Re: Comment OPPOSED to Voting System Purchase

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Joe:

Well said.

Bo, as you know, is the Boulder County Chair of the Libertarian Party.  It
pains me, but I heartily disagree with Bo and side with you, Joe.

What Bo does not seem to grasp is that there is simply no room for
compromise.  Either there is verifiable hand counting or there is
unverifiable-anything-else.  There is simply no middle ground because the
state law does not permit middle ground.  Cooperation in the face of what
Aristotle called the "excluded middle" is impossible.

Our elected Commisioners decided to hose over the voters by compromising the
voting process as well as spending a huge amount of money for a secret and
likely defective system.

Instead, the Commisioners decided to go along with the SoS, the County
Clerk, and Hart.

This surprises me not at all.

Ralph Shnelvar



On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:02:49 -0600, you wrote:

>
>
>I'm not speaking for CVV, I'm speaking for myself and signed my 
>comments as such. I've already offered to step down from any "official" 
>association with CVV (and have effectively already) because I'm clearly 
>tired of having to pretend this is somehow a balanced and "cooperative" 
>effort where any of our advice and recommendations are being heard. 
>Perhaps you should jump in instead if you want to see CVV change. The 
>group spent some time developing consensus around it's positions -- 
>demands or requirements if you prefer -- if you have others I'm sure 
>the group would be willing to listen. The current momentum seems to be 
>around hand counting paper ballots, not a position CVV had previously 
>endorsed, and one that I believe you already derided without having 
>read the research.
>
>That said, why don't you ask the County what happened to the "spirit of 
>cooperation"...despite being as sure as you seem that they are trying 
>to do the right thing, I personally have seen almost no evidence of it, 
>especially not this year, and plenty to the contrary. As far as I've 
>seen, they simply want to buy a system to make their jobs as easy (not 
>as accurate) as possible, keep doors open for their upward political 
>and career futures, and pass the buck for responsibility and 
>accountability elsewhere. I personally don't trust my vote to that, you 
>may feel differently.
>
>Local citizen volunteers like myself have spent months trying patiently 
>and deliberately to cooperate and assist the County and produce the 
>best possible outcome within the process, and what has that gotten us? 
>A "maybe" paper ballot for $1.5 million now, and whatever the vendor 
>wants to sell us next year? (not to mention being labeled with whatever 
>term you want to use, a label I'll begrudgingly accept when it comes to 
>defense of a people-powered Democracy) Why is it that person after 
>person who comes in asking about accuracy in elections gets frustrated 
>like I am and ends up on the "unwelcome" list over there?
>
>If you're happy with the current state of the County's actions, you're 
>obviously encouraged to send comments in support. If you think you're 
>being represented effectively, I'm sure you'll say so. If the people 
>aren't in charge of "dictating" actions that impact us so 
>fundamentally, then who is?
>
>I'm glad we can disagree, if I'm still around, maybe we'll see you on 
>election day!
>
>Joe
>(as myself only)
>
>
>On Apr 26, 2004, at 2:03 PM, delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Do you all realize that you are NOT advising anyone about your 
>> concerns, nor
>> providing "assistance" anymore?
>> You are actually trying to *dictate* actions?
>> You are making DEMANDS.......not suggesting routes of action, like 
>> ONCE was
>> the goal.......
>>
>> and all this *constant* deriding of the "Election Office".......these 
>> are
>> people *trying* to do the right thing.....they're NOT hidden 
>> anarchists and
>> incompetent boobs, for the most part. (tho there may be a couple of 
>> hidden
>> boobs in the woodpile, the top administration is well aware of them)
>>
>> This is why *I* for one have backed off this CVV group......
>> I'm tired of hearing everything and everyone who *doesn't* agree 100% 
>> with
>> CVV demands, made out to be grossly incompetent or criminally 
>> negligent.
>>
>> This is an issue with valid points on *both* sides......
>> What happened to the spirit of cooperation?
>>
>> Bo Shaffer
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Citizens for Verifiable Voting" <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>> <commissioners@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "Leslie Lacy" <llacy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 1:09 PM
>> Subject: Comment OPPOSED to Voting System Purchase
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 4/26/04
>>>
>>> To: Boulder County Citizens & Board of Commissioners
>>>
>>> Fellow Boulder County Citizens:
>>>
>>> Our so-called representatives have ultimately failed us.
>>>
>>> We have made it clear that we do not support any purchase of any 
>>> voting
>>> system at this time, that we do not support the storage of votes
>>> electronically under any circumstances, that accuracy is more 
>>> important
>>> than speed, and that undisclosed voting software is entirely unwelcome
>>> in our community.
>>>
>>> And what do we get? An over-inflated purchase contract for a system 
>>> for
>>> which our own elected representatives and paid staff cannot guarantee
