By Luther Weeks on December 22, 2016
The Nation, hopefully, learned some lessons about our existing “recounts” after the November Election. We learned some disappointing lessons in three states. We likely would have learned similar lessons in the other states that have recounts. Remember that only about half the states have recounts at all. What might we have learned about Connecticut’s recanvasses?
We recommend three articles and comment on Connecticut’s recanvasses.
Our best guess is that Connecticut would rank close to Pennsylvania. Observed variations and poor recanvass procedures, with courts sooner or later. stopping or blocking the recanvass.
Posted in CT Law, Electronic Vulnerability, National, Recounts/Recanvasses
By Luther Weeks on December 15, 2016
CT Mirror Viewpoints
Last week, without public notice, seven Connecticut municipalities conducted electronic “audits” under the guidance of the UConn Center for Voting Technology and the Secretary of the State’s Office, using the Audit Station developed by the Voter Center.
There is a science of election audits. Machine-assisted audits can offer efficiency and ease of use, but any audit process needs to be transparent and provide for independent public verification of the results.
Posted in CT, Our Editorials, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on December 8, 2016
State and Federal have ruled that Jill Stein does not have standing to call for a recount in Michigan.
Our Opinion: The Michigan law[and or this ruling] is an ass, every single voter in the United States has an interest in the vote in every state, in every municipality, and that the vote of each voter is counted and totaled accurately. Each of those plays a part in selecting our President and the majorities in the U.S. House and Senate.
Posted in National, Our Editorials, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on December 3, 2016
We have all seen many articles and posts on the recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. We are likely to see many more. For now, here are a few points about the recounts:
- I am entirely in favor of thorough post-election audits and recounts.
- I am entirely in favor of the recounts initiated by Jill Stein.
- Even if there is no change in the state winners, Election Integrity has won already
- Yet, maybe we will not win that much in the end
- All the objections to the recounts are partisan
Posted in National, Our Editorials, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on November 28, 2016
In the summer of 2008 I was on a panel in Fairfield, CT. I opened with remarks on “What Do You Want”. I said voters want five things and what Connecticut could do about them in the short run (three steps over two years). The two years passed and little changed, so in 2010 I repeated the post as What Do YOU [still] Want? Here we are in late 2016 and little has changed for the better:
Posted in CT, Our Editorials, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on November 23, 2016
5th Graders at the Glastonbury-East Hartford Magnet School assisted Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, in randomly drawing 38 districts for the post-election audit.
We will update later with the complete list of towns and districts.
 Drawing |
 Marking Map |
 Complete Map |
Posted in Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on November 21, 2016
Courant Editorial, Sunday November 20th: Better Access To Voting Within Reach In CT
We have long had concerns with extending mail-in voting, aka no excuse absentee voting. We also support in-person early voting, if we are willing to pay for it. We have a new Courant Editorial joining Denise Merrill in a renewed push for early voting, defeated two years ago by the voters of Connecticut, consistent with our warnings but not our prediction.
Connecticut is one of only a handful of states that does not allow in-person voting before Election Day and requires those casting absentee ballots to provide an excuse — two unnecessary and antiquated barriers to participation in the political process. [Unnecessary only for those who lack concern for election integrity, turnout, and costs]
Posted in Legislature 2017, Mail/Absentee Voting
By Luther Weeks on November 16, 2016
An Alternet interview of Jonathan Simon: Something Stinks When Exit Polls and Official Counts Don’t Match – A discussion with an exit poll expert reveals an electoral house of cards.
When their were claims that exit polls did not match in the Democratic Primary, I said that neither side made the case saying, “I stand with Carl Sagan who said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Now a very thoughtful interview with Jonathan Simon who outlines the case that we should be concerned about the exit polls and concerned just as much that we cannot verify our elections
Posted in Electronic Vulnerability, National
By Luther Weeks on November 11, 2016
Once again, we have an election where it is alleged that the losing candidate won the popular vote. Understandably we have calls from her supporters to abolish the Electoral College by means of the National Popular Vote Compact.
Once again, we must articulate to our friends why this is a bad idea. Once again, we point out to most of those that support the Electoral College that they support it primarily for the wrong reasons.
We have a broken, risky, unequal election system. Cobbling a well-intended compact on top of it makes it more risky, more vulnerable, and the results even less credible:
*****Update 11/16/2016 Pleased to be republished at the CTMirror.
Posted in National, National Popular Vote
By Luther Weeks on November 7, 2016
Jonathan Simon says it so well at Truthout: Between Trump and a Hard Place: The Truth About “Rigged” Elections
It should be rather obvious that the unidentified insiders charged with the programming, and anyone working through them, enjoy an even greater level of access to the counting process than do foreign hackers targeting our systems from the outside. It should be obvious that this is a colossally stupid risk for our nation to take. And it should be obvious that there is something wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee wrong when those upon whom the public relies for information refuse to seriously address and come clean about that risk…Only a public, observable counting process (i.e., hand-counted paper ballots or uniform public audits with gleaming teeth) can rebuild our shattered faith in the fidelity of our electoral process.
I chose the post title deliberately. “The System” is not computers or pollworkers, but the whole voting system created by people we have put in charge. That system could be changed moderately to provide proof of its accuracy. It is that the system of people won’t recognize and address the problem.
Posted in National, Other Editorials
