[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

What Have We Learned from Boulder?

Regardless of the outcome to date, we have learned the following, and we need to leverage this knowledge:

1. The process of addressing citizen input is not how some decisions occur, contrary to "staged" appearances. It would appear that the purchase of this system was a done deal, despite citizen reactions.

2. Hand counting of recounts may be permissible, according to the Boulder election officials reporting upon ongoing discussions with the Secretary of State's office.

3. Hand counting is perceived as "taking too long, impractical and unaffordable." This is a statement of perception and is not backed up by any independent analysis.

4. The lack of standards is not viewed as a meaningful deterrent.

5. Election officials and county commissioners may not be accustomed to a high level of citizen input on a purchase decision, and their willingness to keep the decisionmaking process open may be affected by their comfort level with citizen involvement (possibly perceiving it as "we know better" or "academics or activists" rather than the concerns of common citizens).

6. When in doubt, pass blame to the Secretary of State's Office.

7. Despite citizen participation in "the process", the courts may remain the only possible method that compels election officials to acknowledge and comply with citizen concerns.

8. It pays to stick around after "official business" ends, and to maintain strength in numbers.

How do we leverage these findings?

First, we need to maintain a higher level of communications and interest among our group to remain a viable voice in these issues. We need to borrow several pages from Evan's, Joe's and Al's book and keep vigilant watch over these public servants, and to maintain a large enough group from which to demonstrate broad support for our cause. We need to consider whether reaching out to other established groups may serve this purpose and build credibility with these officials.

Second, we need to do our homework like Ralph suggests below and come equipped to such arguments with our facts straight. If hand counts intimidate, we must reassure with solid numbers that illustrate their viability and cost effectiveness. We must meet this argument head-on.

Third, we need to build upon the awareness of the identical count/recount methods, so that everyone involved in decisionmaking understand the absurd impact this law will have upon verifiability and confidence in trustworthy elections. The intrinsic value of independent audits must be elevated further in any ongoing discussions about verifiability. It may still be possible to engage in a publicity campaign and legal work to halt the implementation of this law for this year's election, but it will take coordination and money to accomplish this. And we still need legal representation.

Fourth, while the Sec of State has issued a "moratorium" on all machine purchases in the state under HAVA until standards come out, under HB 1227 she is setting herself up as the ultimate arbiter and certifier of all "temporary" systems, meaning she wants to have her cake and eat it too. This hypocritical stand needs to be exposed and called.

Finally, we need to come together in legal strategies, since it appears that may be our only hope for relief this year.








From: Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: ralphs@xxxxxxxxx
To: <AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: "'Evan Daniel Ravitz'" <evan@xxxxxxxx>, cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, valenty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "'Aaron Toso'" <toso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Clay Evans'" <evansc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Robert Mcgrath'" <mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx>, "'Judd Golden'" <juddgolden@xxxxxxxxxxx>, sam@xxxxxxxx, joel@xxxxxxxx, michael@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Commissioners pass the buck; Plan Boulder meet tomorrow on voting systems
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:43:48 -0600

Dear Al:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:39:30 -0600, you wrote:

>Think about Ralph's math in the context of a non-profit organization. And
>pay only for correct counts.

I don't understand why a non-profit would be much different.

>
>If the counting system were verifiable, even a biased counting team would
>produce correct results.

Indeed, the efficacy of having poll watchers do "random sampling" (that is,
simply watch the votes being counted for a random collection of short
periods without having to interfere - at all! - with the vote count) while
the count was being done would likely be enough to indicate if a recount
needed to be done.

>
>Al

Ralph

>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:32 AM
>To: Evan Daniel Ravitz
>Cc: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; valenty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Aaron Toso;
>Clay Evans; Robert Mcgrath; Judd Golden; sam@xxxxxxxx; joel@xxxxxxxx;
>michael@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Commissioners pass the buck; Plan Boulder meet tomorrow on
>voting systems
>
>Dear Evan and all:
>
>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:01:40 -0600 (MDT), you wrote:
>
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>>The Commissioners withheld their trump card until AFTER the public
>>hearing was finished: they quickly calculated it would take
>>"hundreds" of extra election judges to hand-count an election here,
>>and declared it, variously, "very difficult", "impractical" and
>>"impossible."
>>
>>(For $1.7 million, I'd be happy to organize a crew to do so. Hell,
>>for $50,000.)
>
>Let's see, that would be about 100,000 votes to be counted. Right?
>
>Professional signature gatherers charge about $1 for each petition
>signature. That includes: Legible name, address, zip code, signature. It
>also includes standing around in the cold and rain. We wouldn't be asking
>that of the vote counters.
>
>
>
>Let's say that a hand-count of a simple yes/no with 10 items would cost $1
>for each ballot cast.
>
>So it would cost $100,000 per election to count the votes.
>
>$1.7 million @ 3% earns $50,000 per year. I'm sure the city can do better
>than that.
>
>Thus, if they just put that $1.7 in a low-yielding bank account and they
>withdrew $100,000 per year, they could run elections for - at least! - the
>next 34 years. The equipment would be rusty dust by then.
>
>
>
>The incompetence of the County in even simple financial matters is
>staggering.
>
>Ralph Shnelvar
>


_________________________________________________________________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/