>>> us that there will be any verification of results and that the "Paper
>>> Ballots" central to the voting process may not even legally be treated
>>> as such. Not to mention only a few days to review hundreds of pages of
>>> contract language (and then only thanks to a dedicated Citizen's
>>> efforts) to attempt to find additional fault with an already flawed
>>> process that is being forced upon us at great taxpayer expense at the
>>> same time we are told we face an ongoing budget crisis.
>>>
>>> Based on even a brief reading of the contract, there are clearly new
>>> problems compounding the already broken process that produced it. For
>>> example, the term "eSlate" -- the vendor's brand for unverifiable
>>> computer terminal voting equipment -- appears repeatedly, making it
>>> suddenly unclear again what system is actually being "purchased" now
>>> and going forward, that among other unexplained costs there is $10,000
>>> apportioned for some type of electronic vote communications system 
>>> that
>>> has heretofore not been mentioned. Most importantly though, absolutely
>>> no provision has been made in the contract to answer Boulder County
>>> Citizens' specific requirements for Trustworthy Elections for which
>>> both the Commissioners and the County Clerk's office have been
>>> repeatedly requested, and thus, no accountability for not meeting our
>>> requirements, either.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it is clear that the only "purchase" being made is 
>>> largely
>>> of hardware destined to be obsolete well within the expected lifespan
>>> of a voting system, and that any and all of the vendor's software will
>>> only be "leased" to the County requiring renewed annual payments that
>>> are not detailed. It is also not clear why, for example, "Three
>>> Workstations per Scanner" are required, since no such operational or
>>> technical information to explain these extraneous and inconsistent
>>> components has been provided to the Citizens despite repeated 
>>> requests.
>>>
>>> The Citizens of Boulder County have made it abundantly clear in
>>> multiple presentations to the Commissioners and County Clerk that,
>>> among other concerns, "Accuracy is more important than Speed" in the
>>> tabulation of results, yet it appears that the Commissioners 
>>> completely
>>> ignored this and in direct contradiction to the Citizen's requests,
>>> instructed the County Clerk's office to "purchase" additional 
>>> equipment
>>> with the expressed intent of increasing the Speed, not the Accuracy, 
>>> of
>>> counting. Furthermore, despite the Commissioners' voiced concerns 
>>> about
>>> the state's unconscionable laws regarding recount methodology, they 
>>> are
>>> continuing to support the purchase of a system for which the legal
>>> status of recounting is at best deliberately vague.
>>>
>>> Instead, the Commissioners are essentially rubber-stamping a contract
>>> by and for an Elections Office that despite months of opportunity, has
>>> failed to demonstrated that it either cares for or is capable of
>>> conducting quality elections by: using an uncertified system during 
>>> the
>>> last election (for which there has been no known accountability);
>>> failing to demonstrate proper procedures (leading to a complete 
>>> recount
>>> of the same election); and repeatedly dismissing the detailed concerns
>>> and requirements of local citizens and national experts with much
>>> greater knowledge of technological systems than they admit to possess.
>>> Instead of any professional verification and documentation of such
>>> claims and correction of such issues, "our" Elections Office has
>>> continuously relied on the verbal assurances of multiple vendors for
>>> whom there is no doubt substantial profit motive in every transaction,
>>> and ignored the growing body of public evidence that suggests 
>>> virtually
>>> all existing electronic voting equipment is unsuitable for use in
>>> elections.
>>>
>>> While it is already clear that despite repeated warnings from the
>>> Citizens NOT to purchase any system at this time, the Commissioners 
>>> and
>>> County Clerk's office will forge ahead in unison to waste our money,
>>> continue to work in disregard for their constituents' requirements, 
>>> and
>>> remain wholly unrepresentative of the People's interests regarding 
>>> this
>>> matter. Indeed Boulder County's Elections Manager is quoted in the
>>> Boulder Daily Camera as being more concerned about the interests of 
>>> the
>>> private investors of the vendor than the requirements of the people he
>>> was hired to serve.
>>>
>>> Please let this comment stand as public record that although large
>>> numbers of local citizens continue to attempt to provide highly
>>> valuable assistance in this process to achieve Trustworthy Elections,
>>> the County has deliberately and collectively ignored them and thus
>>> failed in their commission as representatives of the public's
>>> interests, and that these repeated failures on this matter both
>>> directly and indirectly undermine the central premise of Democracy 
>>> that
>>> Citizens hold dear and to which we are entitled, namely trust in the
>>> system and its processes.
>>>
>>> Be it by ignorance or intent makes no difference, may Our Democracy
>>> survive such blatant and repeated disregard for the most fundamental
>>> act of legitimizing governance.
>>>
>>> Disappointed Boulder County, Colorado Citizen,
>>>
>>> Joe Pezzillo
>>> PO Box J
>>> Boulder, Colorado USA
>>> jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>