Re: Limiting our demands in fear of a fight with illegitimate authority

From: Ronald Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Mon Dec 18 2006 - 17:13:44 CST

Since you have persisted in launching personal attacks, in reasserting imputations of unpatriotism against me, and in ignoring the plain (mandatory) nature of my (pretty simple) audit procedure, I will no longer respond to your messages. I also reserve the right to publish any insulting portions of private messages, should you send me any such.

-R

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:31:57 -0600, Jerry Lobdill wrote
> Well, Ron, your approach leaves arbitrary discretionary power in thehands of the very people who are responsible for the present state ofaffairs.  That's a fact that you apparently will notaddress.
>
> If you still are one of those who does not think it wise to question themotives of people who insist on doing things that are detrimental todemocracy, then I'd like to know how you remained so credulous given allthat has occurred since 2000. I've lost that ability.
>
> If you want to discuss audit design with me then answer the questionsI've asked you.  As it is, I do not see any way to consider yourapproach a credible one.
>
> Oh, you think that people who want to let election officials retaincontrol of the process are unpatriotic? Then why are you in thatcamp?
>
> Yes, you can propose any legislation you wish to legislators, that's yourright, but unless you drop your deference to power you probably won't beassisting those who are on my side of this issue to craft anylegislation.
>
> Jerry
>
>  
>
> At 01:38 PM 12/18/2006, you wrote:
> > Let's be clear. You have notindicated anywhere that you are willing to present whatever legislationthe public may demand that is generally accepted as getting theauthorities out of control of elections. 
>
> "Whatever legislation the public may demand" is prettyambiguous. I have indicated over and over again, to the point that someyell at me for it, that I want to give the general public as much controlover elections as possible, consistent with the need to maintain thesecret ballot and the (unfortunate) need for expert input on the designof audits.
>
> > None of your objections to my audit proposal have produced analternative that strips discretionary, subjective power from the hands ofthose whose hegemony  brought us the stolen elections of 2000, 2004,and very likely, 2006.
>
> My audit approach is mandatory. Please re-readthe messages describing it.
>
> > If those on your side were offeringsomething of value it would include mandatory hand recounts if certainspecified results occur.  But it offers nothing of the sort. Itcontinues to give illegitimate authority the discretionary  power toorder recount, certification, or additional auditing.  There isnever an accompanying analysis to indicate what this discretionary powerdoes to the statistical power of the audit. And this fact is evidencethat in the minds of those who share your view, statistical power doesn'ttrump authority. <
>
> Please re-read the messages describing my audit. At every step, wedetermine whether to launch a recursive audit (we found >= 1miscounted precinct) or not (we didn't find any miscounted precincts, andhence we have P=0.99 assurance that there aren't enough remainingmiscounted precincts to flip the election). Indeed, you yourself observedthat my procedure sometimes can be equivalent to a full recount. Nowyou're contradicting yourself, apparently to "justify"criticizing me.
>
> > So, we may well be at an impasse. Those who agree with me willnever permit a lawyer with your convictions to draw up legislation forus, and you seem unwilling to do what makes sense.
>
> First, "Those on your side" and"lawyer with your convictions" are unsupported, snideimplications of what amounts to unpatriotism. Withdraw them.
>
> Second, I am not representing you or anyone else here. I am proposingideas for legislation in what is basically a public forum. I might ormight not try to present some of those ideas to legislators as proposedlegislation. That's my right under the 1st Amendment.
>
> Third and finally, can we debate ideas instead of personalities? I madeseveral substantive arguments in the message from which you quote, yetyou've chosen mainly to focus on who you think I am and what you think Irepresent, rather than on the ideas I've presented.
>
> -R
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:10:37 -0600, Jerry Lobdill wrote
> > Ron,
> >
> > I have had several days of real life and am just now returning tothe computer.  I have too much email to deal with now, and I have tobe frugal in my response to you.  I am also posting this to thelists, because it concerns everybody.  I have not responded toeverything you've written in your last email.  There is one keyissue that seriously divides us, however, and that is what I am goingdeal with. Let me pull out the remarks I'm going to deal with:
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > Your position is that legislators are going to balk and claim that anaudit that tests a hypothesis and prescribes appropriate automaticmandatory sequelae for potential outcomes might sometimes result in arecount that verifies the previously announced results (horrors!), andthis would be unacceptable because it is a "big, expensive, timeconsuming job, and it's not clear that it's justified."  Youhave repeated this theme over and over in different words, and it isclear that you are primarily focused on eliminating any chance whateverof calling a full recount on the basis of a false alarm-- at the risk ofpermitting fraudulent elections.  > > I have heard this argument several times before--usually fromlawyers who seem to have friends in the state house or Congress andpresume that they have a pipeline to power and a sense that their poweris deserved.  It is an argument that comes up in every discussiongroup on the subject of elections.  In fact, this argument is acritical on!
 e for us on the EI Legislation List to debate and make adecision about before we do anything else, IMO. > > Your argument starts from a position of professed knowledge ofwhat your legislator colleagues and election authorities will resist, andyou resist presenting anything that you believe they will resist. Those of us on the other side start from a position of professedknowledge of what is needed to get illegitimate authority out of theelection process and produce election integrity, and we proceed topropose election systems that will do that.  If we both remainadherent to our positions then we cannot work together.  And...thisis not an issue that admits compromise.  We either get illegitimateauthority out of power or we don't.  > > So we need to back up and settle this issue before we talk aboutdetails of any proposed measure. > > Let's be clear. You have not indicated anywhere that you arewilling to present whatever legislation the public may demand that isgenerally acce!
 pted as getting the authorities out of control ofelections.  None of y
our objections to my audit proposal haveproduced an alternative that strips discretionary, subjective power fromthe hands of those whose hegemony  brought us the stolen electionsof 2000, 2004, and very likely, 2006. > > If those on your side were offering something of value it wouldinclude mandatory hand recounts if certain specified results occur. But it offers nothing of the sort. It continues to give illegitimateauthority the discretionary  power to order recount, certification,or additional auditing.  There is never an accompanying analysis toindicate what this discretionary power does to the statistical power ofthe audit. And this fact is evidence that in the minds of those who shareyour view, statistical power doesn't trump authority. > > Those who stand with me say that statistical power trumpsauthority, and any legislator or other public official who dares to claimauthority to maintain the status quo must be removed from office. We have had it with illegitimate autho!
 rity, and we're not going to takeit any more. > > So, we may well be at an impasse. Those who agree with me willnever permit a lawyer with your convictions to draw up legislation forus, and you seem unwilling to do what makes sense. > > This is the sticky wicket, Ron. > > I'm asking others to weigh in on this issue now, because we mustget past this.  > > Jerry Lobdill > >   
>
> (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed aprior interest in receiving the included information for research andeducational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation whatsoeverwith the originator of this article nor is ProgressiveNews2Use endorsedor sponsored by the originator.)
>
> "Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to ourreaders and allow for verification of authenticity. However, asoriginating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, theversions posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions ourreaders view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
>

 

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Dec 31 23:17:15 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST