[no subject]

Evan and my agenda is to have hand counted paper ballots.  Al's agenda is to
make sure that the electoral process is open, fair, and accurate.  I don't
know if he supports hand counted paper ballots but I suspect that he would
support hand counted paper ballots if there were the proper controls.



Perhaps a little background will help explain where I'm coming from.

As people on this list may or may not know, both Evan and I are politically
active.  What may be surprising is that Evan and I are friends and that I
deeply respect (and agree with!) the vast majority of his political
positions.

Both Evan and I are spread very thin fighting a multitude of political
battles.  Whether it is wise to be spread so thin is an open question but,
at least for me, being able to hook people up so that things get
accomplished is deeply satisfying.

For instance, about a week ago I worked with my friends (both political and
otherwise), Thomas and Larissa Lawrence, to get them on local TV news.
Perhaps you remember them?  They were the people who successfully managed to
get their medical marijuana back from the Denver police.  It made front page
news.

"Working" the press took me about 8 hours.  It meant taking the day off of
work and driving to the event and ...


Peter, I have no idea if the medical marijuana issue is a hot button for
you.  Nonetheless, I hope you understand that there are only so many hours
that I can devote to these issues.  I do, in fact, have a job.  I'm trying
to sell my house.  I'm picking up a bridge loan to purchase yet another
house so that I have a place to move my family into when I sell this house.
I have to help my kids with their homework.  I've got a lot of balls in the
air.

So, Peter, (and again, this is being written in a friendly way), do you
think that it is worth my time to attend this ERC meeting?  Let me put it
this way: If you were my boss and you saw all the things (both personal and
civic) that I was doing, would you tell me, "Ralph, attend the ERC
meeting."?

I ask you this, Peter, because I may not know how important the ERC meeting
is.  I may be missing something.

Yes, the press is covering it.  But I can tell you with absolute certainty
that this coverage is making no impact on the citizenry's consciousness.  I
know because I ask people.  You want the pulse of Boulder?  Talk to a random
barber and a hairdresser.

My prejudice is that the ERC is a total waste of time for all the
participants.  If you feel differently, please explain why and then I will
make up my mind whether to take the time to attend this Friday.

I am open to having my mind changed.

Ralph Shnelvar



On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:51:23 -0700, you wrote:

>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.
>> > >>
>> >
>> 
>>