Re: Write-In Ballots

["Delta" <delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh, I pay attention.......
It's just that I haven't the time to haggle over details.
that's *your* job....;-)

for the record, I think hand counting a small portion of the vote as a vote
verification method is reasonable.
Hand counting all the votes in a general election is not.
We need to drag our voting system into the 21st century and out of the Dark
Ages.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.......MAKE electronic voting
work!
It ought to be able to do what we want it to do....have an easily counted,
accurate and verifiable vote.
Whether it's the Swiss method or some version of what we already have, let's
stop ranting about how bad things are and make what we have work.
Is that possible?

Bo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Shnelvar" <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net" <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Write-In Ballots


> Dear Joe:
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:43:32 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> I could not agree more.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >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.
>
> I'm sorry, Joe, that was uncalled for.
>
> Yes, Libertarians should know better ... but so should everyone else.
>
> My take on Paul Tiger is that he happens to agree with us on hand-counted
> paper ballots but was unable to  get the ERC to move in that direction.
>
> Is that fair statement of your position, Paul?
>
> I don't know what the Libertarian County Chair's position on hand-counted
> paper ballots is.  Is Bo still paying attention to this list?
>
> And, finally, Joe, you know how hard (unfortunately, not hard enough,
sorry)
> I've been pushing for hand-counted paper ballots.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >
> >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, as you become more and more frustrated with those who wish to either
> "work within the system" or "willing to compromise on fundamentals", I
hope
> that you appreciate why I have been promoting "radical action" and a lot
of
> noise.
>
> Please, Joe and everyone else, this is not meant as an "I told you so".  I
> was fully aware that requesting strong actions from people unfamiliar with
> the arteriosclerosis of our political system would lead nowhere.
>
> But I _am_ suggesting that the next opportunity (Sigh, we lost so many
> golden opportunities.) that we have to get this issue in front of the
people
> that we exploit every PR trick and street theater and whatever it takes to
> change the freaking' system so that we get what we need: fair and open
> elections.
>
> In terms of backbone, Joe: We need more than just backbone.  We need luck.
>
> And as I have said in many private eMails to you, Joe: May the gods bless
> you.  I yip from the sidelines but you do so much of the heavy lifting.
>
> I am, Joe, forever grateful to you.
>
> >
> >Joe
>
> Ralph
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>