National Popular Vote | CTVotersCount.org

Mid-Term Report: Two really dangerous bills and a duck

Yesterday, the Government Elections and Administration (GAE) held its last meeting of the year to approve bills originating in the Committee. Today we will recap three of be seven election bills we are tracking.

It is hard to compare and prioritize the importance and impact of bills for good or ill. Today’s three bills provide an instructive contrast. All three are well intended, yet ill conceived. One is extremely threatening to democracy, yet the threat may be way off or ultimately avoided. Another sets a bad precedent for Connecticut and the Nation, flaunts reason, with a message almost the opposite of that intended. The third aimed at fairness is unfair to most of those seeking redress for an imagined unfairness. UPDATED.

UPDATED.

The National Popular Vote Agreement

For about the fifth time in eight years, the National Popular Vote Agreement came up and passed the GAE. We can only hope it does get vote on in the House and Senate. The one time it passed the House, it lost originally by one vote, but several members changed their votes to provide a pass.

Perhaps Connecticut’s seven Electoral College votes will not tip the balance to put the Compact in effect. That would take states passing the Compact totaling half the Nation’s total Electoral College. The Compact is half-way there, so far, after seven years. But the danger is in that passing here, Connecticut’s yea or nay could make the difference or influence other states.

Maybe the danger is far off. Maybe there will not be another really close election like 1876, 1960, 2000, or 2004 for a long time. Maybe things will change and we will have more voting integrity, less suppression across the country. Maybe faced with an actual impending implementation, enough states will bow out of the Compact in time.

Maybe Not. The stakes are high. An essentially “stolen” presidency can be bad in itself, and also disheartening for democracy.

In my estimation, the most dangerous bill going forward this year.

Constitutional Amendment to Void the Secret Vote

For the last three or four years we have been fighting Internet voting, a bad idea, justified in the name of supporting our troops. Statistics show great results in supporting our troops based on the implementation of the MOVE Act. Connecticut paralleled other states in going from 61% absentee ballot return rates in 2010, to 94% in 2012, on the same order as the return rate for all absentee ballots.

Yet critics are not satisfied. They push for risky, expensive, and likely ineffective Internet voting. Yesterday, Representative Hwang called anyone who would vote against the bill “unpatriotic”. We applaud the three Representatives that voted against the bill, articulating the risks of coercion and the value of the Secret Vote. They are the true courageous patriots.

As we said in our testimony, “Like vaccination, it only works if everyone has the secret vote.”

Also I applaud Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill’s steadfast opposition to Internet voting and defense of the secret vote, in the face of such support for Internet voting.

Here we are torn with regard to the dangers. This bill is bad because it is a foot in the door of eliminating the secret vote. Yet, is it worse that it is a foot in the door of Internet voting? Or is the worst aspect that it is using flag waiving to accuse others of being unpatriotic, while actually assaulting the democracy our soldiers and ancestors fought and died for? And, like the Popular Vote Compact it sets influence and precedent for other states as well.

In my estimation, the second most dangerous bill going forward this year.

Limit Post-Election Audits to Three Per Town Per Election

This bill started off really, really, bad. It would have cut post-election audits in half, from 10% down to 5%, and worse by “auditing” by feeding the ballots through a different scanner and comparing the tapes.

As such it would have been a contender for the most dangerous bill of the year – it would impact only Connecticut, but seriously and immediately and had Connecticut be known as the 1st state ever to “effectively eliminate post-election audits”. Hopefully, like last year, it would never have been brought before the Senate or House. As we testified, audits should be strengthened, not weakened.

What remains is severely abbreviated version with only a clause limiting audits to a maximum of three districts per election or primary. There are several impacts of this well-intended, yet flawed remnant:

Audits work best when truly random across all districts. Limiting some towns causes the audit to be less protective, with certain votes and districts to have less opportunity for being selected. (Fortunately, a limit of three on 10% has only a moderate such a effect in Connecticut).
The intention is to save towns from “being audited almost every time” while others “hardly or never get selected”. This effort to spread the burden fairly will actually help towns with many polling places audit less, and place additional burdens on towns with fewer polling places, especially those with a single polling place.
It is worse than it might seem. When towns like New Haven and Hartford, get regularly selected for three to six polling places, they have about two hundred votes per polling place (and over the long run, audit a fair 10% of their votes). But when towns like Suffield, Lebanon, Clinton, Oxford, or Andover get audited, they have to count 2000, 3000, 4000, or approaching 9000 votes at once! Under the current law they get their fair share over time.
The towns with many polling places are right that ~~they~~ their scanners get audited almost every time, yet this bill will not change that. Yet, they will get a bit less than their 10% share. Yet large towns will continue to, fairly, get routinely selected even more often. (We marvel at how some with 20 to 30 districts in a 10% audit random drawing are surprised they are almost always selected.)

In the grand scheme of things this bill, unfair as it is, will have little effect on audit integrity. Yet, we are sympathetic to the towns with few polling places, who ironically are disproportionately represented within the Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut (ROVAC) which is the bill’s proponent. Can we call this a ‘duck’, since maybe we ducked the a really bad bill, leaving one with a few quacks in the logic.

NPV – A graphic scenario

We are opposed to the National Popular Vote Compact, primarily because it would tend to make the current risky system for determining the President by the Electoral College, much more risky and subject us to open-season for vote suppression, insider fraud, outsider fraud, and legal challenges likely to end with the Supreme Court choosing the President. Paul Choiniere of The Day provides a graphic depiction of a related scenario.

Article published Mar 16, 2014
Connecticut should reject popular vote scheme
Paul Choiniere

The National Popular Vote folks are at it again in Connecticut. They want to end the practice of using the Electoral College system to determine the election of the president. Instead, the candidate who gets the most votes nationally would become president.

They don’t, however, want to amend the Constitution to make this change – the way it should be done – because the movement apparently sees that goal as too difficult.

Instead, its backers seek a clumsy and byzantine approach, one wrought with potential problems. What might happen if the Connecticut General Assembly endorses the plan, enters into the compact and the governor signs the legislation?

Picture this.

Connecticut voters make a clear choice who they want to be president. The state’s support is enough to give that candidate the electoral votes necessary to become president. However, because Connecticut’s choice to lead the country did not win the popular vote, Connecticut has to give its electoral votes to the other guy, electing him (or her).

I expect that would not sit well with many of those who voted in the majority, only to see their choice ignored.

How could such a thing happen? The National Popular Vote legislation requires states that sign on to this movement to agree to cast their electoral votes for the top voter getter nationally, regardless of who that state’s voters want to be president.

So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have passed National Popular Vote laws. They control 136 electoral votes, which means the movement is about halfway to its goal of locking up 270 electoral votes in this manner, the majority necessary to elect someone president.

So, the Electoral College system would remain in place, but all these states would basically be committed to ignoring it and making sure the popular vote, not the Electoral College system, determined the winner.

I can see that plan unraveling quickly. One can easily imagine the anger of voters in, for argument’s sake, a traditional Republican state seeing the state’s electoral votes handed to the Democrat – against the will of the people in that state – giving the Democrat enough electoral votes to win. Can anyone doubt the legislature would be pressed to return in special session, abandon the National Popular Vote compact, and back the voters’ choice?

A rush for the exits would soon follow among other states.

The National Popular Vote organization calls this impossible because the compact prohibits it. They also say such a reversal would face insurmountable constitutional hurdles. That’s debatable. At the very least, it invites potential chaos.

Motivating the popular vote movement are arguments of fairness and making more states relevant. The fairness issue is basic – the candidate with the most votes should win. A strong argument can be made for that position, but is this version of “fair” what is best for the country and Connecticut? The current system has arguably served the nation well for 207 years.

Less credible is the contention that election by popular vote will force the candidates to pay attention to more states. Currently, candidates focus their resources and their visits largely on contested states, particularly those with big electoral numbers. Yet, I suspect, even with a popular vote determining the winner, candidates would continue to give their attention to big population centers, which does not describe Connecticut or its cities.

In any event, if the people of the United States want to abandon the Electoral College system in favor of the direct election of the president, they should do so by formally amending the U.S. Constitution. It may be difficult, but it is preferable to the controversy the National Popular Vote arrangement invites.

Paul Choiniere is editorial page editor.

We agree that “Less credible is the contention that election by popular vote will force the candidates to pay attention to more states”. We would go further and suggest this may well be a reason most of the media supports the Compact. Most voters want more information on candidates, yet more attack ads, more robo calls, and the same soundbites delivered here will do little to quench that thrust.

Testimony: National Popular Vote

Yesterday was the annual public hearing on the National Popular Vote Compact. Yet it was different, the most thorough and thoughtful hearing I have seen in ten years of testifying and observing the Government Elections and Administration Committee. Unfortunately, it was not televised – you really needed to be there.

You can read our testimony here: <read> Here is the summary:

My testimony this year is similar to that in past years. Nothing has changed to make this Compact any safer, nothing to make it less risky to democracy. Yet, events over the last year make the dangers all the more apparent.

In the past year, partisans in various states continue to promote voter Id laws, and with the Supreme Court’s effectively eliminating the voting rights act, it has been open season in other states for laws aimed at suppressing the vote. That is the kind of inequality that is contained by the Electoral College.

I understand the theoretical advantages of the national popular vote, yet there are extreme risks in its mismatch with our existing state-by-state voting system.

Many concepts such as Nuclear Power, GMOs, DDT, and Fracking have benefits, but also have unintended, unrecognized, and unappreciated consequences. This Compact is another

What often appears simple is not. The Compact would cobble the national popular vote onto a flawed system designed for the Electoral College. It does not change that system. It heightens the risks.

This is not a partisan issue. It has been opposed by prominent members of both major parties, including:

Susan Bysiewicz (D), former Secretary of the State

Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), former California Governor

Mark Ritchie (D), MN Secretary of State and former President of the National Association of Secretaries of State

Daniel Patrick Moynihan(D), former Wesleyan professor and U.S. Senator

William Cibes (D), former State University System Chancellor

Major concerns include:

The 12^th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act which govern declaring the President have been called a “Ticking Time Bomb” because of strict rules, coupled with ambiguity, causing problems seen in 1876 and 2000. The Compact would exacerbate that risky system.

There is no official national popular vote number compiled in time, such that it could be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any close election.

Even if there were such a number, it would aggravate the flaws in the system. The Electoral College contains/limits the risk and the damage to a few swing states. With a national popular vote, errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

There is no national audit or recount available for close elections, to establish an accurate popular vote number. Only in some individual states, if close numbers happened to occur in those states, would there be even a fraction of a national recount. About half of the states have audits or close vote recounts.

With the Compact there is every reason to believe that any close election would be decided by partisian action of the Congress or the Supreme Court.. As in Gore v. Bush, since the founding, close election controversies have all been decided in seemingly partisan decisions by Congress, special commissions, or the Supreme Court.

This Compact will not make every voter equal. The state-by-state variations in the franchise and access to voting will remain intact, enfranchising and disenfranchising different voters in states.

I urge you to consider the risks and chaos made possible if Connecticut were to endorse the National Popular Vote Compact, including reading the attached editorials and arguments.

You can read all the testimony from everyone, present and not, here: <read>

But that is insufficient to get a flavor for the hearings. The transcripts (available sometime soon) may help, but they cover a six and one-half hour hearing, only a small portion of which is represented by the written testimony.

Most of the hearing centered on just the issues I have been raising since 2007. They have never gotten as thorough an airing. It was not just the large number of individuals testifying, prepared to discuss those subjects, it was also the Chairs setting the tone, and members all asking great questions and getting thorough answers.

Rep McGee started by explaining that many of his constituents did not understand how the Electoral College worked, followed by Rep Becker starting the discussion of the difficulties in determining the winner under the National Popular Vote. Most of the rest was those in favor attempting to describe how well the system would work under the Compact. While those of us opposed refuted those arguments with facts, and speculation based on past actions of officials.

Some dismissed that any Secretary of the State anywhere, or Registrar in Connecticut would avoid accurate counting of a critical tally. Dismissing past inaccurate counts in NY, as a poor example, since they did matter in the result – that in a critical situation the counts would have been resolved sooner. Others like me are not so sure given the actions of Catherine Harris in Florida, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, and the history of 1876.

I pointed out an instructive situation close to home. In Bridgeport Connecticut in November 2010, the Secretary of the State stood by helplessly as a very questionable count was recorded, and many questioned the result in a close race for Governor. In the best interests the Secretary and the local Registrars worked out an agreement to audit all the districts to determine accurate counts. Yet, that agreement was nixed by the lawyers for Bridgeport, acting in what I assume was their view of the best interests of Bridgeport. Those inaccurate, questionable results remain on the books today. Nothing has been done to improve the system so that in a future debacle the Secretary or Registrars, no matter how well intending, could end up in a similar bind.

(I lead the Citizen Recount of Bridgeport in 2010. We concluded that many votes were not counted and totals inaccurately accounted, yet that the correct Governor was certified. Beyond ballots not being counted , there were in some districts many more ballots than checked-in voters, and in other districts many fewer ballots than checked-in voters. Nobody has or has reason to dispute our results. Yet they are not official and we still have a system we cannot trust to correct itself officially.)

Time to ignore Voter Id, Voting Rights Act, and other attempts to game the system.

Yesterday, the Government Elections and Administration Committee voted to take up the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact. Today we have a CTMirror story on the efforts of highly funded national lobbyists working with Democrats and Republicans to tout the bill. Reading the article, one would get the impression that only Republicans are against the bill

In the last year, not much has changed. Except that the risks should be more obvious given the activity in some states to suppress votes, especially after the Supreme Court effectively ended the Voting Rights Act.

Yesterday, the Government Elections and Administration Committee voted to take up the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact. Today we have a CTMirror story on the efforts of highly funded national lobbyists working with Democrats and Republicans to tout the bill: Presidential popular vote advocates lobbying CT GOP <read>

Reading the article, one would get the impression that only Republicans are against the bill. We posted this comment:

As well as Republicans in favor, there are Democrats opposed. Some of those on record as opposed include Bill Cibes, Susan Bysiewicz, the Late Dainel Patrick Moynihan, and Mark Ritchie SOS of Minnesota. Most see that the flaws in our system exposed by the 2000 election would be exacerbated by this compact. One issue would be the wide open contest to increase and decrease votes by all sides.Cognitive dissonance or lack of rational thought are needed to explain how a person can support this and simultaneously be disturbed by the voter suppression efforts launched after the Supreme Court ended the Voting Rights Act, and have been underway before that.

For the reasons to oppose the Compact, and for details on the objections by well respected democrats, you can review our testimony from last year: <read> And these Op-Eds from last year <here> and <here>

1117=620 and other inaccuracies of NationalPopularVote.org

Although Every Vote Equal is touted as a 630 page book, a detail apparently unchanged from the original version, the fourth edition is now an increasingly redundant 1117 pages. Unfortunately, no matter to what lengths the authors go, it can never be enough to successfully defy logic and informed common sense. On the other hand I have to appreciate their work to use a small portion of that space in an effort to discredit yours truly.

This spring marked the fourth edition of Every Vote Equal, a large and expanding essay apparently aimed at convincing readers and book-lifters that the weight of evidence is on the side of passing the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact.

I have yet to read the forth version, as reading every page of the third version was a tough enough slog. I will stick with the movie going forward. But one of the authors had promised that my myths about the Compact would be refuted in this version. So I hunted and found only one reference, taking a half a page or so, starting on page 582. It claimed to refute a statement in an old blog post:

In an article entitled “Lawmakers Seek to Change Presidential Elections to Make Them More Risky, Reduce Confidence,” Luther Weeks of Connecticut says:

“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.” [Emphasis added(by Every Vote Equal)]
Of course, the vote counts recorded on the states’ Certificates of Ascertainment are used under the current system to award electoral votes. Moreover, these vote counts are considered “official” enough and “accurate” enough to elect the President of the United States under the current system.

In particular, the 537-vote lead (out of 5,963,110 votes) recorded on Florida’s Certificate of Ascertainment in 2000 was considered “official” enough and “accurate” enough to elect a President. One wonders why Weeks thinks that these state-produced Certificates of Ascertainment (and the legal process behind the “final determinations” reported in these certificates) would suddenly become “more risky” if used to elect a President under the National Popular Vote compact. Why would they suddenly “reduce confidence?”

Superficially, it sounds like they have done the job. But they have not. Let me point out a couple of things they missed or overlooked.

I was not saying that their was not a “popular vote number complied and certified nationally”. I am of course, aware of the Certificates of Ascertainment.
I was implying it is not true that the Certificates “can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner”. I am sticking by that.
I also did not say that “Certificates of Ascertainment are used under the current system to award electoral votes.” I said they could not be used under the Compact to determine the winner.

Several times after my original statement was made, I refuted their contention in blog debates. I also changed what I was saying to make by contention clearer by adding two words, “in time”. For instance, here is my testimony to the Connecticut Legislature in 2011 and again in this year in 2013. I said pretty much the same thing both times:

Fact or Myth?

There is no official national popular vote number compiled in time, such that it could be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any close election.

According to NationalPopularVote.org:

20.1 MYTH: There is no official count of the national popular vote.

It is sometimes asserted that there is no official national vote count for President and, therefore, the National Popular Vote bill would be impossible to implement. Contrary to this assertion, existing federal law (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code) requires that an official count of the popular vote from each state be certified and sent to various federal officials in the form of a “certificate of ascertainment…

Reality:

Yes: There is an official, unaudited, national popular vote number which can be determined by examining data posted by the federal government at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college

Reality: The number is not compiled and available in time, such that states could use the number to determine, under the Compact, how to allocate their electoral votes. Looking at the details for 2008,
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote2
We find:

States must prepare a Certificate of Ascertainment listing electors and the votes that they received: “The original Certificate and two certified copies (or duplicate originals) should be sent to the Archivist as soon as possible after the November 4 election results are finalized. At the very latest, they must be received by the electors on the statutory deadline of December 15, 2008 and submitted to the Archivist no later than December 16, 2008.”

“On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008… At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.”

Since states are not required to submit electors and their official unaudited vote totals to the Archivist until December 16^th, the national popular vote number obviouisly could not be guaranteed to be available on December 15^th. And since the Certificate cannot be created until after the electors of a state have voted, the final official unaudited national popular number could not be official until all states electors have already voted. But wait…

“Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.”

So, each state must actually appoint its electors six (6) days before they must meet and vote which is seven (7) days before each state is required to send the state’s official unaudited popular vote numbers to Washington. But wait…

“The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.”

So, the real deadline for each state’s popular vote number arriving in Washington, would be nine (9) days after the vote for electors, and fifteen (15) days after electors have to be deterimed. Presumably some time is also needed to accurately post that information so that the official, unaudited numbers would be available for state officials to review.

Let me suggest reading the other myths and arguments in the 2013 testimony for more of what Every Vote Equal chose not to even attempt to discredit.

Rational reasons against the National Popular Vote

Jason Paul joins a group of distinguished, prominent, and thoughtful democrats who have warned of the risks of the Compact: Former Wesleyan Professor and U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Former Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, Former State University Chancellor William Cibes, and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

CTNewsJunkie hosted dueling op-eds for and against the National Popular Vote Compact: Procedural Problems Plague National Popular Vote Compact Bill <Jason Paul against> <Andrea Levien against>

Jason echoes some of the same concerns we have expressed in our earlier op-ed at CTNewsJunkie and our testimony to the General Assembly.

Unfortunately, too much of the discussion and debate has revolved around the normative question: Would it be better to have a national popular vote or an Electoral College process? This is an interesting discussion and I am honestly quite torn on the question. From a normative perspective, I would probably pick the National Popular Vote.

Too many people are answering the normative question, however, and then ending the inquiry. When it comes to this bill that simply cannot be where the discussion stops. The practicalities and the details of running elections matter immensely. Shortcuts are problematic.

Under the current system, the Presidential election is decided based on the outcomes in 56 districts (50 states, plus D.C. and five congressional districts in two states that give a vote to the winner of their Congressional districts). These are all separate election contests, administered by 51 different state bodies (the 50 states, plus D.C.] Each of these 51 bodies has different rules, different guidelines, and different standards. This is fine because each body’s rules only affect the result in its own state or district. Federal laws cover the most egregious potential voting abuses; beyond that, states administer their own elections. That would change if we adopted a National Popular Vote Compact. Instead of giving them control of their own territory, these 51 different bodies would have a degree of control over the entire election system. This poses serious problems.

Here’s one example. A national recount could be a nightmare under any system. Consider that for the 2012 election, revised vote totals were still coming in all the way into February 2013, with new votes in the tens of thousands and the margin of victory changing by the thousands. The margins were large enough that each state was able to declare a winner in time for the electoral college. The late tallies didn’t matter to the outcome — this time. Under the National Popular Vote Compact, the problems would be even worse, and potentially unresolvable.

Currently, in case of a very close election in a state, there is a well-established procedure for conducting a recount according to that state’s rules. Under the compact, because there is no national system, there is no mechanism for conducting a nationwide recount. What is worse, there is no way to force states to participate in a national recount. Because the compact need only be among states with a total of more than 270 electoral votes and not all states, there will be some states that will quite rightfully take the position that they are still in the old system of 51 differing bodies. They will feel no obligation to even consider the impact of the new system. The compact-participating states won’t be able to do anything about it. States can’t force each other to do things. This would make it incredibly difficult to even have a nationwide recount.

If we are going to go from one system (sum of state outcomes) to another, (national popular vote), we need to have an understanding of how the procedural problems will be worked out. Otherwise, it is easy to conceive of a nearly endless number of problems, which would mean lots of trips to court. I would contend it is bad for elections to be decided in court. It might be possible to work out these problems under a compact system, but right now, I do not think they are even reasonably addressed. Until it is possible to answer basic questions — such as how to conduct a national recount — the idea is too flawed to implement. We should not chose the normative value over practical considerations, because it puts the credibility of our electoral system at risk. The proponents need to work out the bugs.

