Re: Election Review Committee meetings to come...

[Peter or Alison Richards <aprichards@xxxxxxxx>]

To:  Evan Ravitz
        Ralph Shnelvar

From:  Peter Richards

Date: Monday, 14 March 2005,     20:40

Re:  Boulder County Election Review Committee

It would be nice if either of you would come to an Election Review
Committee meeting.

In my memory, neither of you has attended one meeting...

The next three meetings are as follows:

Fri. 18  March  2005,   13:00  to 17:00

Fri. 25 March 2005,   13:00 to 17:00

Fri. 1 April 2005,  13:00 to 17:00

All meetings are at the 33rd St. Election headquarters, just north of the
RTD garage, and across the street from the Boulder Police Dept.  They
meet in the Charlotte Houston room, on the north side of the building, on
the ground floor.

The last meeting for any public comment is the 1 April meeting !!

Luckily, for the citizens of Boulder County, all three newspapers have
been at every meeting.   The Daily Camera,  Colorado Daily and Longmont
Times Call...

I will be looking for you...  Bye,  Peter Richards


On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:42:28 -0700 (MST) Evan Daniel Ravitz
<evan@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> 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.
> > >>
> >
> 
>