CT | CTVotersCount.org

The Courant hits some good points, yet ironically misses the mark on election accountability

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported <read>

Voting. Voters report to one of hundreds of precincts on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, unless they have a specific reason to apply for an absentee ballot. The system worked well when more women were at home and more people walked to the polls.

Should it be tweaked to fit the needs of the 21st century? Secretary of the State Denise Merrill thinks so, and she is right. With the technology available today, there’s no reason that online registration should not become the norm — and, as soon as it can be adequately secured, online voting. A voter should be able to get an absentee ballot for any reason.

We agree that online line registration is a good thing that can save money, increase convenience, and increase integrity.

But when it comes to unlimited absentee balloting and online voting we disagree.

After every election we hear stories from around the country of absentee ballot fraud. Here in Connecticut we have had several charges, prosecutions, and penalties in our largest cities involving absentee voting fraud.

We recently had a symposium hosted by the Secretary of the State with national experts pointing out the risks of online voting, even if it were restricted to military and overseas voters. Fortunately the Courant called for waiting until “as soon as it can be adequately secured” – that will likely be a long time away given that it would require the repeal of a major theorem of computer science.

It may be possible for towns to save money by using regional voting centers. Instead of voting on Tuesdays, how about weekend voting? Voting by mail may make sense. The idea is to have a robust debate over what will work best in Connecticut.

Perhaps we should have that robust debate – a robust debate with everyone at the table – more than a couple of op-eds at the Courant. If security is a concern and the debate includes election integrity advocates and security experts -with complete, fair coverage in the new media, old media, and extensive legislative hearings we expect we would find it too risky for democracy.

Voting on weekends instead of Tuesday would, in our opinion, need to start with a U.S. Constitutional amendment. There is a reason for an set national day for Federal elections – so that all states vote on the same day, such that voting does not continue after partial results are known. There other issues to consider with weekend voting <see>.

Regional voting centers would be convenient. The convenience would come at a considerable price – perhaps towns would save money if the State paid for it. In our opinion, it would require a Connecticut Constitutional Amendment to allow the State to take over some of the town by town responsibility for voting. Watch for debates along the lines of redistricting debates about the number and locations of the regional voting centers.

Registrars. If voting is dragged into the 21st century, it then behooves us to ask if each and every town needs to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on two registrars of voters. Would one nonpartisan registrar do the trick for a town — or even a regional registrar?

At the very least, the legislature must eliminate a quirk in the law that has caused Hartford to have three registrars. The law says the candidates for registrar of voters who garner the highest and second-highest number of votes win the posts. But if a major-party candidate — Democrat or Republican —- is not among the top two finishers, that candidate must also be named a registrar.

In 2008, a Working Families Party candidate outpolled the Republican registrar, meaning that both of them, along with the Democrat, are all registrars. The cost of the extra registrar approaches a quarter-million dollars, money the city can ill afford to waste. Change the law.

We agree with evaluating regional registrars – we support professional civil service election management – “doing for elections what we have done for probate”. It would also require a Constitutional Amendment and effective, deliberate planning.

But as we have pointed out before there are good reasons when registrars are political having the check and balance of two individuals of opposing parties. We also see the original logic in having three registrars in situations like Hartford. And as we have pointed out before there is no reason why Hartford had to increase total salaries and staffing just because a third registrar was elected.

Courant declares Government Accountabiliy priorty for 2012 – we applaud

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.

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.

Rich Sivel 1952 – 2011

Director of TrueVoteCT – Unstoppable Activist – Friend

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

Do instructions on the ballot exaggerate the ZigZag effect?

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.

The ZigZag Conjecture – Another reason to scrap our lever-like ballots

With anecdotal evidence and rational speculation, we introduce the ZigZag Conjecture which may randomly “help” determine election winners and losers in Connecticut.

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.

UPDATED: What is “statistically insignificant”?

There is no agreed upon level of difference that would be considered “statistically insignificant” in Connecticut.

In another nearby town officials are concerned about the cost of audits.

Update: One of the Greenwich Registrars has commented on the first story below and corrected some misinformation.

by Fred DeCaro III
12:46 pm on Sunday, December 4, 2011

It is a shame that poor “reporting” and the absence of fact-checking led Mr. Weeks to comment on this story.

The “reporter” of this story simply copied from a Greenwich Time story, including mistakes in that story.

First, he places the term “statistically insignificant” in quotes. This is not a quote from me, but a quote from the Greenwich Time news story the “reporter” copied from.

Second, because the “reporter” did not verify anything, and merely copied from Greenwich Time, he copied their erroneous statement that 1,250 ballots were hand counted. There were 2,500 ballots counted by hand, and the discrepancy was .36%, which is under the threshold mentioned by Mr. Weeks, who is a well-respected CT election watchdog.

