RE: Pork barrel critiques

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 14:31:51 CST

OK how about a model of a DRE with the legend $4000 voting machine,
destined from the landfill.

$1000 open source used PC, rescued from the landfill.

Best regards,
Arthur

At 3:06 PM -0500 3/5/04, Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
>IANAM (I am not a marketer) but I'd second the emphasis on why an
>open voting system is good rather than why proprietary voting
>systems are bad. Leave the negative message to the people who are
>already fighting against the closed systems (Bev, etc.), and present
>the (positive) alternative. All of our positives will imply a
>negative about the closed systems, or we wouldn't present them as
>positives, but let's leave them implied.
>
>- LP
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net
>[<mailto:owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net>mailto:owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net]On
>Behalf Of David
>Jefferson
>Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:50 PM
>To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>Subject: Re: [voting-project] Pork barrel critiques
>
>
>I know I am mostly a lurker here, but FWIW I reacted to the $500
>hammer reference the same way David Mertz did.
>
>This illustrates how vital it is to avoid any remotely political
>content in the "marketing" of your system. For many people,
>especially your customers who are by nature politically attuned,
>political content overwhelms technical content for emotional
>impact and share of attention. A single reference, even
>humerous, to a controversial political subject (other than
>voting technology itself) can color your audience's perception
>of the entire pitch.
>
>In marketing a voting system, we should stick with images of the
>flag and George Washington, and stick traditional electoral
>system virtues like fairness, accuracy, privacy, openness,
>security, reliability, simplicity, cost effectiveness,
>accessibility, etc.
>
>David
>
>--- David Mertz <voting-project@gnosis.cx> wrote:
>> On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 01:38 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
>> > I think a lot of the pork barrel charges are due to
>> political
>> > grandstanding.
>> > But I wouldn't put studies of frog mating habits in the same
>> category
>> > as the
>> > DoD $500 hammer.
>>
>> Which of the two do you like more/less? I'm honestly asking,
>> since
>> neither strikes me as proving what critics want them to.
>>
>> I don't really think the DoD $500 hammer is waste narrowly
>> (for
>> reasons similar to the toilet seat it may really cost that to
>>
>> make)--it's the trillion dollar star wars boondoggle that the
>> hammer is
>> part of that's the problem. What's wrong there is not
>> inefficient
>> spending at the details, but rather wrong-headed political
>> priorities
>> to do it in the first place.
>>
>> As to the million dollar frog sex: That's 4 Ph.D. biologists
>> engaged in
>> a three year study. Which seems exactly appropriate,
>> actually.
>>
>> > Also, keep in mind that while we have a lot of Ph.D s on the
>> project,
>> > the
>> > intended audience for the demo is comprised of people
>> with--for the
>> > most
>> > part--with much less than a Ph.D going for them.
>>
>> I know. I just don't like to imply something that I wouldn't
>> actually
>> endorse, even if the audience isn't smart enough to catch on
>> to what
>> I'm doing. Free Software gets a lot of that negative
>> insinuation from
>> its enemies (who can't outright say the implied accusations,
>> since
>> they're flatly false); I don't want to play at a similar
>> level.
>>
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -
>> mertz@ | The specter of free information is haunting the
>> `Net! All the
>> gnosis | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into
>> an unholy
>> .cx | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their
>> chains. Unite
>> | against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy
>> regimes!
>>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Wed Mar 31 23:17:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 23:17:12 CST