FW: More reasons to avoid electronic voting!

["Paul Tiger - LPBC Publicity" <Publicity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This comes from Ralph on-the-road, who apparently cannot post to these
lists. -- Paul Tiger

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:35 PM
To: Paul Tiger
Subject: Re: More reasons to avoid electronic voting!

Please post an edited version of this to the various lists, please.

Or post all of it.

Ralph


On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:23:07 -0700, you wrote:

>Fine. Clarification understood. I don't like Bo's position and have told
him
>as much.
>
>The state board won't do diddly, I promise you. We'll just need to do it
>ourselves in the press. More later - gotta run.
>
>paul
>
>-----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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006