Re: Election Review Committee meetings to come...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:56:27 -0700 Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Dear Peter:
>
> It is sometimes difficult to express emotional tone in an eMail so
> please
> understand that the following is being written in a friendly way and
> that my
> questions to you are not being written sarcastically or
> rhetorically.
>
> I am asking for your input to explain to me what you think will be
> accomplished by either Evan or me showing up to an ERC meeting. Is
> it just
> to have two more bodies show up and display their disgust with the
> voting
> process?
>
> From my perspective, the purpose of the committee is to
>         Fix the machines
>
> 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.
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
>