RE: More reasons to avoid electronic voting!

["Delta" <delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was on a Team that was charged with deciding if the Hart machines fit the
Request for Proposal.....
They do, with reservations. (See Official document)

I was NOT on a Team that was debating the merits of DRE's.
as much as the Ralph and Al Pony Show would *like* to change the focus of
things.....
It isn't about them.

Try for all the sanctions you want.....
but I would suggest you read the LPBC bylaws first, to find out just what
the Chair's Job is, eh?
Particularly VI A 1 and 8.....

So, I assume that we will be seeing Mr. Shnelvar at the Board meeting on the
12th to express his displeasure?

Bo Shaffer
LPBC Chair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:24 AM
> To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lpboulder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lpco-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: More reasons to avoid electronic voting!
>
>
> 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
>
>
>