CT | CTVotersCount.org

Issues with NPV vs. a strategy of overwhelm

Around this time in the presidential election cycle we see a variety of articles touting benefits of the National Popular Vote Agreement vs. the Electoral College for determining the president. One of the latest is a piece in the Stamford Patch pointing to Rep Fox’s support of the Agreement, largely quoting Ryan O’Donnell, a lobbyist for NationalPopularVote.org.

I suggest you read the Patch article along with the comments to get a taste of NPV.org’s arguments, relevant, irrelevant, and questionable and their apparent strategy of overwhelm. Often when one of these articles appears, I post a comment to articulate what they are not telling you, the risk of the National Popular Vote Agreement. Much like DDT the issue is not the touted benefits, even if overblown. The issue is the potential harmful consequences.

The debate over the National Popular Vote reminds us of the debate about the pesticide DDT so many years ago. DDT has many benefits to help farmers feed the world, some perhaps overblown, but there was a problem. DDT could kill people and definitely animals, endangering the American Eagle, the very symbol of our nation.

National Popular Vote‘s strategy seems to be to overwhelm with facts and arguments, relevant, irrelevant, and questionable. If you are patient, you will see Rep Fox’s picture popup as an endorser on their home page. If you are really patient you can read there 894 page version of what their explanation page calls a 630 page book. While many in our Connecticut Legislature are correctly concerned with highly financed legislation endorsed by ALEC, we note that two of the endorsers on the forward of the book tout their association with ALEC: Laura Braud, Minnesota Public Sector Chair, and Ray Haynes, Past National Chair. Our understanding is that NPV.org and SupportPopularVote.com are largely funded by two other book endorsers, B. Thomas Golisano and John R. Koza.

I suggest you hold the book for later and read the Patch article along with the comments to get a taste of their arguments, relevant, irrelevant, and questionable and their apparent strategy of overwhelm. Often when one of these articles appears, I post a comment to articulate what they are not telling you, the risk of the National Popular Vote Agreement. Much like DDT the issue is not the touted benefits, even if overblown. The issue is the potential harmful consequences. Here is what I could fit into the comment limit:

What often appears simple is not. The Compact being proposed would get around the requirement for a constitutional amendment. It would cobble the popular vote onto a system designed for the Electoral College.

While I understand the good arguments for the national popular vote and would support it, except there are some extreme risks to the Compact which attempts to force fit it onto our inaccurate state by state voting system.

There is no official national popular vote number complied and certified nationally that can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any reasonably close election. (The unaudited Certificate of Ascertainments are available only after electors must be chosen and vote)

There is no national recount available for close elections to establish an accurate number. Only in some individual states with close numbers in those states would there ever be a recount.

Currently the Electoral College limits the damage to states with close votes. With the national popular vote errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

For example: The inaccuracies in Bridgeport in 2010 did not change the winner here in the Governors race and would not have been enough to change the Electoral College, but would have counted against a popular vote.

I usually limit myself to one comment per article. Not so with NPV.org supporters. Currently there are 32 comments, with 27 of them by a single NPV supporter, with the pseudonym ‘toto’. Like the 880 page book, ‘toto’s strategy seems to be an attempt to overwhelm with volume, some irrelevant facts, and distortions. One of the other commenters, DJ McAneny asked a good question, so I responded:

@DJ,

I would be in favor of a National Popular Vote, but with several prerequisites. At a general level, stronger election integrity laws, national uniformity, enforceable and enforced laws in place.

Stronger laws would include voter created paper ballots, strong post-election audits, ballot security, and national recounts. There would need to be an equal franchise from state to state, uniform early voting, registration, and absentee voting provisions. All these things in a way that we could trust enforcement, integrity, and accuracy. Finally it would take a great improvement/revision of the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act, which cause problems and limit integrity of the selection of electors that we have seen in 1876 and 2000.

Perhaps I should say more on such articles and adopt a strategy of articulating the flaws in ‘toto’s voluminous arguments, yet I believe the sheer volume speaks louder than than anything, other than the obvious fact that ‘toto’ and his or her frequent alter ego ‘mvymvy’ are not willing to sign their comments. They know who they are, everyone knows who I am. I stand by my comments.

PS: For those interested in a more detailed version of the risks of the National Popular Vote Agreement, review my slides from a presentation as part of a panel on the Agreement, delivered this spring at the Election Verification Network annual conference, Verification and Integrity Concerns with the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote an Interstate Compact <Slides>

USA Today: Electronic voting – The Real Threat

A USAToday Editorial, and an opposing view: Editorial: Electronic voting is the real threat to elections <read>

Imagine how easy voting would be if Americans could cast ballots the same way they buy songs from iTunes or punch in a PIN code to check out at the grocery store: You could click on a candidate from a home computer or use a touch screen device at the local polling place.

It’s not entirely a fantasy. In many states, some voters can already do both. The process is seductively simple, but it’s also shockingly vulnerable to problems from software failure to malicious hacking. While state lawmakers burn enormous energy in a partisan fight over in-person vote fraud, which is virtually nonexistent, they’re largely ignoring far likelier ways votes can be lost, stolen or changed.

How? Sometimes, technology or the humans running it simply fail

The article goes on to list some of the failures of electronic voting, many of which have been covered at CTVotersCount.

Fortunately our Legislature has not wasted time on raising Connecticut’s adequate voter I.D. law to the level of voter suppression. Unfortunately, the Legislature has continued to ignore science, experience, and the Constitutional requirement for preserving the secret vote – this spring they voted for email voting, in a provision inserted in a unrelated bill, without public hearings, Governor vetoes bill with email/fax voting “rat”

The opposing view from Bob Carey, Opposing view: Paper voting system is broken <read>

Carey is not a scientist. For years he has been advocating for more effective military voting, he knows much progress has been made to make paper voting effective for military and overseas voters, and that the military has been negligent in following the law to provide an officer to assist military votes at each base. He should also know how vulnerable even the defense department networks remain. And local control of elections requires using the regular internet for voting, managed by officials, largely no more technical than Mr. Carey.

Candiate qualifies to run on three lines for registrar – Case made for third registrar in Hartford

Connecticut has 169 towns with a Democratic and a Republican registrar. If anyone else runs and comes in 1st or 2nd then there are three (or even four registrars). Currently Hartford has three registrars. For several years we have been articulating the reasons this makes sense, how it can be done without additional cost, and the potential cure of “Doing for Elections what we have done for Probate”.

Two recent news items are relevant. A defense of three registrars in Hartford by Ed Vargas. And candidate Doug Lary running on three 3rd party lines for registrar Windham/Willimantic.

From the Norwich Bulletin <read>

“All three of my nominating petitions have now been examined and approved,” Lary said. “Each letter states that I am therefore qualified to appear on the ballot for the office under the party designation.”

Lary has been collecting signatures for months. He was required to collect 49 signatures supporting his candidacy, or 1 percent of the total number of votes for the office of registrar in the 2010 election in Windham. Larry collected 122 signatures to run unaffiliated. He collected another 89 for the Green Party petition, and 83 for local The Bottom Line party.

Lary, however, is unsure how his name will appear on the ballot. That is up to Town Clerk Patricia Spruance. Spruance must present a ballot to the Secretary of the State’s office no later than Oct. 26…

For Lary, the biggest challenge is explaining to voters how the registrars office works.

“I attended ECSU’s Student Activity Day Sept. 6 and was involved with the civic engagement efforts there,” Lary said. “At my table I answered questions on registration issues for students, and helped several students change their registration or register for the first time in Windham. As the same form is used all across Connecticut, I was able to provided advice and forms to many students to adjust their registration in other towns.”

A third registrar can protect the interests of the voters beyond the two major parties, without significant budget increases. Ed Vargas echos our sentiments and provides some additional ways that costs could be saved in Hartford by listening to a third voice in a letter to the Courant appearing in today’s printed edition <read>

But blaming the registrars’ department for Hartford’s financial problems does a great disservice to voters. The truth is that political patronage and waste are to blame, and we can cut costs without jeopardizing fair elections. As a candidate for state representative in Hartford, I agree with Working Families Party Registrar Urania Petit and the common-sense reductions in spending she has fought for. For example, she’s suggested hiring one person to supervise the vote tabulator, instead of four, saving $10,800 each election, and she’s proposed pay cuts for the registrars. With these proposals, there should be no threat of November’s elections not being held. Any possibility of not holding an election as proposed by the Democratic and Republican registrars is an act of voter suppression. Similarly, having a single registrar could lead to voter suppression. The reason Connecticut’s statute demands multiple registrars in each town is to protect everyone’s voting rights, even those who are outside the mainstream political parties.

Supreme Court to decide ballot layout and sovereign immunity

I am not a lawyer, however: The law reads like the Secretary of the State is correct in interpreting the law. But it will be a tough precedent if the court accepts the sovereign immunity argument – I would think that would make it harder to sue over any election issue, including when the Secretary has declared an election winner. UPDATED

Courant: Ballot-Line Fight Goes To Supreme Court Wednesday <read>

The state Supreme Court, moving swiftly, will hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether Republicans should replace Democrats at the top of the ballot in November.

In a lawsuit that it filed just last month, the state Republican Party argued that it should receive the top ballot line after the complicated results of the 2010 gubernatorial election…

Although Democrat Dannel P. Malloy won the governor’s race in 2010, he did it with a combination of votes from both the Democratic Party and the union-backed Working Families Party. In the tight race, Republican Tom Foley captured more votes on the Republican line than Malloy did on the Democratic line. With that result, Republicans say that their party should get the top line because they received more votes than any other party.

The GOP sued Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, who ruled that the Democrats should keep the top line on the 2012 ballot. Republicans had questioned an original decision by Merrill, a longtime Democrat, to place the Democrats on the top line for the 2011 municipal elections.

But Merrill says the precise wording of the law means that the party of the candidate with the most votes overall — Malloy and the Democrats, in this case — should go on top…

But the state attorney general’s office, arguing on behalf of Merrill, says in a 37-page legal brief that the case should be dismissed because Merrill acted within her legal boundaries. In addition, attorneys are invoking the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which prevents some lawsuits from being filed against the state.

Here is the text of the Connecticut law, New York’s law might not be identical:

Sec. 9-249a. Order of parties on the ballot label. (a) The names of the parties shall be arranged on the machines in the following order:

(1) The party whose candidate for Governor polled the highest number of votes in the last-preceding election; …

Earlier coverage <read>

Update: 9/12/2012 CTMirror: Both sides cite history in election ballot order battle <read>

Before the Supreme Court, the thicket gets more dense, with precedent and changes in the law, with deadlines approaching!

Update 9/2/2012: Court rules, Republicans get top line <verdict>

We still disagree with the Courant on reforming the office of registrar

The comprehensive solution is to “Do for Elections what we have done for Probate“. Consolidation, Professionalization, and Regionalization. Not a panacea, but in our opinion a prerequisite. And change it in the Legislature by following the requirements of State law.

New editorial on old subject: Hartford Doesn’t Need Three Registrars – A Crazy Waste: One for each party is too costly <read>

The election must be held, of course, and the registrars must try harder to find the money in their stash to pay for it. At the same time, Hartford must quick-step down the path of reforming this bureaucratic colossus.

There are three registrars: a Democratic registrar and staff, a Republican registrar and staff, and a Working Families Party registrar and staff. When the Working Families registrar position was created, there were fewer members of that party registered to vote than there are members of a baseball team.

Requiring a registrar for such a party is a needless waste. Hartford is broke. Mayor Pedro Segarra recently announced an additional 12 layoffs at a time when the city’s non-school, non-public safety, non-registrar payroll is down to bare bones.

Hartford needs only one registrar. It should be a nonpartisan, professional, appointed position.

The city charter revision commission now empaneled should study the issue and include a provision on how best to reform the registrars’ office in its report next January.

Here is where the Courant Editorial Board gets it wrong, in our opinion:

It would be illegal for any town in Connecticut to disregard the State law, with regard to how and how many registrars are elected or appointed. Of what value would an item in a local Charter Revision Commission Report be?
The number of registered voters in a party is not the only measure of importance. Our analysis of the 2011 municipal election shows six Democratic Party candidates receiving an average of 3,732 votes, four Working Families Party candidates receiving and average of 2,036 votes, and the Republican Party with three candidates averaging just 966 votes.
In the past the Courant has advocated for a single registrar. That is and was a flawed idea, which would leave a risky system subject to political skulduggery: Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars <read> And more recently they seem to at least have understood the law, suggesting it was up the the Legislature: Too Many Registrars? Or Too Little Thought? <read>
The Courant is correct, we need professional, appointed election administrators. But they should not be appointed locally, especially in single party dominated towns, like Hartford or Bridgeport. As we have said before, and for quite some time: The comprehensive solution is to “Do for Elections what we have done for Probate“. Consolidation, Professionalization, and Regionalization. Not a panacea, but in our opinion a prerequisite.

UConn Memory Card Report: More garbage in, some good information out

Once again, we applaud Dr. Alexander Shvartsman and his team for developing the technology to perform these innovative tests, the diligence to perform the tedious tests, and the fortitude to report the facts. Compliance by officials leaves much to be desired:

Prior to the primary 110 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 18.5% compliance
After the primary 105 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 17.6% compliance,
however, only 49 of those cards were used in the election, a compliance rate of 8.2%

Last week, the University of Connecticut UConn released its latest memory card report: Technological Audit of Memory Cards for the April 24, 2012 Connecticut Primary Elections <report>

We can easily echo our summary of the previous report.

We applaud Dr. Alexander Shvartsman and his team for developing the technology to perform these innovative tests, the diligence to perform the tedious tests, and the fortitude to report the facts.

We do not applaud the lack of cooperation of officials in the audit or the lack of official compliance with memory card procedures. We are left wondering if this is the level of compliance and cooperation when officials know their efforts will be disclosed: “What is their compliance when their actions are unlikely or impossible to scrutinize?” Can you imagine such numbers from any other technology or Government function? Where is the outrage?

Take a look at these statistics for the election with 598 districts each expected to send in a card before and after the elections:

Prior to the primary 110 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 18.5% compliance

After the primary 105 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 17.6% compliance,

however, only 49 of those cards were used in the election, a compliance rate of 8.2%

UConn expressed doubts, as we also have, that the cards were actually selected randomly as directed.

UConn concluded that there is a need for compliance with directives and procedures, not only in the rate of sending in cards, but in following election procedures:

We make the following concluding remarks and recommendations.

The SOTS Office should continue publicizing proper procedures and continue offering training. In particular, to reinforce the need to prepare all cards for election prior to the election dayand prior to the pre-election audit.

Fewer cards are being duplicated at the districts, and it is important to continue reiterating that cards must never be duplicated. Any cases of duplication should recorded in the moderators’ logs and be brought to the attention of the SOTS Office with a documented explanation of why this is necessary.

It is important for the districts to report any problems during pre-election testing (and any card problems) to the SOTS Oce as soon as possible upon completion of the tests.

It is important for the districts report to the SOTS Office any unexpected behavior of the tabulators that seem to necessitate a restart or a memory card reset. It would be helpful if moderators’ logs contained records of machine restarts, perceived causes, and reasoning for the restart or reset. There was at least one documented case of a tabulator malfunction during this primary election. In such cases it is strongly recommended that the problematic tabulator is tested by the Center personnel (either at the district or in our laboratory).

The current number of cards with unreadable data (junk data) continues to be high. We have determined that weak batteries are the primary cause of this. The vendor developed a new non-volatile, battery-less memory card, and our ongoing evaluation continues to conrm their compatibility with the AV-OS machines used Connecticut. A limited pilot using the new cards was successfully performed in Vernon. It is expected that a broader pilot deployment of the new cards by the SOTS Oce will occur in the near future. The use of the new card should eliminate the major cause of memory card failures.

It is important that cards sent for the pre-election audit are selected at random. One card randomly selected from four cards in each district is to be randomly selected for the audit. While the districts are encouraged to submit all malfunctioning cards to VoTeR Center, all such cards need to be identied separately from the cards randomly selected for the audit. When a suciently large collection of cards is selected randomly for audit, the results of the audit meaningfully represent the overall State landscape and help identify technological and procedural problems that need to be solved. Should the selection not be at random, for example, by avoiding sending duplicated cards in for audit, the results are less representative, and may lead to masking technological problems. Therefore training should continue stressing the need to submit appropriate cards for the pre-election audit.

For the post-election we received fewer than expected number of cards, 155, out of which only 49 were used in the election. This is a very low number. It would be extremely important in the future to obtain substantially larger numbers of cards from the actual use in the elections.

It is indeed good news that their has been a successful first test of new memory cards. Hopefully, further testing will be successful and will result in a relatively speedy full deployment:

New non-volatile (battery-less) memory card was recently developed by the vendor. Our preliminary analysis of this card concermed that it is compatible with AV-OS systems deployed in Connecticut. A pilot deployment of the new cards was done in the Town of Vernon using 12 of the new cards. The cards performed well, no failures were detected, and no such cards lost their data. However this is a very small sample of cards. We are currently performing in-depth testing of the non-volatile cards and as of this writing the results are encouraging.

A broader pilot is being planned by the SOTS Oce to occur in the near future. The use of the new card should eliminate the major cause of memory card failures.

53 districts in 49 municipalities selected for post-election audit

Yesterday with assistance from Coalition volunteers, Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill conducted the random selection of districts for the post-election audit.

Particularly striking is the rapid consolidation and dramatic drop in the number of polling places over time:

Yesterday with assistance from Coalition volunteers, Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill conducted the random selection of districts for the post-election audit. They are listed in this official press release.

Particularly striking is the rapid consolidation and dramatic drop in the number of polling places over time:

523	Aug 2012 Primary
598	Apr 2012 Presidential Primary
726	Nov 2011 Municipal Election

This is not necessarily a negative trend, in many of our towns where people drive everywhere. Not such a good idea and actually is not part of the trend in our larger cities. What is behind this is saving money, less work recruiting pollworkers, less locations to manage, and less work setting setting up of equipment, while fueled this year by Federal and state redistricting requiring redrawing voting districts anyway. Also after five years of optical scanners, it is obvious that single scanners can handle the volume of all but less than a handful of very large polling places.

The local audit counting period will extend until Sept 17th, 2012

Courant stands for election integrity ( with Windsor/Hartford log of events)

Such questions must be answered so that all voters can have faith in the integrity of the system.

We would add to the Courant’s concern in this obvious and difficult situation, that part of the cure is more attention to detail ahead of time and in every election, this close or not. Learning from experience and reducing the odds of lingering questions.

It was a close primary in Windsor/Hartford with the first official count at a tie, then followed by a recanvass leaving two ballots missing or overcounted on election day. Today the Courant supports the current apparent loser in bringing questions to court: ‘Landslide Leo’: 1-Vote Margin In District 5 Bears Further Scrutiny <read>

Who could blame first-time candidate Brandon McGee for asking the state Superior Court to take a look at the vote-counting procedures in his state House district after the Aug. 14 primary election?

Last week, registrars said union activist Leo Canty defeated Mr. McGee by one vote — 774 to 773 — to win the Democratic nomination for the 5th House District seat in Windsor and part of Hartford. The Democratic winner will face Windsor board of education member Paul Panos, a Republican, in the Nov. 6 general election.

Enough doubt has been raised about the vote that taking it to court is a reasonable course for Mr. McGee to follow.

The initial tabulation on election night and a subsequent recount showed first a McGee victory by one vote, then a tie and then the one-vote margin for Mr. Canty. There apparently is a missing paper absentee ballot, as well as one lost McGee machine vote, after the recount, in Windsor. There are also procedural questions…

Such questions must be answered so that all voters can have faith in the integrity of the system.

We have long said that while, useful, Connecticut’s recanvass are weak versions of recounts. Recanvasses are insufficient in very close races. Even a recount in this situation may not be adequate to determine the actual choice of the voters.

The issue here seems to turn more on the two “missing” ballots. Are they actually missing or were there miscounts on election day? As we and many officials point out people can count inaccurately, especially if they do not take measures to verify their work. It is possible for machines to count inaccurately, or for jams or ballots to be mishandled so that ballot(s) are counted twice. Also, Connecticut’s check-in procedures make it easy for counts to be off by small numbers in either direction.

We have no horse in this race. Even though I attended both recanvasses, I was not an official observer, was only able to observe from a distance, and was not privy to0 conversations/details discussed between officials and official observers – especially conversations relating to the “missing” ballots. I did see some inadequate procedures/actions in both recanvasses, that provide potential integrity holes, but have no evidence of a faulty count. One of my major concerns with recanvasses is the inadequate review of individual ballots for potential voter intent issues – this does not seem to be a significant factor in this case of a vary simple ballot, presumably experienced voters, and apparently few close calls in the actual ballots. Unfortunately, I missed the last exciting hours of the Windsor recanvass. (I went out for a quick meal, but found the building locked when I returned.)

We would add to the Courant’s concern in this obvious and difficult situation, that part of the cure is more vigilance and attention to detail ahead of time and in every election, this close or not. Learning from experience and reducing the odds of lingering questions. For example, to date, the system has never recognized a problem with the results in Bridgeport in 2010, or with the significant discrepancies in that election in the number of voters checked-in vs. ballots*. When campaigning, our current Secretary of the State recognized the problem in lack of uniformity in a recanvass crossing Bloomfield and Hartford. Unfortunately, no changes have been made to correct that problem, perhaps we would not be in this situation today if procedures, training, and vigilance had increased.

* Since the Bridgeport Recount was not official, we would not expect it to change official results. Still, there has never been any official recognition or attempted cure for the inaccurate counting and discrepancies between check-in lists and ballot counts. There are new laws to reduce the chances of running out of official ballots and to make copied ballots so that voting does not get interrupted by lack of ballots or weather emergencies. There is no routine audit of check-in lists vs. ballot counts.

Update: Windsor Patch: McGee Files Complaint, Seeks Hearing on Primary Results <read>

According to a statement released by McGee, the complaint filed in court alleges election officials:

“improperly allowed absentee ballots to be counted that were not counted by tabulation on primary Election Day or during the recanvass;

“improperly allowed absentee ballots to comingle, allowing for an improper count;

“and lost a ballot that was cast in McGee’s favor in Windsor’s John F. Kennedy voting district.”

The complaint says the actions specified are in violation of state statues, and requests a court hearing be held.

While alleging improper actions were taken by election officials, McGee was explicit in saying, “…nowhere in this action is my campaign alleging any wrongdoing by either Mr. Canty or Mayor Trinks.”

“I want to ensure that those who exercised their right were not deprived of their voice, and that the will of the people is ascertained without question of process,” he added.

In detailing the recanvass, the complaint, according to McGee, names Hartford Democratic Registrar of Voters Olga Iris Vazquez, Hartford Town and City Clerk John Bazzano, Windsor Democratic Registrar of Voters Anita Mips, Windsor Town Clerk Agnes Pier, Secretary of State Denise Merrill, the state elections enforcement committee, and fifth assembly district candidates Canty and Trinks.

Update 8/31/2012: Hartford Clerk Testifies In Hearing On 5th State House District Primary Vote <read>

Update 9/6/2012: Testimony Continues In Disputed 5th Statehouse District Democratic Primary<read> Take some of the summary statements about the testimony with a few grains of salt.

Update 9/7/2012: Testimony In Disputed Democratic Primary Race Focuses On Elusive Ballot <read>

Update 9/12/2012: Testimony Ends In 5th General Assembly District Election Complaint <read>

Among other things:

[Superior Court Judge A. Susan] Peck added that she was concerned about the fact that 525 ballots were cast in Windsor, but poll workers only crossed off 523 names, violating state law.

Yes, but we suspect being a little off happens frequently. We have no statistics to go on, unfortunately the check-in lists and easy to make a small number of errors. We point to huge errors in Bridgeport in 2010 which, unfortunately, raised little concern at the time or since, from the unofficial Citizen’s Bridgeport Recount Report:

In several districts the counts of ballots differed from the check-in list counts, and in several districts, our counts of the check-in lists differed from the counts on the moderators’ reports. In many districts check-in list counts closely paralleled ballot counts, yet some counts were over by 21 ballots or less or under by 30 ballots or less. While some variation can be expected due to the difficulty of interpreting some check-in marks, we found several districts where the check-in lists were clearly not counted accurately. In one district, results were under by 117 ballots less than voters checked- in based on our counts.

Update 9/14/2012 Peck Orders Second Recount In 5th Assembly District <read>

Update 9/18/2012 Uncounted, Missing Ballot Found in 2nd Windsor Recanvass <read>

Update 9/18/2012 Town Clerk: Unopened Absentee Ballot Erroneously Marked “Deceased” <read>

Update 9/18/2012: Now it is down to opening that one vote <read>

Update 9/19/2012: A revote Oct 2nd in Hartford/Windsor <read>

Update 9/19/2012: Third Shoe Drops, Trinks drops out <read>

Secretary’s Office and registrars test new election reporting system

From what we can tell, the system may well meet the needs for better reporting that would dramatically move us forward in the PEW criteria, and more importantly, toward higher accuracy and higher election integrity. Yet, the devil is often in the details. After implementation for election night, the system should also be extended to report the results of recanvasses and post-election audits.

For some time, we have been calling for a better election night reporting system that would be subject to addition and transcription errors, contain detailed district data, and provide data to candidates and the public. It was one of the items on our list of What Could a Secretary of the State Do, started in the 2010 campaign for that office:

Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site

In a PEW study the Connecticut site ranked 48th out of 50 states. We could debate if we should be higher in the rankings, or instead work to emulate and surpass the top ranked states.

