Where I going with this, is that it seems that we will only be able to succeed in stopping the obstacles to election corruption if can identify ways to avoid putting our Election Officials into a defensive posture.
I wonder if the "not my job" attitude is often based on not having competence, but wanting to hide lack of knowledge.
Much of the defensiveness we face as we ask questions and ask our Election Officials for information, could be due to defensiveness about their knowing or suspecting how little they know and wanting to just put on blinders and stick to what they are told.
Where are the "marketing experts" on our team that can help us shape our communication so that our (non-complicit) Election Officials can see that we all want the same thing which is the purpose of their job to provide? Obviously, I don't have marketing skills because the way I just wrote that probably would still make Officials defensive.
If they are not corrupt and complicit, they really are our natural allies!
There must be marketing strategies people on our team who are just as smart and skilled as the marketing strategies people on their team.
Plus we should be able to win because they are continually having to invent lies and elaborate deceptions to enable their theft, fraud, and other crimes - and the cover-ups of it all!
We just want eligible citizen votes to be counted as cast!
You have a true scientific mind - not just a mind for research. The true scientist is a creative thinker. We are fortunate to have you on our team!
SOEs and Clerks need "In-service Training" and probably the major way they receive it is from the "election machine" companies, or through the Secretary of State and/or Director of Elections - who likely receive it from the "election machine" companies.
Do SOEs and Clerks actually have competence to be supervising elections that are based solely on electronic equipment and networked systems?
What competencies should those who are tasked with supervisory roles in this electronic globally networked environment be able to demonstrate?
How could those competencies be measured or tested?
Are our elections being supervised, or who are the real supervisors?
How many SOEs and Clerks are not complicit and - like Tina Peters and others -believed they were providing "gold standard elections" for their constituents?
How many SOEs and Clerks even know about Tina Peters except as she is being portrayed in the media as a criminal?
How many understand that they could be the next Tina Peters if they accidentally uncover election corruption while attempting to provide gold standard elections to We The People - who seem ungrateful and harass them?
Most importantly, how can we turn (non-complicit) SOEs and Clerks into allies who will lobby for manually counted votes on anti-counterfeit paper ballots instead of having them support and celebrate laws that can result in Felony charges for harassment if they are asked questions they can't answer?
P.S.
For those who are complicit, prayer and casting out of demons is probably the only prescription!
All good questions. From what I have seen from inside whistle blowers, most locals only have the ability to push the machines into place and plug them in. They are not allowed to inspect anything to their configuration because they are sealed after kubiki theater that is Logic and Accuracy Testing.
When I worked in state government developing software for the Departments of Transportation, the "Not My Job" attitude was prevalent with all government workers. I'm sure every local is pointing to the SOS to attest to the security of the machines and that is good enough for them to print out the report and certify the results.
All testing procedures are advertised to the vendor. So they always know what they have to perform to. For example, if I know the Logic and Accuracy will be at the start of the election checking 200 ballots, software is smart enough to check dates and watch for those first 200 ballots to perform as expected. Once the software sees it is election day and even report their gps location, they can operate in a completely different fashion without anyone even monitoring.
Thank you, Kris.
Where I going with this, is that it seems that we will only be able to succeed in stopping the obstacles to election corruption if can identify ways to avoid putting our Election Officials into a defensive posture.
I wonder if the "not my job" attitude is often based on not having competence, but wanting to hide lack of knowledge.
Much of the defensiveness we face as we ask questions and ask our Election Officials for information, could be due to defensiveness about their knowing or suspecting how little they know and wanting to just put on blinders and stick to what they are told.
Where are the "marketing experts" on our team that can help us shape our communication so that our (non-complicit) Election Officials can see that we all want the same thing which is the purpose of their job to provide? Obviously, I don't have marketing skills because the way I just wrote that probably would still make Officials defensive.
If they are not corrupt and complicit, they really are our natural allies!
There must be marketing strategies people on our team who are just as smart and skilled as the marketing strategies people on their team.
Plus we should be able to win because they are continually having to invent lies and elaborate deceptions to enable their theft, fraud, and other crimes - and the cover-ups of it all!
We just want eligible citizen votes to be counted as cast!
We are working on it. More coming soon.
You have a true scientific mind - not just a mind for research. The true scientist is a creative thinker. We are fortunate to have you on our team!
SOEs and Clerks need "In-service Training" and probably the major way they receive it is from the "election machine" companies, or through the Secretary of State and/or Director of Elections - who likely receive it from the "election machine" companies.
Do SOEs and Clerks actually have competence to be supervising elections that are based solely on electronic equipment and networked systems?
What competencies should those who are tasked with supervisory roles in this electronic globally networked environment be able to demonstrate?
How could those competencies be measured or tested?
Are our elections being supervised, or who are the real supervisors?
How many SOEs and Clerks are not complicit and - like Tina Peters and others -believed they were providing "gold standard elections" for their constituents?
How many SOEs and Clerks even know about Tina Peters except as she is being portrayed in the media as a criminal?
How many understand that they could be the next Tina Peters if they accidentally uncover election corruption while attempting to provide gold standard elections to We The People - who seem ungrateful and harass them?
Most importantly, how can we turn (non-complicit) SOEs and Clerks into allies who will lobby for manually counted votes on anti-counterfeit paper ballots instead of having them support and celebrate laws that can result in Felony charges for harassment if they are asked questions they can't answer?
P.S.
For those who are complicit, prayer and casting out of demons is probably the only prescription!
All good questions. From what I have seen from inside whistle blowers, most locals only have the ability to push the machines into place and plug them in. They are not allowed to inspect anything to their configuration because they are sealed after kubiki theater that is Logic and Accuracy Testing.
When I worked in state government developing software for the Departments of Transportation, the "Not My Job" attitude was prevalent with all government workers. I'm sure every local is pointing to the SOS to attest to the security of the machines and that is good enough for them to print out the report and certify the results.
All testing procedures are advertised to the vendor. So they always know what they have to perform to. For example, if I know the Logic and Accuracy will be at the start of the election checking 200 ballots, software is smart enough to check dates and watch for those first 200 ballots to perform as expected. Once the software sees it is election day and even report their gps location, they can operate in a completely different fashion without anyone even monitoring.