Most disturbing to me personally is when the “reporter” uses inflammatory language and says “the registrars reportedly decided that since the discrepancy was “statistically insignificant” that they wouldn’t bother to take the time to investigate the error.”

Not only is the phony quote used again, but the word choice of “wouldn’t bother to take the time” makes it seem like we didn’t care about the discrepancy.

Together as Republican and Democrat Registrars we made the decision that spending an additional $240 an hour of taxpayer money (with a minimum of 2-3 more hours necessary) to research this matter would not enhance public confidence in the process. I doubt very many Greenwich taxpayers would disagree with that decision.

Greenwich Patch: Voting Machine Audit Takes Nine Votes From Marzullo <read>

A state-mandated hand recount of votes cast in the Nov. 8 election in two of Greenwich’s polling places to determine the accuracy of the new electronic voting machines on Thursday reportedly revealed that Democratic Selectman Drew Marzullo received a “statistically insignificant” nine fewer votes than were originally tabulated by the machines…

The registrars reportedly decided that since the discrepancy was “statistically insignificant” that they wouldn’t bother to take the time to investigate the error

Revised comments: There is no agreed upon level of difference that would be considered “statistically insignificant” in Connecticut. The nine votes out of 2,500 in this case represents just 0.36% of the votes which is approaching the 0.5% threshold for a recanvass. To me anything over that threshold or anywhere near it is significant. Especially since we do not even consider differences in the audit attributable to scanners’ inability to read voters’ intent. We could benefit by established standards for accepting counts and for triggering further investigations.

In another Fairfield County town, officials are concerned about the cost of audits. The Daily Weston: Weston Officials Blast State’s Election Audit <read>

“Am I happy about this? Of course I am not happy about it. This is ridiculous, it’s an unfunded mandate,” said First Selectman Gayle Weinstein…

The purpose of the audit is to make sure voting machines are working correctly, Merrill said. “With this audit, we now must take the step of checking the machine totals from Nov. 8 to ensure the accuracy of our optical scanners. We are committed to making sure Connecticut voters have continued confidence that their votes were recorded accurately, and that’s why these independent audits are so vital.”

The actual hand counting of the three races, Weinstein said, will happen Saturday at Town Hall. But she said the audit is unfair because the town must pay poll workers to spend the day counting votes. Weinstein estimates the audit could cost taxpayers $2,500.

“We have to sit here and count each ballot by hand. I can’t believe it,” said Laura Smits, the Democratic registrar of voter. “I am hoping we get this finished in one day, but who knows. This is costing us a lot of money.”

We were in Weston to observe the audit. It was very well conducted and efficient. If we had not read the article beforehand, we would have never guessed there was any official in Weston concerned with cost. All seemed concerned with performing the audit as intended.

The audit likely cost a bit less than $2500, perhaps $1,500, which would have been about $0.60 per ballot, or about $0.06 per ballot cast in the election statewide given the 10% audit. Perhaps also around 7% of the costs of the ballots printed for the election statewide or less than 1% of the cost of running the election statewide. See <Election Costs $ – Democracy? Priceless!>

Scanners like ours: Optical scanner counts differ for same ballots

There should be an investigation, however, we suggest that determining the cause is not a complete cure. I could happen again. It could have happened in the past. Maybe in Connecticut.

Brad Friedman reported the story last week <read>

A close race on election night. Rescanned to check but the other candidate won. Then they did a hand count and confirmed the original result. UT like Connecticut is fortunate to have chosen optical scanners with voter completed paper ballots. But we need to verify the accuracy of scanners with audits, recanvasses, and recounts.

The first “recount” of Provo’s Municipal Council District 1 ballots — carried out on the same op-scan systems that tallied them in the first place — was held yesterday, only to be abruptly called off when the results were found to be “extremely in favor of the opposite candidate.”…

“The numbers were varying too much,” Utah County Chief Deputy Clerk/Auditor Scott Hogensen tells the Deseret News about the District 1 race. “It became obvious the machines weren’t counting things correctly.”

But whether the Diebold op-scanners tallied the ballots inaccurately on Election Day or during the so-called “recount” remains unknown at the moment.

According to Deseret News, “Morrow said she asked for the recount to be done by hand in the first place but the request was denied.”…

two hand-counts on Wednesday have now confirmed the accuracy of the original optical-scan count giving the election victory to Gary Winterton after all. The “recount” on the same op-scan systems seem to have been inaccurate, while the original count was accurate. We still don’t know why, of course.

It was not a small, trivial difference, we are talking over 700 votes!

No word yet on why the second scanner might have miscounted. There should be an investigation, however, we suggest that determining the cause is not a complete cure. No matter the cause:

It could happen again in Utah or Connecticut
Another time it might be the original scanner, not the second one, and/or election day officials making the error
It might be far enough off that there is no automatic recount or recanvass
It might not be the machine, it might be procedures, yet exonerating the machine does not provide comfort, whatever the cause it can happen again in Utah or Connecticut
Perhaps it has happened before – maybe last year in Connecticut one or more of the differences between hand counts and machine counts might not have been human errors as assumed by the Secretary of the State’s office. <read>

We leave with this further item from Brad illustrating the tendency for officials to leap to unfounded, yet assuring conclusions based on assumptions:

Amusingly, and for reasons unknown, [Utah County Chief Deputy Clerk/Auditor Scott] Hogensen told Deseret News that, according to the paper, he “does not believe machine malfunctions affect the outcome of any other races in the county.”

This has happened a couple of times before with other scanners. <one example><another>

Secrecy vs. Anonymity of ballots

From Aspen we have a discussion of the value of anonymous ballots and the meaning of the secret ballot. What voting free from coercion requires is the secret casting of ballots and the ongoing safeguarding of those ballots along with the anonymity of the voter associated with each ballot.

Recently we discussed the distinction between integrity and confidence. From Aspen we have a discussion of the value of anonymous ballots and the meaning of the secret ballot. What voting free from coercion requires is the secret casting of ballots and the ongoing safeguarding of those ballots along with the anonymity of the voter associated with each ballot <read>

Before 1947, Colorado ballots were marked with unique numbers and were not anonymous. Voters might mark their ballots in secrecy, but their votes were traceable through deliberate numbering. A 1947 constitutional amendment outlawed any marks on ballots that make them traceable. This revolutionary change facilitated effective privacy of Coloradans’ voting process and is the foundation of our civil right to expect our votes to remain secret. This voting method — sometimes referred to as the “secret ballot” — ironically does not allow for secrets on ballots.

However, opponents of election transparency talk endlessly about “secret ballots.” Hate to tell you, there’s no such thing. “Secret ballots” have no place, indeed no meaning, in our election law. Voters are entitled to privacy while voting and a system designed to prevent tracing a ballot to a voter. These safeguards ensure NO ONE learns how anyone else voted. They ensure what everyone wants: Nobody knows how I voted.

We agree with the writers. When lawmakers use the word secret ballot we believe the actual intent is that the identity of the voter should always remain secret, which is equivalent to anonymous ballot, not that ballots remain secret. In fact, in order to perform publicly observable audits, recounts, racanvasses, or to make ballots public requires that they not be secret. In fact, if non-transparent audits, recounts, or recanvasses or any official review of ballots is allowed then ballots would not be secret – they would be available for officials to inspect but kept from the voters.

In the Connecticut Constitution we have, in Article 6 Section 5:

The right of secret voting shall be preserved.

Obviously consistent with anonymous ballots, rather than preserving ballots in secret.

Update: 04/17/2012: On to the Colorado Supreme Court <read>

73 Districts in 44 Municipalites selected for November Post-Election Audit

UPDATED: Today we assisted the Secretary of the State in randomly selecting 10% of the districts in the November election for the post-election audit.

Today we assisted the Secretary of the State in randomly selecting 10% of the districts in the November election for the post-election audit. The districts are listed in the Secretary’s Press Release <read> <CT-N Video>

Read the press release closely, and you will find only 72 districts selected along with 15 alternates. To make up for the miscounting, the 1st alternate will be included.

Update: We originally posted that 54 municipalities were selected. The correct number is 44 municipalities. We regret the error.

Why Tuesday? Why Saturday? Why Sunday?

UPDATED: Representative Larson to introduce “Weekend Voting Act”. We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.

UPDATED: Our Representative, John Larson will be introducing a bill, “Weekend Voting Act” to move elections to the weekend. <read>

HARTFORD — With low voter participation across the nation at the polls this week, Congressman John B. Larson (CT-01), announced today that he supports an initiative to move elections from Tuesdays to the weekend to make it easier for all citizens to do their civic duty.

“As a representative democracy, voting is a fundamental responsibility for all Americans and the system should be as accessible as possible for as many as possible,” said Larson. “Unfortunately, the system we have now was designed to meet our country’s needs over 160 years ago and it no longer makes any sense. It’s time we stop making people choose between exercising their responsibility to vote, and meeting their everyday obligations.”

The current system, with national and local elections held on Tuesdays, was originally established in 1845 to accommodate the schedule of a largely agrarian society. Today, as an urban society, with many competing demands on everyone’s time, taking the time to go vote during a busy workday is a large impediment for many Americans. In fact, voter turnout has decreased in almost every presidential election since 1965.

The solution is simple, Larson says, “moving our elections to the weekend would make it much easier for everyone to get out and vote.” That is the goal of the ‘Why Tuesday’ Initiative, a non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2005 to find solutions to increase voter participation.

‘Why Tuesday’ supports the Weekend Voting Act which will be introduced this Congress to move Congressional and presidential elections to weekends. “Bill Wachtel and the folks at Why Tuesday are right,” Larson noted. “Even one American voter disenfranchised because of an outdated scheduling policy is too many. I will be working to make this change in how we vote so that more Americans can participate without having to choose between work, or their families, and their desire to vote.”

Reading the details we find some voting integrity implications and we are skeptical of the benefits:

We question if weekend voting would actually increase turnout, decrease it, or be a wash. In Connecticut we have about half the turn-out in municipal elections as in Federal elections – clearly some of the voters are less motivated for municipal elections. Would elections on weekends motivate those same and other voters to interrupt their weekend activities or mini-vacations to vote? We see arguments for weekend voting but no rigorous argument at WhyTuesday. The overall effect seems difficult to predict.
Which days would we vote? Saturday and/or Sunday? I am a big supporter of separation of State and Church, but staffing elections might be challenging because many voters and potential election officials hold Saturday or Sunday as days reserved for their religion. Most might be willing to vote, but many might pass on working the polls or participating in get out the vote efforts – some might reasonably be expected to be offended by such efforts culminating on their day of worship.
On the other hand it might be possible to attract other individuals without strong religious or other weekend commitments to be poll workers. Once again, perhaps a wash as some people prefer taking a vacation day to work the polls rather than sacrificing “their time” on a weekend. Retired folks might prefer during the week and keep the weekend for visiting children and grandchildren. Once again, it might be difficult to predict.
With weekend voting we might find more volunteers on election day around town and around the polls holding signs encouraging everyone to vote. Especially if the election were Saturday, much of the flyering activities now largely accomplished on the weekend before the election would have to be accomplished during on the weekdays prior.
Would it have an effect on the demographics of who votes? Once again, hard to tell. On the surface it would seem to favor those whose work makes it impossible to vote during polling hours – those that are not out of town all day (those out of town all day are eligible to vote by absentee ballot), or so busy working and driving children around that voting before or after work is just too much of a hassle. It should have little effect on the unemployed, or the many who work on weekends.

Looking at Representative Steve Israel’s site we find more details, not readily apparent at WhyTuesday:

The system needs to be upgraded to accommodate the needs of all American citizens. That’s why Rep. Israel introduced The Weekend Voting Act, H.R. 254 in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), which would move Election Day to the weekend. Rep. Israel is planning to reintroduce the legislation during the 112th (2011-2012) Congress. His bill would require polling places in the continental United States to be open on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. EST and close on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EST during a presidential election.

Update: Representative Israel’s description is inexact. Here is the summary of the previous bill, our comments are updated accordingly:

Amends the Revised Statutes with respect to the time of election to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every even numbered year, as the days for the election, in each state and territory, of Delegates to, or Members of, Congress. Amends federal law with respect to presidential elections and vacancies to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every fourth year, as the days for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States. Amends such federal laws to establish the same polling place hours in the United States for both congressional and presidential elections, namely from 10:00 a.m. EST on Saturday till 6:00 p.m. EST on Sunday, with polls allowed to close between the hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the state in which the polling place is located.

Looks like it would only apply to Federal elections, the ones that currently have the highest turnout.
One thing for sure, variation between Presidential, other Federal, Primaries and all other elections would increase voter and official confusion, with may changes required in other deadlines along the way.
We also note that while 10:00am to 6:00pm might be fine for many voters and would be hailed by election officials, those hours would make it much more difficult for retail employees required to work on Saturday and inconvenience those voters who would like to vote early and late avoid interrupting their normal Saturday or Sunday activities.
With Sunday undefined for hours, would States take into account religious services in setting polling hours? If they did, would that provide opportunities for constitutional challenges?
We do find that there are Integrity challenges, at least in Connecticut. Currently we have only one day of voting, thus securing the ballots, machines, and the polling place would be a new challenge to integrity.
At least in Connecticut, it would likely almost double the election day costs for election personnel, building rental, campaigns, and volunteers.
Weekends would also present challenges and complains where elections are held in facilities that are currently used during the weekends for other activities.
One positive aspect would be an end to long pollworker days. Starting later and ending at earlier would provide for more rested officials opening and closing the polls.

We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.