A POV on where to address problem with election protection

seems like majority of elections officials are on same page with WRONG info -- they are pro-computerized voting, blah blah

seems like the talking pts are doled out thru 2 organizations at the very least. If you can list others, please respond to this post.

The National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks

http://www.nacrc.org/nacrc.htm

From NACRC "objectives"
NACRC Objectives:

To provide our members opportunities to exchange ideas and information on a national level concerning their offices.
To provide continuing education, including the opportunity to become a Certified Public Official.
To help keep abreast of the latest technologies.
To have a stronger voice on Federal legislation affecting our offices.
To help you when you need answers!

Site gives impression that the organization supports use of technology; I see no discussion of no-tech/ low tech solutions for transparent, honest, accurate elections, despite overwhelming evidence against "technology."

--and

National Association of Secretaries of State

http://www.nass.org/

From the NASS Constit./bylaws:

ARTICLE II - AIMS AND PURPOSES

The aims and purposes of the Association, the oldest national organization of major public officials, are to disseminate and exchange information among its members their duties, responsibilities, methods of operation, suggestions and proposals for improvement in their respective offices thought mutually beneficial to themselves, their states, and the nation.

ARTICLE III - STATEMENT OF ETHICS
The role of Secretary of State is a noble calling, and carries a high ethical mandate and a conscientious duty to our democracy. Accordingly, the Association members commit to the following:
1. Adhering to the highest standards of excellence that will nurture and maintain the public trust;
2. Placing loyalty to state and federal constitutions, the law, and ethical principles above private or political gain; and
3. For those Secretaries who are the chief elections officials in their state, practicing fair and unbiased election administration that recognizes each eligible citizen's right to cast his or her vote and for that vote to be counted with the highest regard to constituional foundations.

HOWEVER, when you look at the agenda for their meetings, they heavily support purchase of computerized voting equip, etc. -- many downloads on site with slanted pov. No links to articles on computerized voting vulnerabilities (unless I overlooked those)


so it seems that somehow these organizations need to have more balanced dissemination of information to elections officials

They're the ones who certified all the electronic voting machines in current use.

http://www.nased.org

Of course, that duty has moved to EAC as required by HAVA.

where the talking pts are doled out, what's next on our to do list?

http://www.electiontech.org

Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic, Diebold (Premier Election Solutions), and Sequoia Voting Systems

They write informative guidelines, like; "Safeguarding the Vote: Applying Best Practices to Mitigate Perceived Threats for Voting Systems". http://www.electiontech.org/documents/SafeguardingtheVotepracticesETCfinal.pdf

Nice. :eyes:

The site also mentions "Customer interest groups", including ones already mentioned on this thread, plus;

International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT): http://www.iacreot.com ,

National Association of Counties (NACo): http://www.naco.org and,

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL): http://www.ncsl.org

a response from each regarding the lack of burden of proof that computerized voting systems will accurately record all votes as cast and be counted in public in a transparent fashion, and that the voter registration roles in place for the November 2008 election will ensure that every citizen who wishes to register to vote, and then actually vote, may cast their ballot & have it counted accurately as cast.

With regard to the machinery, why should they bother?

DREs are on the way out...just like activists demanded. And paper ballots are used...just like activists demanded. And those ballots are scanned...just like activists demanded. And those scanned ballots are rarely recounted or audited in a secure and significant manner...just like activists seem unable to understand.

Meanwhile, the noise from exit poll true believers and the stunt of the day in the name of election reform leaves the real work being done, or that is in need of being done, obscured.

:eyes: