Category: CT

Courant: Panel Aims To Ease Voting Voting By Phone – Voter Describes Difficulty When Poll Workers Lack Training On Use Of Special System <read>

We would not normally describe it as voting by phone, but that is an apt name for the experience. Connecticut’s voting system for the disabled, the IVS, is as cumbersome system for polling place officials and voters, suitable primarily for the blind, if suitable for anyone.

Officials complain of the costs of providing a special phone line installed in many polling places before each election, difficult setup, and in many cases the system remains unused by any voter. The setup requires a test communication over the phone line with a faxed response. In 2010, the Coalition found in our small sample that some IVS systems took hours, or never responded to the setup test. <see page 34>

To vote, voters listen to the ballot over the phone, using the keypad to select their choices, the system responds with a fax that prints a special ballot which the voter must deposit in the auxiliary bin of the box below the scanner. At the end of the day such ballots are counted by hand as they are not scannable. At best the system may only meet the needs of vision impaired voters. In a complex local election it can take half an hour to listen to the ballot and make choices by the touch pad. The IVS is supposed to facilitate independent, anonymous voting, not require the aid of an individual to assist the voter in filling out the ballot. Yet, how independent is it when help is needed in setting up the system? How easy is it for the sight limited voter to collect and deposit the ballot across the room and keep it hidden all the way? How anonymous when at most one or two voters use the system an the ballots are easily identified, even after the election? In 2010, in one report, a voter used the system, waited two hours for the ballot to be faxed, left in frustration, while the ballot did print one more hour later.

Voters should not have to put up with this system. All voters with disabilities deserve a better system. Pollworkers should not have to put up with this system, they deserve a system that is reliable. Yet, pollworkers should be careful to treat each voter with dignity even if they are themselves frustrated.

When the state worked to pick  HAVA (Help America Vote Act) compliant systems for voting and for voters with disabilities, there were many individuals involved at the state and national levels working and pushing for solutions for those with disabilities. Connecticut chose the IVS system, perhaps intended as an interim solution. Since that time we have seen little attention by officials to evaluating purported better solutions. Since that time, we have seen little if any evidence of lobbying or calls for better solutions from or on behalf of those with disabilities.

Courant Editorial  First, Make Government Accountable <read>

A democratically elected government must be accountable to the people it serves. It must be organized to provide necessary services efficiently and economically. It must avoid waste and duplication.

In 2012, The Courant’s editorial board will make accountability in government a top priority, along with fair play in Connecticut politics and job creation in the state.

We agree with all three goals: Accountability in Government; Fair Play in Politics; and Job Creation. CTVotersCount is especially associated with accountability in the elections arena of government and election integrity which are basic components and prerequisites for fair play in politics.

It extends well beyond the state, state employee accountability, and reasonable pensions.

Like state employees, most election officials aim for integrity. All must be accountable for fully following laws and procedures. Elections should be independently audited to provide the value, integrity, and confidence the public deserves and democracy requires.

Richard Franklin Sivel Jr. <obit>

Rich was instrumental in the Voter Verified Paper Record law and selection of Op Scan in Connecticut, , a post-election audit observer for the Coalition. The Obituary is really wonderful without being overblown. I had lunch with him earlier this year: Everything great! 1st grandchild; mother still in PA.

Director of TrueVoteCT – Unstoppable Activist – Friend

 

Take a look at the back page of a Connecticut Sample Ballot <look at the 2nd page here>

It is likely that the example shows two columns and rows is designed to be as simple as possible and by showing two candidates selected in different parties is intended to be fair (at least to the two dominant parties). But it would suggest, at least subconsciously, to some voters that voting in a ZigZag is particularly appropriate.

Note also that the vote for one example looks very similar on the instructions with two rows and columns, also showing a ZigZag pattern.

With anecdotal evidence and rational speculation, we introduce the ZigZag Conjecture which may randomly “help” determine election winners and losers in Connecticut. We doubt we are the first to suggest such an effect. Perhaps someone has or will use statistics to study it.

Our Lever-Like Ballots

Like several states, Connecticut does uses a ballot design that could be best described as a the “face of a lever machine on paper”, with boxes for each candidate’s name and bubble. It takes up a lot of space, when there are a lot of parties and unaffiliated candidates. It can include a lot of blank space when some parties only offer a few candidates.  For examples see the ballots from November 2011 <view>  It can include a lot of blank space when some parties only offer a few candidates or there are unaffiliated candidates, for example <here> and <here (be sure and scroll down)>

Party order is specified by the State (the current Governor’s party 1st). Candidate order in vote for multiple races is selected randomly by lottery.

It used to be that you had to use a party lever to vote in Connecticut. Vivian Kellems took care of that, eventually the party levers were removed, and now you cannot vote for a party without filling all the bubbles.

Other states use a clearer ballot that wastes less space, such as this sample from Minnesota <view> It takes away the party emphasis, presumably it would take a voter a bit longer, a bit more care, and preparation to register a party line vote.

The ZigZag Conjecture

Conjecture: Many voters vote in ZigZags: voting from left to right across the ballot they want to vote for a mix of candidates, unaffiliated and from various parties. In vote for multiple races many tend to vote for one candidate in each column, even thought they could vote for more than one in the same column.This can hurt candidates in certain locations on the ballot.

Anecdotal Evidence:

• This possibility first came to our attention when one particular candidate was unexpectedly the lowest vote getter in a vote for multiple race. It was quickly suspected that the cause was her location on the ballot directly below the highest vote getter in the race.
• Observing a post-election audit in another town, officials were wondering why a traditional high vote getter did not lead his party in the election. Inspecting the ballot and the results he was located above the highest vote getter in the other party.
• A similar anecdotal cases were seen in that election and others

Certainly these anecdotes are not conclusive. Perhaps a statistical study could be performed evaluating a large number of local elections to determine the extent to which results support this conjecture. Since ballot position is completely random within a party, if the conjecture were false then we would expect in each municipality on average each party candidate would receive and average number of votes for their party without regard to candidates in the same column – if a statistically significant correlation were shown  based on candidates in the same column between the higher vote getters  in each party vs. the lower vote getters in the other dominant party, then the ZigZag conjecture would be supported.

Other possible problems and implications.

Additional research might include:

• Does the ZigZag Hypothesis apply between races as well as in a single race?
• Does the ZigZag Hypothesis increase or drop-off from left to right in a race or across the ballot?
• Does the first column in a race or ballot effect the direction of the entire ZigZag – or is there correlation between columns?
• Is it advantageous to be to the right and above or below a high vote getter?
• Are less informed, less interested voters, especially in local races, more likely to ZigZag in a well intended attempt at fairness and balance?
• Would successful efforts toward higher turn-out through convenience actually increase the ZigZag effect, bringing more less informed voters to the polls?

Our own speculation would be yes to all of these questions, adding more weight to the need to scrap our lever-like ballot design.