Category: Post-Election Audits

CT: Audits Accurate? How Many Votes Is A Handful?

If we dismiss every discrepancy as human hand count error, how would we know if there was an optical scanner error – caused by the scanner hardware, human error, or human fraud?
AP article in the Hartford Courant: Audits: Conn. voting machine counts accurate

If we dismiss every discrepancy as human hand count error, how would we know if there was an optical scanner error – caused by the scanner hardware, human error, or human fraud?

AP article in the Hartford Courant: Audits: Conn. voting machine counts accurate: <read>

Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz (‘BYE-suh-wits) says audits of some of the state’s voting machines show they produced extremely accurate vote totals for last month’s elections.

Bysiewicz says her office reviewed results in 10 percent of the state’s voting precincts, as required by law, by comparing the machine totals with hand-count results.

Bysiewicz spokesman Av Harris says none of the totals were off by more than a handful of votes. He says past experience has shown that minor discrepancies are usually the result of human error during the hand counts.

The University of Connecticut will be doing a more thorough analysis.

Bysiewicz says Connecticut residents should feel confident that the optical scan machines are counting their votes correctly.

The Connecticut Citizen Audit Coalition will also be doing a more thorough analysis. In the meantime, we have reviewed some of the official audit reports filed by municipalities. Here is an image of one report from just one Connecticut city. <view>

To save you time, the discrepancies in various candidate counts in this one district are:
13, -2, 10, -11, 28, 13, 8, 16, 1, 12, 93
(we corrected for the one obvious error in the last column)

The discrepancy of 93 was in one of the Registrar Of Voters races, not one of those “challenging” cross-endorsement races.

Update: From NorwalkPlus: Results of 2008 post election audit show accurate Election Day machine counts <read>

By Secretary of the State’s Office

…“We set a record in Connecticut on November 4th with 1.64 million people casting ballots and Election Day went remarkably smoothly,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “The results of this audit indicate, once again, that the optical scan voting system is secure and extremely accurate. Connecticut voters can be confident in the integrity of our elections and that their votes were counted correctly. Still, I’m not asking anyone to simply take my word for it: that’s why these post-election procedures are so important. We want to shine the light on the electoral process, before and after all votes are cast. So far, Connecticut’s new voting machines have passed the test every step of the way.”

As part of Connecticut’s audit law, believed to be the toughest in the United States…

While the audits did uncover accurate machine counts on Election Day, there were discrepancies in isolated cases involving the hand-count audits for some ballots marked with votes for major party candidates who were cross endorsed by minor parties.

Election “Audit” Discovers Diebold-Known Error

Eureka CA, Diebold error resulted in 179 uncounted ballots. The Times-Standard reports the story of the “Humboldt Election Transparency Project”, similar to a post-election audit <read>

Premier Elections Solutions (formerly known as Diebold Election Systems, Inc.), seems to have known about the glitch at least since 2004.

The Transparency Project is not an ordinary audit, it is partially accomplished by the public:
Continue reading “Election “Audit” Discovers Diebold-Known Error”

CT: Errors found in town’s first vote audit

Like several towns in the most recent Post-Election Audit, Hamden found unexplained discrepancies in the post election audit. Unlike most towns, the media in Hamden takes note. The Hamden Chronicle has the story <read> Not by a large number, though Esposito considered any deviation to be problematic. They estimated no more than 3 percent as … Continue reading “CT: Errors found in town’s first vote audit”

Like several towns in the most recent Post-Election Audit, Hamden found unexplained discrepancies in the post election audit. Unlike most towns, the media in Hamden takes note. The Hamden Chronicle has the story <read>

Not by a large number, though Esposito considered any deviation to be problematic. They estimated no more than 3 percent as of Thursday, Nov. 20. That was within the range of standard human error according to Esposito.
“We’re looking at three to four votes out of 2,000 so far,” said Esposito.

We wonder where the 3% figure for standard human error comes from? We also note that four votes out of 2000 would represent .2% of the votes and perhaps a .4% margin difference in a 2000 vote race.

Our belief is that people can easily make errors, however, with reasonable procedures and supervision teams of people can count accurately. Machines can count accurately or inaccurately, but they ultimately cannot judge voters’ intent.


The Cross-Endorsed Counting Challenge:

Continue reading “CT: Errors found in town’s first vote audit”

CT: Secretary Bysiewicz Expresses Staunch Support Of Audits

Greenwich Time, Once again, town faces election audit: <read>

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, a staunch advocate for the hand counting of ballots, said that she would oppose any measures to weaken the state’s auditing requirements, which she called the toughest in the nation.

“Auditing the election results is critical,” Bysiewicz said. “It is important to guarantee the integrity of our elections. We don’t just take the machine’s word for the vote tally.”

We appreciate the Secretary’s support of post-election audits and that she is staunchly opposed to weakening them. We also share the goal that Connecticut’s law be the “toughest in the Nation”. Our enthusiasm is tempered by our observations and conclusions that our audits are not the toughest and are, in any case by several measures, inadequate to provide confidence.

CT: Post-Election Audit: 84 Districts, 55 Towns, and 5 Races

Yesterday, I was present as the Secretary of the State held the random drawing of districts to audit.  Later in the day the Secretary ordered that all five State and Federal offices be audited rather than three randomly selected races as required in the law.

Here are a couple of sample news articles on the drawing:

Hat City Blog <read> with selected districts and statement from the Secretary of the State’s Office.

Conn Post article <read>

In an e-mail later in the day to registrars with districts selected, the office explained:

All offices on the ballot will be audited except local municipal races such as RTM, Board of Education, etc. Therefore, the Offices of President, Representative in Congress, State Senator, State Representative and Registrar of Voters will be included in this audit.

As CTVotersCount.org readers know, we have been calling for stronger, more effective audits of all races and contests.

Auditing all five State and Federal races will provide more confidence in the results of those races. While we are pleased to see such enhanced confidence, we would rather the legislature provide audits based on statistical confidence. We would audit statewide and Congressional races based on the number of districts in the race and the margins. We would include questions. We would exempt non-contested races, such as registrar in most districts.

For instance in this election we would audit: Continue reading “CT: Post-Election Audit: 84 Districts, 55 Towns, and 5 Races”

eTRICK or reTREAT? Nightmare of Elections Future

Editor’s Note:  Posted Halloween 2009.  Rush Holt has moved on from the House, yet we still face the danger of putting off needed reforms.

Like many voters, I am concerned about the integrity of this year’s election. Last night I was visited by three visions of elections future. From 2008, 2012 or 2016. I’m a little hazy on some of the details, but the visions were worse than anything yet imagined.

The Ghost Of Presidential Elections Future:
It seems the problems all stemmed from what happened in the 2008 election and its aftermath. Its a little hazy but the ghost warned of three possible outcomes:

Editor’s Note:  Posted Halloween 2009.  Rush Holt has moved on from the House, yet we still face the danger of putting off needed reforms.

Like many voters, I am concerned about the integrity of this year’s election. Last night I was visited by three visions of elections future. From 2008, 2012 or 2016. I’m a little hazy on some of the details, but the visions were worse than anything yet imagined.

The Ghost Of Presidential Elections Future:
It seems the problems all stemmed from what happened in the 2008 election and its aftermath. Its a little hazy but the ghost warned of three possible outcomes:

  1. The polls are said to be very very wrong:
    The people chose one candidate for President, but manipulations of the data, voter suppression, or Supreme Court action made the other candidate the winner. The media covers every reason but the obvious one that goes unreported. The really scary part was that the voters docilely accepted it – instead of hitting the streets, we all ended up on the streets over time.
  2. The polls are only off a “little”: The predicted candidate won the Presidency by a small margin. Instead of the predicted 58-60 Democrats in the Senate and 20 more in the House, there were 54-55 in the Senate and 5 more in the House. Activists continued to object and present a wealth of facts. They are dismissed by the media as “conspiracy theorists”.
  3. The polls were accurate: The election results were as predicted. The predicted candidate won the Presidency. There were 58-60 Democrats in the Senate and about 20 more in the House. A few hard core activists remained, were completely ignored by the media, yet continued the fight for election integrity. The potential of election theft remained, while the potential for election integrity all but vanished.

To paraphrase Walter Cronkite, “Nothing has changed, but your votes are not there”. The nightmare continued:

Beltway Lugosi Appears, The D.C. Goblin:
 How could this have happened? Surely by 2012 or by 2016 we would have had election integrity.

  1. Rep. Rush Holt proposes a better, stronger bill in 2009: The caucus says “what’s the rush Rush, come back later its too soon – we have important issues to deal with, there is plenty of time before the next Presidential Election”.
  2. A persistent Rush Holt proposes a better, stronger bill in 2010: – House Leadership says “its too much, work on it and come back next year”.
  3. Rush Holt proposes weakened bill in 2011 – Everyone says “Its too late, the election officials can’t get it done in a rush Rush, come back after the next election when there will be plenty of time”.
  4. Rush Holt proposes a better, stronger bill in 2009 and it passes the House – The Feinstein/Bennett bill is immediately resurrected in the Senate and passes – it is all put into a joint committee – the result is the “Star Wars” of voting with spending as far as the eye can see and even less voting integrity than 2008.

At least in Connecticut, we can rest assured that our votes will count, with our nickname, “The Constitution State”. Even if the voters approve the ballot question in 2008 to have a Constitutional Convention, surely we can rely on our other nickname, “The Land of Steady Habits” to carry the day and eventually, some day, protect our votes. The nightmare continued:

The Devil Is Truly In The details:

Connecticut earns its nickname, “The Nutmeg State“. When it comes to post-election audit law, the “Devil” is truly in the details.

  1. The Shays/Himes Congressional race is close, less than .5% There is a recanvass(recount). Since recounts are by machine, if Himes(D) loses, Secretary Bysiewicz(D) cannot call for a manual recount without being charged with being political. If Shays(R) loses, she would be under great pressure to reverse her decision to recount by machine.
  2. The Constitution question is close, less than .5%, and there is a recanvass(recount).
    Since recounts are by machine, if “No” loses, Secretary of the State Bysiewicz, a strong supporter of “No”, could not call for a manual recount without being charged with making a political decision. If “Yes” loses, she would be under great pressure to reverse her decision to recount by machine.Worse, a single statewide recount, by law, eliminates all post-election audits, even if the Shays/Himes Congressional race is close but over .5%.
  3. The Constitution question is close but over .5%:
    It will not be audited – questions are exempt from post-election audits in Connecticut
  4. The Shays/Himes Congressional race is close but over .5% and is not randomly selected for audit: We randomly select three offices for audit statewide. Instead of auditing close races for the U.S. Congress or the State Legislature we may waste resources excessively counting races with huge margins, or those with unopposed candidates, such as most races for Registrar of voters.

I am awake now. With hard work and some luck, the voters choices may be confirmed in the election results and the voters could awake after the election to stay eternally vigilant. Some may say that this is just a dream, but it is preferable to the alternative nightmare.

CT: Misstatements In Stamford Advocate

Three days ago we pointed out misleading statements made by the Secretary of the State on WNPR.

Now we see some similar misinformation in the Stamford Advocate. <read>

Was the Secretary of the State misquoted or misleading?

Legislation introduced this year that would have required poll workers to give all voters privacy folders and to maintain a “zone of privacy” around the ballot machines did not pass. But poll workers have been instructed to abide by such privacy rules nonetheless, Bysiewicz said.

Connecticut has one of the most carefully monitored voting systems in the United States, she said. Before and after every election, state officials send every ballot machine memory card to the University of Connecticut computer science department to be inspected for tampering or defects. And officials do a hand-count audit of 10 percent of all ballots cast.

“Connecticut is a leader in voting security and integrity because we don’t take the machine count as gospel,” Bysiewicz said.

We must give the benefit of the doubt to both the Secretary and the Stamford Advocate since the statements are not in quotes. All we can be sure of is that they are inaccurate and misleading.

  1. “Before and after every election, state officials send every ballot machine memory card to the University of Connecticut computer science department” – No! Some cards are sent to UConn before some elections, some cards are sent to UConn after some elections, sometimes cards have been sent by local election officials, and sometimes by our vendor, LHS in Massachusetts. Typically about one card per district or 25% are tested.See the reports from UConn.
  2. “And officials do a hand-count audit of 10 percent of all ballots cast” – No! Only those ballots counted by optical scanners in polling places are counted in the audit. Not audited are centrally counted absentee ballots originally counted by optical scanner and all ballots originally counted by hand.

