Re: commissioners presentation this thurs

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

Another reason to go with hand-counting, temporarily, until everyone
agrees on a computer system, as in Australia

----------------------------------------------
Evan Ravitz     303 440 6838     evan@xxxxxxxx
Vote for the National Initiative! www.Vote.org
Photo Adventures:          www.Vote.org/photos
Bush vs the Pope!            www.Vote.org/Bush
Sins of the father Bush   www.Vote.org/silence

Kucinich: the ONLY candidate to vote against the
"Patriot" Act and the Iraq war:  www.kucinich.us
------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Neal McBurnett wrote:

> Sigh.  I could have been clearer.  But I and most everyone else have
> been agreeing for a long time that yes, we have to come up with a
> system for 2004.  I was just emphasizing that we don't have to buy
> DRE's until 2006, based on the extension that the secy of state will
> get (in all likelihood).
>
> I was suggesting we should buy optical scanners (part of the current
> plan), but only a few of them for centralized counting in 2004.  Or we
> could rent them again.  We should save most of our money for better
> equipment in 2006, including DREs and probably scanners in the
> precincts to detect overvotes.  Ideally we would, in 2006, get
> precinct scanners that would have fully-disclosed software.  And they
> could scan DRE-generated paper ballots and read them back so even
> blind voters could verify them.
>
> -Neal
>
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:19:53PM -0700, Paul Tiger wrote:
> > That's very nice Neal, but you guys keep missing the point. Boulder has NO
> > legal method to do elections with. It must be replaced by something. It
> > would be great to just do color the dots balloting at the polls, and we can
> > do that.
> > But our card punch system becomes illegal on Jan 1st, and it doesn't work
> > anyway. So despite whatever the state may try to do with the fed over DRE,
> > Boulder will still need to replace its system with something.
> >
> > Remember that there are five CO counties that must entirely replace their
> > systems. We might be able to avoid installing DREs, but the law says
> > otherwise. Application of an extension will most likely be granted ten
> > minutes after the deadline (Jan 2006).
> >
> > Paul Tiger
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:24 AM
> > To: Joe Pezzillo
> > Cc: bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: commissioners presentation this thurs
> >
> > Thanks for working on that, Joe!
> >
> > I talked with Brian Mooty 303.894.2200, ext x6626, in the Secy of
> > State's office on Friday the 21st about this stuff, since Drew Durham
> > (x6314) was out of town.
> >
> > He confirmed the email that Drew had sent
> >
> >  The state of Colorado will ask that the implementation date for DREs
> >  specially equipped for individuals with disabilities be extended to
> >  January 1, 2006.
> >
> > He thought that all the states would be doing so, and that we could
> > count on it being approved, given the lack of standards, funding, and
> > the general uproar.
> >
> > I think you should have a slide "Hold off on DREs until 2006" based on
> > that.
> >
> > I think you should have a slide on "What are Other Election Officials
> > Doing" and include the Los Alamos and California stories prominently,
> > along with continued investigations in Maryland etc.
> >
> > The other question, I think, is what advice to give in terms of
> > centralized vs distributed optical scanning, and which vendor to pick
> > for that purchase, since they will have the inside edge for providing
> > an "integrated system" for 2006.  Suggesting a "go slow" option for
> > now, meaning just buying a limited number of machines for centralized
> > counting, would seem to minimize spending now and maximize
> > opportunities for the best system for the years to come.  I would ask
> > Linda, Tom and the commissioners to look for willingness to disclose
> > the code to citizens, as underscored by HR 2239, which Udall is
> > co-sponsoring as of Nov 21.
> >
> > Ending with "Summary - Paper Ballots and Wait for Better Solutions in
> > 2006"
> >
> > Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
> > Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60
>