RE: How can Neal say Boulder's election was accurate

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

So, they can be paid $1, to make it legal. Parties charge each other
$1 all the time for rent or whatever. I don't know what the legal
name is for this kind of thing.

Evan

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Some Guy wrote:

> There is no *free*. The volunteers get paid $10 an hour. The polling judges
> were getting $150 per day.
> The clerk has to pay them to make them employees otherwise they can't
> legally make them dance to the tune.
>
> But it sure as hell isn't going to cost $1.3M.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 7:01 PM
> To: kellen carey
> Cc: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: How can Neal say Boulder's election was accurate
>
>
> You're forgetting, Kell, that people here in Boulder care enough
> about elections that we got 130+ people in less than 3 days to
> volunteer over 1000 hours to count.
>
> IF the county asked for vounteers in our utility bills, we'd have
> thousands to count for free.
>
> We employ election officials to do the research and the math.
>
> I suggest we don't exhaust ourselves on the details but decide what
> we want, learn how to say it simply so everyone will agree with us,
> and then get citizens to join us in asking for it.
>
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well
> enough." -Einstein
>
> Evan
>
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, kellen carey wrote:
>
> > Evan,
> >
> > Do you know how many different races people typically
> > vote on in one election in other countries?  Most
> > (nearly all, if my comparative politics isn't too
> > dated) European countries don't vote on amendments,
> > initiatives, referendums, recalls, judges, etc. in
> > elections.
> >
> > Just a reminder: it took three election judges about
> > 5+ hours to count only 597 ballots with only three
> > races in the Spring 2004 Nederland election.  There
> > were about 25-30 different contests in this Boulder
> > County 2004 election, with some 150,000+ voters.  I'll
> > let others do the math.
> >
> > I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't handcount, given
> > the obvious transparency, verifiability, and accuracy
> > advantages.
> >
> > But it would be nice to hear a definitive answer on
> > this question from other countries.
> >
> > kell
> >
> > --- Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Some Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > > For the length of time that it took to count the
> > > vote, it could have been
> > > > done by hand in each precinct.
> > >
> > > I believe countries that do it by hand do it in
> > > precincts -in hours,
> > > not days.
> > >
> > > What we have is the kluge of kluges: Illegally
> > > tested (thanks for
> > > trying, Al) proprietary software running on Windows,
> > > intersecting
> > > with the vaguaries of printing, and the greatest
> > > motive in history:
> > > the Presidency.
> > >
> > > If humans see imperfect boxes we have no problem
> > > compensating.
> > >
> > > But instead of hand-counting which is cheaper
> > > ($1.82/vote in Canada
> > > compared to $3-6 here) more accurate (according to
> > > MIT/Caltech),
> > > done in public (poll watchers watching) with the $
> > > going to humans
> > > not software corps, we will get a very sophistocated
> > > expensive
> > > way of making the boxes better, kluged on top of the
> > > pile of shit
> > > we're now buying.
> > >
> > > Poll watchers THINK they're watching now, but
> > > they're staring at
> > > "black boxes."
> > >
> > > Evan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> > www.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>