Re: Comment OPPOSED to Voting System Purchase

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

Ralph is right. Government of, by and for bureaucrats means
government against the people.

Evan

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:

> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>