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

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Evan and all:

If you have not studied Public Choice Theory then you probably would enjoy
it because you have said - in a very few words - what that theory proposes.

A brief summary can be found at
http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/pub-choice.html

I am a believer in Public Choice Theory.  It drives my view of the world and
it tells me one very basic thing: In order to get people to participate in
politics one needs to make it apparent that the costs of not participating
will rise dramatically compared to the costs of participating.

In other words: To get people to express their concerns and get organized,
you've got to get them riled up.

Of course, not everyone needs to be riled up in order to participate in
politics; just like not everyone will eat steak if the price of steak drops
to zero.  It's just that you'll get more people to eat steak at a price of
zero than you will at a price of $1000 per pound.

Ralph Shnelvar


On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:42:28 -0700 (MST), you wrote:

>
>I think something like half of your 65% "clueless" are that way
>because they "despair" of getting thru the spin and hype at the
>truth with the time, energy etc they have.
>
>For example, they know it's not completely a joke when ERC chair
>Richard Lyons said they might just put their cover on the
>Republican's report on the election, as reported in the CO Daily
>today.
>
>It's unlikely the ERC will go beyond its charge and insist on public
>voting software to make vote counting public and transparent again.
>They will do what the bureaucrats want and talk about rearranging
>deck chairs.
>
>But I will make the case for truly public vote counting at their
>meeting soon.
>
>Evan
>
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:34:12 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> >I think the real question to ask about the low turnout at these
>> >meetings and in the election is "do people care less?" or "do people
>> >feel more disenfranchised?"
>> >
>> >Certainly, a strong argument can be made that "people don't care,"
>> >especially with a short term office like the City Council vacancy or an
>> >exciting issue like the coordination of elections, but after what
>> >happened in November, isn't it also possible that people aren't
>> >participating because they don't feel confident in the overall process,
>> >as much as they may not care?
>> >
>> >I know I've been as guilty as anyone in the past of adding to the
>> >noise, but given how low-volume this list has become, I hope we can
>> >focus on the signal.
>> >
>> >Thanks to everyone for all your efforts to help us achieve trustworthy
>> >elections in Boulder County!
>>
>> Let me give a try at this.
>>
>> Both the Libertarian and Green parties have noticed - as you have noticed -
>> that people simply are not willing to participate in politics.
>>
>> The cause of this is varied.  I'll catalog my unscientific observations.
>>
>>
>> (1) 65%: Clueless.  They are uninterested in politics and couldn't care less
>> if the country was run by George Bush or Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
>>
>> (2) 15%.  The free rider problem:  "I'll let someone else take care of
>> this."
>>
>> (2) 10%.  Despair. Nothing I could possibly do will help.
>>
>> (3) 5%. I think elections are honest.  What are you talking about?
>>
>> (4) 4%. Between the kids, working two jobs, and sleep, I wish I could help.
>>
>> (5) 0.5%: I'm involved politically but I can't devote any time to this.
>>
>> (6) 0.4%: I'm involved politically and I think that being able to rig the
>> voting system is a very good thing. It means that my side has a chance of
>> winning.
>>
>> (7) 0.1%: I'll support this movement with my time and effort.
>>
>>
>>
>> So how do we change things?  It's hard to do it without getting people riled
>> up.
>>
>> Most of you already know my position on getting people riled up.
>>
>> Ralph Shnelvar
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Joe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mar 13, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>>