without 'letting on' that they know that the 2004 'malfunctions' rose to the level of credible accusations of fraud and/or a changed outcome?

Is it, potentially, necessary that some approach reform in the spirit or appearance of neutrality?

Wilms asks.

claim the election was stolen.

My comments were about their "news". Being non-partisan and non-advocacy does not preclude them from putting real news on their site. They do not post any of the real news, only the msm disinformation.

For gosh sakes, VotersUnite is nonpartisan. They do not claim the election was stolen. They only post factual information. They link to news artciles related to election reform, as Electionline.org claims they do. VotersUnite has a disclaimer that says the articles do not reflect the opinion of the org.

Electionline is supposed to a place for people interested in election reform to get information. I think their news stories are highly selective and borderline bias.

I wouldn't expect them to claim the election was stolen. But I would expect more unbiased and complete news reporting, and a more thorough analysis of pending legislation.

only one that has any real stuff on voting systems issues. Verified voting is on there too, but they are pretty tame.

Earlier this week there was an article in USA Today and Doug Chapin, the head of Electionline.org was quoted. Below is a link, the quote, and my response in an email to Electionline. I got no response back.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-08-voting-machines_x.htm
"There is a consensus among state and local election officials that any machine that relies on computer technology should have some kind of independent backup that voters can use to make sure their votes were recorded correctly and that could be used to verify results if a recount is needed, said Doug Chapin, director of electionline.org, a non-profit organization that monitors election policy."

This quote is surely incorrect. In the over two years that I have spent working for a voter verified paper ballot on voting machines across the country, we have only been stopped by that consensus of elections officials that you mention. I would certainly argue, with evidence to back up that argument, that there is no consensus for any backup that voters can use. Georgia, Maryland, Florida, and others are fighting to keep their machines unverifiable. Even Greene Co. PA, where their Unilect Patriot machines were decertified for cause, still wants to use those machines.