Re: Promote the donation campaign?

From: Barbara Simons <simons_at_acm_dot_org>
Date: Thu Oct 28 2004 - 10:49:50 CDT

Alan,

Where did you get the "nine out of ten" figure? I think it's risky to
invent statistics, even if Madison Avenue does it all the time.

Why not simply say something like "The vast majority of computer scientists"
or something along those lines. That statement, I believe, can be defended
easily, if challenged.

Regards,
Barbara

On 10/28/04 8:39, "Alan Dechert" <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Teresa. I took almost all of your suggestions. The only thing
> different is that I have "Nine out of ten computer scientists" instead of
> "thousands of computer scientists." The reason is that it might seem that
> thousands of computer scientists are also promoting paperless voting. DREs
> have only a handful of supporters in the scientific community. Also, we have
> evidence to back up the 9/10 claim (acm survey, etc.).
>
> I would be interested in what others think about that.
>
> Anyway, your version, Teresa, is more effective, I believe. Thanks again!
>
> Alan D.
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Teresa Hommel <mailto:tahommel@earthlink.net>
>>
>> To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:35 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [voting-project] Promote the donation campaign?
>>
>>
>> BRAVO, this is excellent, and here are a few tiny changes.
>> (Reasons: don't praise DREs. Drop "easy to use" -- it is easier to mark a
>> paper ballot by pencil by hand than use a DRE)
>> Teresa Hommel
>>
>> Subject: OVC Announces Goal of "1111 by 11/11"
>>
>> On November 2, tens of millions of invisible ballots created with secret
>> software might or might not be counted--by additional secret software! Will
>> those votes be handled correctly? Ask for a recount and someone'll push a
>> button and get the same number. Thousands of computer scientists say we
>> should not entrust democracy to these voting machines (called Direct Record
>> Electronic or "DRE"). Any advantages DREs offer (no need for a pre-printed
>> ballot, assistance for voters with disabilities or non-English languages)
>> can be obtained by using computerized ballot-printing machines that leave
>> people in control of elections.
>>
>> Vendors and election officials say, "trust us." But why should we? What if
>> we could print out our completed ballots on-the-spot in the voting booth
>> using an inexpensive computerized machine with the advantages of paperless
>> DREs but none of the disadvantages? Major newspapers from coast-to-coast
>> have endorsed the concept of public software and paper ballots that the Open
>> Voting Consortium (OVC) is promoting. The San Jose Mercury news called the
>> OVC system the "Holy Grail." [ link ]
>>
>> OVC is working on a secure voting system that serves voters with
>> disabilities and non-English languages, but produces a printed ballot. All
>> components including software will be publicly inspectable. But institutions
>> are supporting business as usual. Who is supporting OVC? Will you? OVC needs
>> your help now. It will take on-going support over the next two years to
>> bring the OVC solution to completion. A thousand or more supporting
>> memberships at $10 per month will ensure OVC's work can continue. Our
>> immediate goal is 1111 memberships by 11/11. Please join us today to secure
>> democracy for the future!
>>
>> Join: Become an OVC Supporting Member for $10 a month.
>>
>> The Open Voting Consortium is designed as a 501(c)(6) organization, which
>> means that donations are not tax deductible. You will be contributing to
>> securing the democratic process for future generations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose that we send the following email out to as many lists
>>> as possible. Of course, I'm not a marketing person, so if someone wants to
>>> jump in and make it better, I'd be thrilled! :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: OVC Announces Goal of "1111 by 11/11"
>>>
>>>
>>> On November 2, tens of millions of invisible ballots will be counted that
>>> were created with secret software. Nine out of ten computer scientists say
>>> we should not trust democracy with these voting machines (called Direct
>>> Record Electronic or "DRE"). They have some advantages like ease of use, no
>>> need for a pre-printed ballot, the ability accommodate voters with
>>> disabilities, easy to handle multiple languages, and so on. But what
>>> evidence is there that your vote was handled correctly? Ask for a recount
>>> and they'll push a button and get the same number.
>>>
>>>
>>> Election officials say, "trust us." But why should you? What if you could
>>> print out your completed ballot on-the-spot in the voting booth using an
>>> inexpensive computerized machine that has all the advantages of the
>>> paperless ones? Major newspapers from coast-to-coast have endorsed the
>>> concept of public software and paper ballots that the Open Voting Consortium
>>> (OVC) is promoting. The San Jose Mercury news called the OVC system the
>>> "Holy Grail." [ link ]
>>>
>>>
>>> We can make available a more secure voting system that has all of the
>>> advantages of touchscreen voting, but produces a printed ballot and has all
>>> components publicly inspectable. Institutions are supporting business as
>>> usual. We need your help now. It will take on-going support over the next
>>> two years. A thousand or so supporting memberships at $10 per month will
>>> ensure a good start. Our immediate goal is 1111 memberships by 11/11.
>>> Please join us today to secure democracy for the future!
>>>
>>>
>>> Join: Become an OVC Supporting Member for $10 a month.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Open Voting Consortium is designed as a 501(c)(6) organization, which
>>> means that donations are not tax deductible. You will be contributing to
>>> securing the democratic process for future generations.
>>
>

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Nov 1 15:28:51 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 15:28:58 CST