Re: More reasons to avoid electronic voting!

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:13:20 -0700, you wrote:

>Ralph (et al),

It is a measure of how important this issue is to me that I am writing this
in my hotel room as I vacation in New York City with my daughter.  I should
be sleeping or relaxing but, instead, I'm doing this.

>
>Despite your difference of opinion with Mr. Shaffer and desire to have the
>LPCO denounce the elections system in Boulder (for which they care little) -
>why would you want to ask for the state party to denounce Mr. Shaffer
>himself?

Here's what I wrote:  "... I ask the State Board to issue a public statement
in support of hand-counted paper ballots and to denounce Mr. Shaffer's
endorsement of the lease of the Hart Intercivic machinery in Boulder
County."

I did not ask them to denounce Mr. Shaffer.  I asked them to denounce his
position on the lease of the Hart Intercivic machinery.  Do you not see the
difference?

>They wouldn't do it; you know they wouldn't do that, but you insist on
>making such statements anyway.

It is not at all clear to me that they wouldn't.

>I only bother to reply in public because Bo was asked to become involved. He
>didn't seek this position. Rather than get any support from you or anyone

He was asked to become involved for two reasons:

a) He is Chair of the Boulder County Libertarians and as such he gives
legitimacy to a corrupt process.  At least the ACLU said, "Thanks, but no
thanks."

b) Mr. Shaffer has a history of making nice-nice with the Clerk.  What
better person to pick for a committee than one who has shown obsequiousness
to the Clerk?

>here, he got a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Yeah, so?

>
>If people have different opinions than you do, is it correct and proper for
>you to call them idiots in a public forum? Well of course you can speak
>freely, but you're not going to be able to make positive changes if you rip
>people's heads off and defecate down their necks.

The positive change I'm making is to show that not everyone in the
Libertarian Party agrees with Mr. Shaffer's decision to support insecure
elections.

>
>You didn't vote for Bo so obviously he doesn't speak for you. But you also
>didn't vote for anyone else. When the polls were open you weren't anywhere
>to be found. You could easily be on the board of the LP and speak on behalf
>of the party. You've chosen to speak just for Ralph. We're all fine with
>that.
>You've heard me yap about non-voters who whine incessantly about their
>elected leaders, but refuse to participate? You're participating in a number
>of ways, one of which is to whine about things that you could have had a say
>in, but declined.

In a world of limited resources, I cannot be all things to all people.  I
work hard to make this world a better place.  Working on the LPBC board is
not one of the places that - at this time - I want to invest any time in.

>
>Bo's got an opinion. It isn't yours. It's not mine either (in this case). So
>why am I not using Bo as my personal toilet? I can easily lambaste him here
>for his opinions and often do, but I don't go running to mommy and ask her
>to write a note siding with me over him.

Let me go through this slowly, Mr. Tiger, so that you understand it.

Mr. Shaffer, through his support of the lease of DREs, is (even by your
reasoning) supporting insecure elections.  As you've pointed out, use of
these machines is insecure and therefore elections can easily be stolen.

If elections can be stolen, then the Libertarian Party may never be able to
get anyone elected.  Indeed, the only people who will be elected are the
people who control the voting machinery (or the people who know how to hack
the machinery).

Had Mr. Shaffer said, "I am supporting this but this is not necessarily the
position of the Libertarian Party" then I would have been all right with
this.  But he signed his note as Chair of the LPBC.

The only group of people who can mitigate this damage to the LP is the state
board.  It is why I will appeal to them to denounce Mr. Shaffer's position.
The State Board may or may not do anything, but at least I tried.

>
>SG

Ralph Shnelvar
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:32 AM
>To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: lpboulder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lpco-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: More reasons to avoid electronic voting!
>
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:43:36 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>The concern over the first story is ridiculous.
>>go read about X-10.
>>Info tx along power lines is old technology. Been around for decades.
>>It will not open up computers to hacking anymore than they are exposed to
>it
>>on Broadband or DSL.
>>and, those machines under consideration around *here* have no internet
>>access capability anyway, regardless of how you intend to transmit it.
>>
>>The second story is nothing new either.....
>>silicon Valley Geeks have been making back doors and spyware ever since
>>software was invented.
>>how are *they* stopped from putting trapdoors into software meant for
>>electronic voting???
>
>The fact that you understand the second point and yet cannot follow through
>to understand that electronic voting machines should not come anywhere near
>the vote counting process is truly depressing.
>
>"Hey, that's just the way it is and has been for a while," is precisely what
>we're trying to correct.
>
>Nonetheless, it is consistent with your illogical position that the
>Libertarian State Party is bound by rules (no endorsement of non-Libertarian
>candidates) that state-authorized affiliates are not bound by.
>
>[Although Mr. Shaffer is the official voice of the Libertarian Party in
>Boulder County, he does not speak for me.  Indeed, I ask the State Board to
>issue a public statement in support of hand-counted paper ballots and to
>denounce Mr. Shaffer's endorsement of the lease of the Hart Intercivic
>machinery in Boulder County.]
>
>Ralph Shnelvar
>Who holds no official position in the Libertarian Party