The Perils of Dependent Investigation

One of the prime objectives our Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections is “Requiring the Independent Audit Review Board”. Here is an example of the questions that can surround an investigation by an elections entity attempting to investigate itself, in Washington, D. C., from the Washington Post, Primary Vote Still Doesn’t Add Up: <read>

As District officials continue to investigate errors in the early vote tallies from the Sept. 9 primary, one number stands out: 1,542.

That number appeared in the category for “over votes” in 13 separate races when the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics released early results on election night. But those votes inexplicably vanished shortly after midnight, when officials posted what they identified as corrected results…

A memo obtained by The Washington Post shows that three of the four members of the elections board task force reviewing the blunders also work for the board: Darlene Lesesne-Horton, data services manager; Mohammad M.B. Maeruf, information technology project manager; and Vialetta Graham, chief technology officer. The fourth member is Clifford Tatum, a Help America Vote Act consultant from Georgia…He said that too often elections boards become the chief investigators when something goes awry.

“Yet again, they are investigating their own mistakes,” Jefferson said. “Time and time again, experience shows we need independent technical investigations of incidents like this. I wish the D.C. Council or whoever has authority would just order it.”

Several years ago, questions arose about the academic background of Graham, the board’s chief technology officer.

In 2003, the District’s inspector general completed a year-long investigation on the board and found that Graham had misrepresented her academic credentials on two city job applications, saying she had received a bachelor’s degree in computer science from American University when she had not.

Update: What Could Possibly Be Worse Than Dependent Investigation? Relying on the vendor to explain discrepancies: The West Palm Beach problem goes on and on <read>

They’ve called in Sequoia Voting Systems, the company that sold the county the machines.

The board says those officials are flying in from California and are expected to look into the issue Monday.

Canvassing board interim chair, Judge Peter Evans, told election workers and reporters Sunday, “At this point we feel its best to step back and get these questions answered before we take any further steps hastily and that’s what we’re going to do.”…

The canvassing board is expected to meet Monday afternoon at 3pm for an update on Sequoia’s findings.

Reference: VotersUnite report on outsourcing.

FAQ: Why Would Anyone Steal A Referendum?

Connecticut’s post-election audit law exempts referendums and questions from audit. Often we hear that nobody would steal a referendum, that local control of elections in Connecticut would preclude that. We object: Two motivations and opportunities: The Town has the budget referendum turned down frequently at $20,000+ per referendum for a turnout of a small % … Continue reading “FAQ: Why Would Anyone Steal A Referendum?”

Connecticut’s post-election audit law exempts referendums and questions from audit. Often we hear that nobody would steal a referendum, that local control of elections in Connecticut would preclude that. We object:

Two motivations and opportunities:

The Town has the budget referendum turned down frequently at $20,000+ per referendum for a turnout of a small % of registered voters.

  • All the insiders of all parties are for it
  • Many town hall jobs are dependent on it
  • The insiders convince themselves that “if the right voters showed up then it would pass”
  • They think they are helping out the town out by passing the budget and saving multiple election costs
  • All look the other way

One insider is convinced the budget is too big.

  • Convinced that “If the people really knew then they would vote it down”
  • When nobody is looking, the insider takes advantage of sole access to voting machines and ballots, to hack the machine with the Hursti Hack before the election.

Constitutional Vote Will Not Be Audited

When Connecticut voters go to the polls in November, they will vote on calling a Constitutional Convention. Large groups are aligned for and against the bill with those in charge of the election opposed. Our personal stand for or against the bill is irrelevant. Integrity and confidence in elections is our concern.

Our points are that like all questions and referendums that vote is exempt from the post-election audit law and that those charged with running elections should not audit themselves. Questions should not be exempt from audit – they are not exempt from error and fraud. We need an independent election audit authority – audit decisions should not be made by the entity being audited.
Continue reading “Constitutional Vote Will Not Be Audited”