Experts with credentials vs. experts without credentials

From: Michelle Gabriel <mwg_at_jmbaai_dot_com>
Date: Sat Nov 03 2007 - 10:23:56 CDT

I really think that the election integrity movement needs both experts
with and experts without credentials. Those with the credentials are
working and lobbying on one level. Those without the credentials are
working and lobbying on another level. I think the issue here is not
the outliers that will always exist on both sides - the Brit Williams on
the expert side and those that want the end of Microsoft ( I am
describing this in a clumsy manner, please excuse me) on the other side.

 The non experts are in the trenches -monitoring and fighting. We have
lots of real, actual, in the field evidence. And often looking at the
systems and the code. The experts are looking at this from a different
angle - when allowed to look at systems, showing their flaws.

_
I really think the issue here is mutual respect and real listening on
both sides._

The non experts are writing letters to the editors, talking to
reporters, trying to counter the spin on the news., monitoring the
elections.
  I don't think this is what the experts are doing. The experts are
providing the fodder for the advocates and activists to use.

If we could really combine our forces rather than fighting each other,
we would be so much more powerful.

I sometimes feel that there are stereotypes on both sides that prevent
this.

Some people, esp. those making the purchasing decisions, lump the
advocates all into the tin foil hat, ranting and raving, crowd. They
don't listen and don't change until the noise, rhetoric, and lobbying of
their managers, and law suits rises to a point where they might lose
their jobs. And these people, who have the power, don't lump all experts
together. They pick the expert that backs up their position. They don't
really look through the data and come to a conclusion themselves.

I would like to see the experts become more involved in being a public
voice. I would love to see the experts write Op-Ed pieces over and over
again with what they know, in terms that those not steeped in this,
could understand. I would love to see the experts consult with the
advocates and vice versa.

Here is another case in point.
I am deeply disappointed in Verified Voting. In the November 2006
election they asked for people to fill out lengthy forms on key aspects
of the election systems. To gather data from county officials and from
monitoring. I have never seen anything come from that - no report, no
followup, etc. Here was a chance for experts to interact with
advocates. Why did I waste my time doing this?

IMHO.

mg

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Nov 30 23:17:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST