[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Write-In Ballots



I have in mind this "crazy" idea that I'm supposed to protect and defend our nation from threats both external AND internal.

I have come to the (nearly irrefutable?) conclusion that privatized voting machines are a threat from within.

Thus, sorry, unlike everyone else it seems, I've got no plans to compromise Our Democracy.

If I remember correctly, "anarchy" means self-rule (maybe you meant "chaos" which means more like no rules), and yes, I'll take self-rule over corporate rule anyday, but I'd still prefer a world class democracy!

You all want to continue to sell out our community out to HartIntercivic because you can't think of anything better, or because that's more politically correct than talking about the elephant in the room, fine.

It's still my job to try and stop you, and that's what I intend to do.

I think you're all the ones who are crazy, (especially you Libertarians who should know better), for wasting so much time on trying to replace our democracy with machines. Two different methods have been provided to you of how other Democracies are able to achieve hand counting efficiently. A truly independent panel would ignore valuable information like this at its own peril, obviously there's no pressure on this panel to do anything other than rubberstamp whatever Linda Salas wants.

Obviously, at least several of you feel that instead I am the "crazy" one. I guess only history will be able to tell who was right.

There are some issues on which compromise is not only inappropriate, it's potentially fatal.

Just remember, any "compromised" election system is unlikely to meet the "Trustworthy Elections" criterial that this community developed by consensus.


We don't have paper ballots, you've got "Ballot Images"

We don't have a non-proprietary system

We don't have any useful auditing mandated (even under the sell-out elections bill)

And we haven't passed any legislation, or for that matter gotten any polticians to support such measures.


So, I ask you, have those four points been achieved, or has the continuous compromise from so called Patriots led us down a different, and not so trustworthy path?

Where are your backbones people?

Joe





On Apr 21, 2005, at 12:30 AM, Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach wrote:

Joe - I agree with this method and would like to see it used. Barring some
unforeseen circumstance - such as Mutant 59 destroying life as we know it -
the system we have now will continue to be used.

My question regarded Mary's response to write-ins. Mary didn't say anything
about what system is to be employed, but addressed the write-ins themselves.

One of the things that the committee has addressed REPEATEDLY was the poor
planning of how ballots with known issues were treated. Instead of parallel
processes with known good ballots and questionable ballots being routed to
separate workstations; all ballots were jumbled together. Every time a
ballot with issues of anything from a misprint to a write in caused a work
slowdown.
This was and is a simple process issue. This could have been avoided, but
the process design was barely existent. Simply a rework of the past. All of
the issues of how to deal with anomalies were based on a system that we no
longer have. There was no back up plan. There was nothing inherent in the
design that allowed for variance, and no premeditated way to deal with
ballot anomalies.

Those standing inside of the (non-working) process could not see any way to
affect the existing process. Furthermore, the laws and the SoS rules
prevented them from altering the process design once it was found not to be
efficient.
The Clerk submits a ballot handling plan; the SoS approves it; and it goes
on from there, with the clerk following her plan. It is possible that the
plan might have been altered with an okay from the SoS, but if you will
recall - Donetta had left the state and was in AZ during the election.

What we hope to see in the future is a quality management system that
affects the entire process. A part of that would be to segregate the known
bad ballots (and those with write-ins) from the known good ballots and work
them in parallel - NOT serially.

Joe - At least half of the committee, perhaps all, understand that there are
other methods and systems to deal with the ballots. And we want the county
to re-examine its dedication to the Hart system. Be that as it may, the Hart
system is here to stay, at least for this next election.
So rather than to keep suggesting a method that will not be used, we'd like
to entertain suggestions on improving what we are using. I know this sucks,
but we either fix the processes or promise the voters that this will happen
again and that we're just not going to do anything about it. aka - anarchy.

I want us to dump this system, but I don't want anarchy. How about you?

People like Mary; Paul; and Neal have come to understand that one of the
biggest faults in November was of an unplanned process for ballot handling.
Like in 03, while Bo and I worked on the election, dozens of undocumented
changes were made. They were undocumented not really out of laziness, but
expediency. Methods changed so often that a judge come back from dinner and
have no idea how things were working an hour after they'd left.
To acknowledge change would me asking the SoS for a variance, which is
embarrassing. Its human nature for someone who is supposed to be in control
to pretend to be in control even when it is evident that they are not.

The bottom line concerning write-ins, no matter if you are using the Swiss
or the Hart methods, is that they must be handled through a different
process. Write-ins should not be processed in the same batches as other
ballots. At least that's my take on it.

So back to the question of how to deal with write-ins working with the Hart
system?
Joe - if you don't have an answer that applies to the system that we have
and are keeping, then any answer you give is simply an argument.
Can we please stick to constructive work, or is anarchy all you have in
mind?

paul