RE: Mail In Ballot problems...

["Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some make mistakes

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:44 PM
To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: BCV
Subject: RE: Mail In Ballot problems...


Apparently some folks included the instruction sheet with their
ballot, which put the weight over 1 oz. Postal workers aren't sworn in
as I assume election judges are. Some drink, some go postal...

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Paul Tiger wrote:

> I'd love to know where this information about overweight ballots comes
from?
> All the ballots should weigh the same. The ballots are the same physical
> dimensions, even while they may have different things printed on the.
Every
> voter in BC only got one ballot card, it doesn't matter how many issues
> existed. The ballots weigh the same.
> Now there where a few idiots that enclosed notes: love letters;
commentary;
> and hate mail. If those ballots weighed more it certainly was not the
fault
> of the clerk.
>
> One of the first rejected ballot envelopes to come through the process was
> covered with scribbles; had no ballot inside (you could tell by the feel);
> had a sheet of lined notebook paper inside with magic marker all over it.
> There was a circle around the stamp with a line to a comment that said
"Poll
> Tax". It was entirely amusing, but since it had no signature on the
outside
> it was never opened. Too bad, because it was fun and I would have liked to
> read the rest of the note inside it.
>
> Back on topic: I my mind the USPS was the biggest bottleneck and pain in
the
> ass. Before the mailing of the ballots the clerk sent out something like
> (Tom would know) a 170K piece mailing of a post card to confirm the
mailing
> addresses of BC voters. Right off we had problems with deliveries of those
> cards. Some came back in batches, leading us to believe that the USPS was
> just being lazy.
> When ballots went out to confirmed addresses (confirmed by the post card
> mailing returns from the voters themselves) we had returns of
undeliverable
> mail. Voters called in to ask where their ballots were? Some said things
> like, "We've lived here for 20 years and we are getting junk mail, but no
> ballot."
> Ballots would not have been sent to known dead addresses, and were all
> clearly marked as not to be forwarded. Yet some were forwarded and others
> that went to confirmed addresses were returned. Still others were marked
> with the forwarding addresses, and returned, as they were supposed to. But
> if a voter had confirmed their address and information by filing in and
> returning the post card, then why would the ballots then be returned by
the
> USPS, if they were sent to the correct and confirmed addresses?
>
> Just to make it clear for those that don't understand about forwards: If a
> ballot is forwarded to a new address the 'ballot style' would need to
change
> or voters would be voting on issues in precincts where they did not live.
> Some people don't understand this, and thought that they should have
> received their ballots for their old addresses at their new ones.
>
> There was a wide disparity in how the USPS handled ballot mailings. This
> happened in 2001 as well. While some people may think that the USPS is
> trustworthy, I am way more skeptical. Neither rain, nor sleet, nor snow;
you
> can always rely upon the USPS to deliver the right mail to the wrong
address
> or visa versa.
>
> Paul Tiger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter or Alison Richards [mailto:aprichards@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:21 AM
> To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ralphs@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx; laura@xxxxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx;
> MorsonB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Mail In Ballot problems...
>
> From:  Peter Richards  303 449-2825
>
> To:  Ralph and Paul
>
> Cc:  Joe Pezzillo,  Laura Price, Al Kolwicz,  Berny Morson (Rocky Mtn.
> News)
>
> Date:  Sat.,  15 Nov. 2003
>
> Re:  Main In Ballot problems...  continuing... ??
>
> Below is an email about continuing problems with the US Postal Service
> and ballots dribbling in for the 4 November 2003 election...  I am not
> sure who is saying what to whom, in the emails...  the way they are
> snipped...
>
> What is your source of this information?
>
> Can you document it?
>
> Boulder County Commissioner Paul Danish is talking about printing a list,
> somewhere, of all voters who did NOT vote in the last election, (this is
> public information,) out of all folks who were mailed ballots, for people
> to double check that their ballots were received.  The point of this
> would be to document problems with the Post Office in getting ballots
> back to the respective election officials...
>
> The Boulder County re-count (headline in Daily Camera today) only
> intensifies this issue...
>
> I am most interested in following up on the election problems of the most
> recent election, and think the other members of the CVV group can handle
> the issues of future problems.
>
> I have a major contact (now retired) in the Post Office,  who is equally
> skeptical of their ability to deliver ballots, especially those with
> problems....  i.e. overweight ballots...
>
> Congressman Udall's office may be able to get to the  bottom of this Post
> Office problem.... if we can document problems.
>
> Best,  Peter
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:43:34 -0700 "Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> writes:
> > So we can talk about counting by hand - not a DRE issue, but we can't
> > talk
> > about absentee? Absentee is always going to take place.
> >
> > You'd better spend some time reading elections laws before you
> > decide that
> > you can go off in whatever direction suits you.
> >
> > Yeah this is about DRE. If you want to spend more time discussing
> > this, lets
> > get it off this list and stop bothering people with it.
> >
> > FOCUS
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:50 PM
> > To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Another Tactic? Absentee ballots
> >
> > Dear Paul:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:03:13 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > >Ralph,
> > >
> > >You snipped off part of my reply. I said that people should hand
> > carry
> > their
> > >ballots back in because we can't trust the USPS.
> > >Ballots that were sent long before the election are still arriving
> > at the
> > >clerk's office. Voters are saying that they sent ballots as long as
> > ten
> > days
> > >before the elections and the clerk is just getting them, or still
> > hasn't
> > >seen them.
> > >
> > >The BIGGEST breakdown in mail ballot elections is the postal
> > service.
> > >Absentee balloting is the same as mail-in balloting.
> >
> > Paul, this is neither the time nor the place to debate
> > mail-in/walk-in
> > balloting.  We're fighting the DRE problem now.
> >
> > The biggest problem with mail-in ballots and/or walk-in ballots is
> > the lack
> > of security both outbound and inbound.  The USPS is merely one
> > problem among
> > many.
> >
> > >
> > >Paul Tiger
> >
> > Ralph Shnelvar
> >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
> > >Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:40 AM
> > >To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: Another Tactic? Absentee ballots
> > >
> > >On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:23:02 -0700, you wrote:
> > >
> > >>PT> I like this idea, if we could make it work in a voting
> > population as
> > >>PT>large as Boulder County's. You might be able to pull this off
> > in a
> > >>PT>smaller county. In areas east of midwest counties and townships
> > are
> > >>PT>rather small and twisting the arms of the clerks is easier to
> > do with
> > >>PT>such a protest.
> > >
> > >This is my first posting here.
> > >
> > >Paul Tiger and I - both Libertarians - often take opposing views.
> > >Unsurprisingly, this is going to happen again.
> > >
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >>
> > >>paul tiger
> > >>
> > >>Mcgrath, Bob___PI_Mkt wrote:
> > >>
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>One idea posted there was to urge all voters to obtain absentee
> > ballots
> > to
> > >>>bypass the machines.  Thoughts?
> > >
> > >I suggest that people read Sunny Maynard's (Green Party) and my
> > article in
> > >the Sunday Denver Post:
> > >        www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~75~1734196,00.html
> > >
> > >The last thing that we need is to promote mail-in balloting.
> > While
> > >electronic voting offers high-tech opportunities for fraud,
> > mail-in
> > >balloting offers both high-tech and low-tech opportunities for
> > fraud.
> > >
> > >Ralph Shnelvar
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>