|
DREs are expensive-- the budget problems should make them
look for cheaper ways --- opt. scan and/or hand counted. The budget problems
will help us if we point them out. The clerks are more concerned about speed and
ease, not so much with integrity and transparency. Let's point this
out. It is partly driven by the media -- let's point that out too.
Joel
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:28
PM
Subject: RE: election bills come to
committee tomorrow "upon recess"
I agree precinct hand counted paper ballots are
best.
Unless we are able to present legislature some credible
cost data disputing cost of hand counting paper ballots, compared to optical
scan, I do not believe we will obtain the utopia of hand counted paper
ballots.
The Election Reform Commission is packed with Republican
party idealogues who want to keep DREs and optical scan. I have heard
their obfuscatory questions at two hearings I attended in person. The
legislature will be too overwhelmed with budget cuts to oppose their
recommendations.
Unless we can enlist help from Obama groups, Ron
Paul groups or other groups who can put people in hearing rooms and letters to
editor, in newspapers, we will again be vastly outnumbered and overwhelmed
again by 64 County Clerks, their lobbyist, 100's of paid staff and multi
million dollar budgets. If we are unable to sell paper ballots in press,
we will not be able to persuade legislature or County
Clerks.
Hopefully Boulder County Clerk or another County Clerk
will provide us with something persuasive to present to public and
press.
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:33:01 -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
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®:Šmore than just e-mail. Check
it out.
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. See how it works.
|