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

Cliff,

     What we desperately need to be doing is making elections more transparent, accurate, and simpler. You keep wanting to make them more complex. Now even if approval voting can be made to work, and I haven't seen that demonstrated in practice, why is it needed in Colorado?

    You don't like the two party system but approval voting isn't going to change that. I can't think of a Colorado election I've seen where approval voting would make any difference or help voters. Can you give a practical example of where or when it might be useful?

     We must stop adding every new method that someone dreams up to our elections. Hand marked, hand counted secret paper ballots voted at precincts have historically worked the best overall. Since HAVA was passed and electronic voting introduced, we have had nothing but chaos and ever deteriorating voter confidence coincident with every new election scheme. Also, electronic voting costs 2 to 4 times as much as before. And added complexities, e.g. approval voting, is sure to add to the costs.

     There is an ancient engineering principle called KISS ? Keep It Simple Stupid. That is what we need to be working toward.

            Chuck Corry

At 2:48 PM -0600 1/22/09, Cliff West wrote:

> Kathy Dopp agrees that APPROVAL VOTING
> can provide some additional election choices without requiring
> computer voting systems or complex mathematical calculations.  It
> appears it would continue to allow exit polling to detect variations
> with official count.  Admittedly it could be cumbersome, if
> voters were allowed to vote for more than 2 candidates. 
> Ironically, there were about 16? candidates for US president, while
> most contests only have three or four candidates, at most on the
> ballot.  I do not recommend allowing voters to vote for more than
> two candidates, in any contest.
>  
> With over one third of Colorado voters registered as Independents, it
> is past time to give voters a third choice, since the Two party system
> is one choice short of a dictatorship.  I have yet to meet a
> voter who agreed with Congress bailing out the speculators, gamblers
> and thieves who are the beneficiaries of the multibillion dollar
> stimulus program.
>  
> Approval voting would likely increase voter turnout by reinvolving
> some skeptical dissaffected voters who have given up on the two party
> system.  It could help break the stranglehold of corporations,
> and large campaign contributions on our governments.

---

> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:51:24 -0700
> To: clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx; media@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 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
> From: ccorry@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon
> recess"
> CC: rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx; kathy.dopp@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> .ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul,
> .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li
> {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
> 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 LiveÅ Hotmail®:Smore than just e-mail. Check it out.

>
>

---

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