Re: Promote the donation campaign?

From: Barbara Simons <simons_at_acm_dot_org>
Date: Thu Oct 28 2004 - 16:09:50 CDT

If you want to reference the ACM survey, that's different and certainly ok,
as far as I'm concerned. But in that case, what I would say is "roughly 95%
of ACM members [note: you may need to define ACM] who responded to a survey
...". Since a small percentage of ACM members actually responded, I don't
think that we can conclude that they represent the views of all ACM members,
let alone all computer scientists though my guess is that they do.

I think that the ACM statement, which is official ACM policy, is also useful
to quote.

Regards,
Barbara

On 10/28/04 8:56, "Alan Dechert" <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:

> Barbara,
>
> There was an acm survey that said that, in effect (assuming acm members are
> all "computer scientists"). Anyway, I took your point and used "vast
> majority."
>
> Alan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Barbara Simons <mailto:simons@acm.org>
>>
>> To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 8:49 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [voting-project] Promote the donation campaign?
>>
>>
>> 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 15:28:53 2004

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