By Luther Weeks on November 23, 2010
I will be taking a brief hiatus from posting at CTVotersCount. We will be very busy counting some ballots in Bridgeport
Posted in CT
By Luther Weeks on November 20, 2010
We agree with Secretary Bysiewicz that we cannot look to her to deliver on voting integrity. We also cannot rely on each and every one of the 339 elected registrars for voting integrity.
We caution agains patchwork solutions. The problem goes well beyond the number of ballots printed; voting integrity and confidence call for a much broader study and action than proposed by the current Secretary
Posted in CT, CT Law
By Luther Weeks on November 17, 2010
“Training was not evident. Professionalism was not evident,”
Update: OnlyInBridgeport video of former GAE Chair, Rep Chris Caruso. Articulates the problems, possible solutions, and obstacles, including impeachment
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors
By Luther Weeks on November 16, 2010
At the drawing the Secretary announced an agreement with the Bridgeport Registrars that the 12 districts with the copied, hand counted, ballots would be voluntarily audited with all the ballots for the race for Governor counted. Surprise Surprise! It seems that not everyone in Bridgeport government agreed to the agreement
Posted in CT, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on November 10, 2010
We note that there are two registrars in Bridgeport, elected to use their two eyes and two brains to represent opposing interests toward voting integrity and access. Today, would the Courant maintain or reconsider its past editorial position proposing a single registrar per town, not in the interest of integrity, but in the interest of saving money?
Posted in CT, Other Editorials, Our Editorials
By Luther Weeks on November 8, 2010
Editorials and legislators are already reacting and taking sides to solve the “ballot printing” problem.
It is critical to understand the entire scope of issues and inadequacies in all aspects of the election process; then review all the options, look for local best practices in Connecticut and explore what other states do well; then and only then develop a comprehensive cure. This is the common sense way to proceed, unfortunately it is hard work from start to implementation. Otherwise we are destined to react to one problem at a time, with one expensive, disruptive band-aid after another.
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Our Editorials
By Luther Weeks on November 7, 2010
What happened in D.C. in an Internet voting test was largely a result of very very poor security on the voting system and the D.C. Internet itself. An electronic version of the incompetence exposed in Bridgeport…what makes anyone think they can do better with a system that is scientifically proven risky and requires high technical expertise and flawless oversight just to make it moderately safe, when they cannot even work the current system?
Posted in CT, CT Law
By Luther Weeks on November 3, 2010
From the details we have so far, we can start our list of issues with the situation in Bridgeport. We continue our issues with election integrity in Connecticut, especially in close elections.
Posted in CT
By Luther Weeks on November 1, 2010
The usual explanation of why its not a good idea to vote by Internet, even thought we bank by ATM is that they are different applications. However, banking is not all that safe. Today in Connecticut we have a report of the vulnerabilities of credit cards and ATM transactions in the Hartford Courant.
Posted in CT, Internet Security Issues, National
