RE: [stopvotefraud] Re: [VerifiedVoting.org lobbyists] Ensign Bill S2437

["Paul Tiger" <paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Kolwicz's remarks were in the form of a statement and therefore not
indicative of an argument.
Though the language could use some help, it can be a statement supportive of
a decisive solution.

I personally would reverse the order and begin with the solution and then
make supportive statements of the features.

If you look at many of the bills published by the legislative council you'll
see that most are laid out that way. Resolutions are often the different
ones, and that of course is what Mr. Kolwicz is proposing. However I believe
that this could be a bill, and this is the perfect time to go shopping for a
legislator to support it.

Paul Tiger

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Gubrud [mailto:mgubrud@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:48 PM
To: AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Andrew G. Silver'; 'Pamela Smith'; lobbyists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
stopvotefraud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ncverifiablevoting@xxxxxxxxx; Citizens for
Verifiable Voting; Dr. Charles Corry; Sheila Horton; Pete Klammer; Bob
Mcgrath; Carol Mehesy; Donna Plutschuck; Monty Lambie; Peter Raich; Tracy
Abell
Subject: Re: [stopvotefraud] Re: [VerifiedVoting.org lobbyists] Ensign Bill
S2437

Your essential claim is that the ballot receipts would be

> printed in a form that is excessively
> difficult for voters to verify and costly for
> officials to use for independent counting

If this is true, it constitutes the substance of your argument.
However, you do not provide any evidence to support this claim.

The fact that the receipts would rarely be counted is not very
relevant to their function as a deterrent to vote-rigging, or
as an incentive to contractors and officials to ensure security.