Re: Fwd: New meaning to being "Observers" to an election...Is this what is in store for Colorado?

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

As usual, I completely agree with Al.

Indeed, as you wrote on March 9:
- - - - -
Mr. Shaffer was involved in the LATs; he's the LP party chair; and was a
candidate for SD17. His reward: insults.
- - - - -

Why should I cooperate and/or testify when I already know what the results
will be?

As Joe, I hope, will confirm, I have been moderately active behind the
scenes trying to make positive change.  I have met with Joe & Co. on several
occasions.  I have met with Joe & Co. and Salas and Lewis to try to get hand
counted paper ballots for the March election.

I spend my time where I think it will be maximally effective.  Just because
_you_ don't see me where you want to see me does not mean that I am
inactive.  Standing in front of you and testifying to what you already know
would be nothing more than gum flapping.

Your group has no authority. Your group will file a report, the newspapers
will report that the commission is finished, and that will be the end of it.

The professional politicians will be happy that the incident has passed out
of voter consciousness and you and the commission will have spent dozens of
hours digging holes and then filling them up.  Enormous work and sweat will
have been generated but nothing will have been accomplished.

Ralph Shnelvar



On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:09:56 -0700, you wrote:

>Paul,
>
>Unless I am mistaken, there is no independent committee investigating the
>elections.
>
>There is a county appointed group studying why election results took longer
>than hoped for.
>
>This group is not independent, and is not investigating the elections.
>
>We do not consider it a problem should secure, accurate and verifiable
>elections take time.
>
>Al
>
>
>
>Al Kolwicz
>2867 Tincup Circle
>Boulder, CO 80305
>303-494-1540
>AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach [mailto:outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 10:10 AM
>To: Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net
>Subject: RE: Fwd: New meaning to being "Observers" to an election...Is this
>what is in store for Colorado?
>
>And isn't it interesting now that there's an independent committee
>investigating the elections, that you don't show up to speak about how you
>were not allowed to observe. And we've never seen Al or any CAMBER people.
>
>You can whine; piss; moan; and shout from the rooftops, but when given an
>opportunity to actually make things better you don't show up. Neither you
>nor Al.
>
>Neal; Joe; & Richard. Possibly five people who've been activists. These
>people actually want positive change - you want and will get anarchy.
>
>paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:49 AM
>To: Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net
>Subject: Re: Fwd: New meaning to being "Observers" to an election...Is this
>what is in store for Colorado?
>
>To those of you who have not had the pleasure of being an observer at any
>logic test, count, or canvass, let me assure you that - at least in Boulder
>and at least at the times when I was present - an observer is too far away
>from anything to observe anything other than the fact that something is
>going on.
>
>Argh!
>
>This is something that Al Kolwicz has been complaining about for years and
>years.  It is satisfying to see - in a schadenfreude sort of way - that
>others are now complaining about the same thing.
>
>Ralph Shnelvar
>
>