Other Editorials

Fighting the last [election]war – Be careful what you ask for!

There are several recent stories about the low turnout in the August 10th primary and Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz suggesting the primary date be changed from August to June. This is not a voting integrity issue, yet we place it in the category of “Fighting the last [election] war” (i.e. Changes/reforms that look good when attempting to correct a recent, assumed election problem, without looking at all the consequences.)

CA Prop 14: Unsafe at any but greed?

Winsted, Connecticut native, Ralph Nader tells us why Prop 14 is good for big business and unhealthy for democracy. We place the misguided voter support of Prop 14 on our “list of good sounding ideas for fighting the last election.

The Day, Susan Bysiewicz, and we agree: No IRV for New London

The Day points to the complexity of issues for voters with several charter changes combined, especially Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), while referencing the Secretary of the State’s objections that IRV cannot be counted by our optical scanners and that IRV is currently illegal in Connecticut.

Who are you going to believe? Scientists or Vendors?

“Enter online voting vendors looking to break into the market on the backs of these two groups. They ride in to save the day with big promises and high-tech solutions. Security becomes little more than sale pitch, like shiny chrome or electronic gadgetry in a new car. ‘You want security – we got security.’…Vendors need to stand in the corner with bankers and oil companies. Just whose elections are these anyway?”

Internet Voting Called Unfair, Not Observable, and Not Transparent

“Voting methods that utilize web-based technologies and telephone-based balloting do not allow the necessary levels of observability and transparency that exist within the current election process.”

Unsafe at any cost – Internet voting

High tech solutions to military and overseas voting seem like the equivalent of a star wars sledgehammer to hit a small nail.

Internet Voting: U.S. Representative Rush Holt responds to the New York Times

“Rather than experimenting with less secure, less auditable methods of voting, I hope that states will use the 2010 election cycle to confirm how much more convenient, accessible and secure the Move Act, which I was otherwise pleased to support, makes military and overseas voting.”

Also, read what are troops are reading in the Stars and Stripes

Columnist Calls for Elimination of the Secretary of the State

Coming two weeks after April 1st, we assume the author is serious. We point out that transferring the functions of the Secretary of the State to the Attorney General or the State Elections Enforcement Commission would hardly eliminate much of the Secretary’s $8.4 million budget, especially if we still want to register businesses in the state, keep records, comply with election laws, train election officials, total results, assist election officials, and maintain an independent enforcement function. We also note that Hawaii has not been doing so well in elections without a Secretary of the State and is a case study in how not to outsource elections.

The Risks of Mail-In and No-Excuse Absentee Voting

Voting at your precinct on a paper ballot has been the gold standard in elections around the world and in Boulder County for a long time. When comparing the security of precinct polling place voting to the security of the mailed ballot, there is little doubt about which is gold and which is tin. [Or in Connecticut which is more befitting our nickname, ‘The Constitution State’ and which ‘The Nutmeg State’]

The Times: They are a Antitrust’n, but it is not enough

“The Justice Department’s work should not end with blocking this one sale. It also needs to keep a close eye on widespread reports of anticompetitive behavior by Election Systems and Software and other vendors.”