RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"

["Dr. Charles E. Corry" <ccorry@xxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess

At 9:51 AM -0600 1/22/09, Cliff West wrote:

> I was suggesting what you are calling
> approval voting. Colorado Statutes allow home rule counties and cities
> to conduct it, now.  If West Virginia, third poorest state in
> nation can do it, Colorado should be able to.

[West Virginia has long had a reputation for some of the most corrupt election practices in the nation. To use them as a model for an election is equivalent to putting Enron forward as a model for business.

    I would suggest you review Kathy Dopp's work http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/36-Instant-Runoff-Voting-Not-What-It-Seems.html on Instant Runoff Voting before making further statements about the method.]

>  Admittedly, a patchwork of home
> rule governments would not be able to change outcome of a
> Congressional or statewide race, but it could make county commission
> and house district reprsentative races more democratic and less
> influenced by campaign contributions.

[There seems to be confusion here. My understanding is that Colorado has home rule cities but all county governments are under state control and have to follow state law in all respects. Denver is a city and county and is probably an exception, as it is to law and order in general. Otherwise, home rule cities have no control over county commission or house district elections, which are run by county clerks. Conversely, some county clerks run elections for home rule cities, but I know of no exception where the reverse is true.]

            Chuck Corry

> > Subject: RE: election bills come to
> committee tomorrow "upon recess"
> > From: media@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:22:41 -0500
> > To: clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx; ccorry@xxxxxxxx; margitjo@xxxxxxxxx;
> harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; angielayton@xxxxxxxx;
> ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx;
> m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx;
> amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx; alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx; jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx;
> attendees@xxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx
> >
> > Clif
> > Approval voting simply adds the votes of first,second,third
> choices and is easy to count. IRV requires removing specific first
> choice votes, replacing with second place, and retallying, and very
> likely repeating this process again. IRV is relatively complex, for
> auditing surely requires interpretation to be separated from
> tabulation, and is well suited to computer rather than hand
> tabulation.
> >
> > There are many flavors of preferential voting. Not much has been
> done about planning for auditing IRV.
> >
> > I do support preferential methods, but not necessarily IRV.
> >
> > Harvie
> >
> > Cliff West <clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I should have said there were no contested contests in my
> jeffco precinct.
> > >
> > >I do not see why instant runoff voting would require
> computers. It appears to me totals for all candidates need to be added
> anyway and instant runoff voting would just increase totals, by
> allowing voter to vote for two of three or three or four candidates,
> etc.
> > >
> > >Why would this require a computer? People added totals before
> electronic calculators.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:34:04 -0700To:
> clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx; margitjo@xxxxxxxxx; harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; angielayton@xxxxxxxx;
> ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx;
> m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx;
> amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx; alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx; jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx;
> attendees@xxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> ccorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow
> "upon recess"CC: Rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >At 2:24 PM -0600 1/21/09, Cliff West wrote:
> > >I am in favor of eliminating uncontested contests from
> primary, to avoid wasting taxpayer money. There was not a single
> contested candidate in the Jefferson County Democratic primary this
> time - what a waste of time and money!
> > >
> > >[What we really need is to hold fewer special district,
> municipal, and elections to replace crooks caught in the act, who die,
> or resign. These positions could go unfilled until the next regular
> election without significant harm to the body politic.]
> > >
> > >We should try to pressure legislature and clerks to adopt
> instant runoff voting, in exchange for agreeing to end primary, which
> usually occurs too late to make any difference, in CO.
> > >
> > >[Instant runoff elections are the worst possible choice and
> no one has yet demonstrated how to make them work accurately and
> reliably. IRE also absolutely require computers to handle them but
> programming and other errors have been rampant where they've been
> tried. DON'T DO THAT! And primaries are necessary where two or more
> candidates are running for the same office, which is quite desirable
> in a democratic republic. Elections are not about cost, they are about
> preserving our Constitution and freedoms.]
> > >
> > > The largest potential source of mail ballot fraud is
> probably disabled nursing home patients and their low paid staff, who
> may be amenable to payoffs. I have not heard any credible proposals
> for reducing fraud in assited living centers. I have heard the going
> rate for BUYING a nursing home vote is $100, but do not know how
> accurate the figure is.
> > >
> > >[NO! The largest potential source of fraud with mail ballots
> is an insider at the clerk's office who has access to the ballot
> tabulation software. Mail ballots are typically counted in a back room
> at the clerk's office with little or no public oversight so an insider
> changing the outcomes is quite unlikely to be detected.
> > > For more on why mail ballots are a bad idea see
> http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-77.htm. Remember, you can have an
> honest election, or you can have a mail ballot election, but you can't
> have both at the same time.]
> > > Chuck Corry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:44:18 -0700Subject: election bills
> come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"From:
> margitjo@xxxxxxxxxxx: harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> angielayton@xxxxxxxx; ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> richey80304@xxxxxxxxx; m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx; clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> Tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx; amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx; ccorry@xxxxxxxx;
> alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx; jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx; attendees@xxxxxxx;
> cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Hi All,
> > > A couple of election bills are scheduled to come before the
> House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee TOMORROW AM,
> "UPON RECESS", i.e. when the general assembly recesses after
> their morning meeting, which is whenever...9AM? 9:30? You just have to
> go in early and hang around.
> > > The one that seems of most concern (although I haven't read
> the others in detail) is HB1015, which would allow all-mail ballot
> elections for primaries. (See attachment.) It is fourth on the list; I
> don't know how much time the first three bills will take. There is
> always the chance they won't make it to the fourth bill.
> > > (If you can show that mail ballot elections are not as
> secure because they don't have the protection of citizen oversight etc
> etc, then you can say that this will allow parties, if not others, to
> favor the candidates they prefer for their purposes. Citizen
> preferences for candidates could lose out to establishment candidates,
> for example. Right?)
> > > I hope those who can give good specific examples of security
> problems with mail ballots will come forward to testify. For Dems,
> examples that show monied interests undermining the vote with mail
> ballots is probably more compelling than individual vote fraud, given
> that recent studies have downplayed the effect of individual fraud.
> For Republicans, examples of individual fraud seems to resonate,
> though.
> > >I hope to see you computer experts, and election reformers
> all, at the hearing tomorrow AM!
> > >Thanks so much,
> > >Margit
> > >
> > >Margit Johansson, CFVI
> > >303-442-1668/ margitjo@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Windows LiveÅ Hotmail®:Smore than just e-mail. Check it
> out.
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Hotmail® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your
> phone.
> >
> >http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208

---

> Windows Live? Hotmail®:?more than
> just e-mail. Check it out.