Re: Least cost estimates as a justification for government course of action

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Paul:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:15:39 -0700, you wrote:

>On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 03:35:12PM -0700, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
>> Dear Paul:
>> 
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:13:59 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> >> 
>> >> Both Alisa and Linda presented cost estimates for mail v. precinct
>> >> elections.  Those numbers are publicly available.  If Joe and/or Neal could
>> >> point readers at those numbers, I am sure that the readers would be
>> >> grateful.
>> >> 
>> >> One of the costs that - as far as I can tell - was not included in the
>> >> estimates was the cost of stamps that each citizen who wished to vote would
>> >> have to pay for.  This appears to be an "off budget" item because,
>> >> obviously, the City does not directly pay for this out of funds in the
>> >> City's coffer's.
>> >> 
>> >> At approximately $0.70/ballot, if this cost to the citizens of the election
>> >> were added (and this is money that the citizens are truly spending) then it
>> >> would appear that the true cost of a mail-in ballot to the citizens of
>> >> Boulder vastly exceed the cost of a precinct election.  Yes, the "cost"
>> >> *apparently* drops to zero if the citizen drops off the ballot at a central
>> >> location but then the citizen must make a special trip and that, too, costs
>> >> time and money.
>> >> 
>> >> So, Alisa, I ask you to please consider that the governance of Boulder is
>> >> not government v. citizens; but that the total cost to citizens be the
>> >> appropriate measure of the cost of the election rather than the
>> >> out-of-pocket cost to the government of the City of Boulder.  A mail-in
>> >> ballot is a hidden tax on the citizens of Boulder.
>> >> 
>> >> It is my opinion upon reviewing the numbers that a precinct election would
>> >> reflect a total lower cost to the citizens of Boulder and that that is what
>> >> you, Alisa, as a government official, should be considering as, perhaps, one
>> >> of the major concern.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Respectfully,
>> >> 
>> >> Ralph Shnelvar
>> >
>> >I have some difficulty with least cost estimates as a justification
>> >for a particular course of action in government affairs. There are
>> >usually policy considerations that far out weigh cost
>> >considerations. This is a such a case. I agree with Ralph that there
>> >is merit in having precinct balloting, but I think he should not
>> >object to the details of a least cost calculation.  The cost of a
>> >flawed balloting process is unknowable and very large. 
>> 
>> First, let me say that "least cost" is not my consideration: it appears to
>> be Alisa's and, by proxy, the Council's.  My preference is for hand counting
>> even at considerable extra cost over, say, DREs.
>> 
>
>Look, I don't want to say anything that might be taken to be a serious
>disagreement within the ranks of verifiable voting advocates. I just thought
>you were saying at one point that the cost estimate was flawed because
>it failed to account for the cost of postage to the voter. I prefer to
>object to mail voting on general societal grounds because there can always
>be found a bean counter who will come up with a more convoluted argument.

This is true.  Nonetheless, bean counting is often what is done in
government to justify one course of action versus another.

It happens in government.  It happens in business.  It happens in my home
and, I suspect, it happens in yours.

>
>> The city is very short of funds.  Nonetheless, offloading the cost of an
>> election from an on-budget item to an off-budget item is not good
>> government.
>> 
>> >
>> >But what Ralph, and I, consider a flaw may not be considered a flaw
>> >by others.
>> 
>> I don't understand.
>
>Address the issue of hand counting, and like the best 'publican flacks,
>stay on message. Convince them, or at least convince the bystanders.
>Keep up the good fight, but not with me. I'm on your side.

See my comments, below.

>
>> 
>> >Pretending it is just a matter of cost accounting is itself
>> >certainly a flaw. 
>> 
>> Expense is certainly one component necessary to make a public policy
>> decision.  If Alisa raises the cost issue then it is only fair to let me do
>> the same.
>
>Expense considerations would have lead to abandonment of the war on drugs
>long ago, if expense considerations were really important.
>
>> 
>> In terms of expense (and expense only): For Alisa, apparently, it is the
>> cost to government that counts.  For me, it is the total cost to the
>> citizens that counts.
>> 
>
>But even cost to government should not be determinative. If it were we would
>stop having elections and let issues be decided by roving reporters from the
>Camera. That would involve no cost to the government. If people don't like
>the result, let them sue the Camera. (not serious ;-)
>
>> Ralph Shnelvar
>
>Keep up the good work. 

I have no quarrel with either what you state explicitly or what you imply.

To be clear: I totally agree with everything that you are saying.

OK, now argue with that.  :-)

Ralph