The process of accumulating voting results in Connecticut is an error-prone three step process of addition and transcription, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office, and to the web. Citizens have identified errors large and moderate – errors of a magnitude which could change election results, the initiation of recanvasses, or ballot access. See <here> <here>

Without reliable, publicly posted results, post-election audits cannot be accomplished which inspire confidence and provide integrity. A trusted audit requires selecting districts for audit against previously posted results. Since we audit against optical scanner tapes, and the tape results are not posted, then we fail to meet that requirement.

We applauded when it was one of the items in the Elections Performance Task Force Report released this spring:

15. The Secretary recommends immediate implementation of a statewide web-based electronic reporting system for election results.

CTNewsJunkie covers the test with views from several registrars: State Used Primary to Pilot New Election Results Reporting System <read> Last week we discovered, and along with other advocates, reviewed the webcast which described the system to registrars that were part of the pilot.

From what we can tell, the system may well meet the needs for better reporting that would dramatically move us forward in the PEW criteria, and more importantly, toward higher accuracy and higher election integrity. We especially appreciate the input of district Moderators’ Returns and the promised immediate public access to all the detailed data. Yet, the devil is often in the details: Will the Moderators’ Returns include the critical Moderator’s Log? Should the data be reviewed by the Head Moderator before it is available to the public? I would seem easy for a moderator after a 17 hour day to make a data entry error that might go unnoticed. There will be a lot of training necessary if each moderator is expected to input the data in each polling place. Perhaps most multi-polling place towns should start with data entry in a central location with the moderators observing and checking while someone else inputs the data. We are also skeptical of the “Smart Phone” interface – in a Municipal Election, especially, there is a lot of data to enter and the Moderator’s Return can be extensive as well – how long will that take with a small smartphone screen and a small keyboard?

In any case, this seems to be a great start toward a much improved process. After implementation for election night, the system should also be extended to report the results of recanvasses and post-election audits.

Has anyone here seen my old friend Accuracy?

Seems like after just about every election we see media reports of potential and impending ‘recounts’, when there is no such thing in the applicable election statutes. Some may think we are too picky expecting the press and our chief elections official to be precise. Many people call ‘primaries’ ‘elections’ but in the statutes they are different things, just as ‘recounts’ and ‘recanvasses’ are different things in our statutes and in common use.

Accuracy matters in word and in deed.

Seems like after just about every election we see media reports of potential and impending ‘recounts’, when there is no such thing in the applicable election statutes. See these stories: CTNewsJunkie, MyLeftNutmeg, the Courant, and the CTMirror. Where do that all get that same inaccurate idea? Perhaps from the Secretary of the State’s press release, subtitled: SECRETARY OF THE STATE NOTIFIES REGISTRARS AND TOWN CLERKS IN NEW HAVEN,WEST HAVEN, HARTFORD AND WINDSOR THEY HAVE UNTIL TUESDAY AUGUST 21ST TO COMPLETE RECOUNTS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS 5 & 116 <read> At lease she pointed them to the right statutes that use the word ‘recanvass’:

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 9-311 and 9-311a, recounts are to be conducted by election moderators and supervised by Registrars of Voters. The recounts for the 2012 Primary Elections must be complete by Tuesday August 21, 2012.

Some may think we are too picky expecting the press and our chief elections official to be precise. Many people call ‘primaries’ ‘elections’ but in the statutes they are different things, just as ‘recounts’ and ‘recanvasses’ are different things in our statutes and in common use. When we think of recounts we think of the slow and controversial process in Florida in 2000, or the deliberate, adversarial, and ACCURATE process in Minnesota in 2008.

We have said it all before, several times, that a recanvass is not a recount, a recanvass is useful, but a recount is sometimes advisable. Perhaps we said it best in this op-ed: CTMirror Op-Ed: State recanvass law inadequate for close elections <read>

This could be quite confusing if they think there was a ‘recount’ in Windsor/Hartford, but the close result ends in a court battle for a ‘recount’.

We point out that words matter. Seems like just a few days ago the Secretary of The State was able rule that the Democratic Party had line 1 on the ballot, while the Working Families Party could not since they were not really the type of party referenced in the applicable statute.