Paul provides a very articulate description of the problems. In the 1st comment on the op-ed we have extended his concerns with a summary our op-ed and testimony.

Andrea Levien is a “Researh Fellow at FairVote”, one of the well-financed national groups working toward the National Popular Vote agreement. Her arguments seem to have more to do with money than voting integrity. While these are among many considerations, to us, they do not stack up against the added risks of a national popular vote without a uniform trusted national election system.

I have lived and voted in three cities since I turned 18: New Haven, New York City, and Washington, D.C.

While I have been extremely proud to call each of these unique cities my home, they all have one big disadvantage for a young voter who cares about presidential politics: none of these cities are located in swing states, the only states that ever receive any attention in presidential elections.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent 99.6 percent of their television advertising money in the general election targeting voters in just 10 states, including the usual focus on Ohio and Florida. Neither candidate held a single campaign event outside those 10 states after the party conventions. The 2008 election wasn’t much different, with only a few more states receiving any attention at all.

I am not so sure that any Connecticut voter would be more informed by a candidate rally or visit to Bridgeport than a similar rally reported from Philadelphia. It would be great for the media moguls out of state who would get the bulk of profits from advertising in the Courant or on Comcast.

Levien also points to a study by a Ph.D. candidate which demonstrates that Presidential administrations distribute grants based on political considerations <read>. We certainly do not dispute that. Yet, the national popular vote would be a deck chair move in return for a ticket on the Titanic. It would change the distribution criteria based on alternative political considerations from swing states to areas that would be considered ripe for raising or decreasing votes for and against candidates.

National Popular Vote Risks – Think Before You Encourage Passage

We are getting the annual emails requesting that voters encourage the Connecticut General Assembly to join only eight other states and the District of Columbia that have signed on to the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact since 2007. There are many reasons to the like the concept of one person one vote, however, there are strong reasons to require that the current system be corrected first, in order that we actually have a fair, credible, and accurate process. Without a trusted, equal, auditable, recountable uniform national election system for President, it is not worth the risks. The devil is truly in the details.

We recommend reviewing our op-ed from earlier this year: Voting Requires Vigilance. Popular Isn’t Always Prudent<read>

And William Cibes op-ed from last year The “National Popular Vote” Interstate Compact Is a Bad Idea <read>

Or Chris DeSanctis echoing Daniel Patrick Moynihan NO: Electoral College Votes Should Represent State Voters’ Choice <read>

For even more in depth discussion see our testimony, earlier this year <read>

Bills Approved Earlier by the GAE Committee

As promised, comments on earlier bills passed through the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

As promised, comments on other bills passed through the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

S.B. 901 Post-Election Audits This bill would allow officials to perform the post-election audit by counting with an identical AccuVote-OS scanner and memory card. Connecticut would go down as in history as the first state to effectively kill post-election audits. Machine Assisted Audits that are publicly verifiable are possible, but not this way.

S.B. 1058 Destroying Unused Absentee Ballots By Town Clerks We would like to see a comprehensive strengthening and standardization of the retention of all ballots. Currently clerks retain voted absentee ballots in manila envelopes in unnumbered tamper evident tape, for six months or twenty-two months. Polling place ballots are retained for the same period by registrars, and are sealed in bags with numbered tamper evident seals, for only fourteen days. Without comprehensive reform, this is essentially a harmless bill.

S.B. 1118 Prohibits Some Criminals From Certification As Moderators A common sense idea, although we know of none who have been. We would like to see the same criminals prevented from becoming Registrars of Voters and Registrars at minimum required to be certified as Moderators.

S.B. 6630 Allowing Delivery of Absentee Ballots At An Agreed Upon Time Codifying what is largely already the actual practice.

H.B. 6635 Requiring Election Results To Be Certified By Local Officials Seven Days After An Election We would be for this bill if an earlier or later date were chosen. Recanvasses must be complete eight days after an election. Specifying seven days is too late to cause a necessary recanvass, and too short to reflect the difference made by a recanvass. Looks like more work at a less than useful time.

S.B. 647 A Report On Laws To Be Changed For Online Voting We see no need for another report. We know it is risky, we know it is unconstitutional. Better than S.B. 283 that mandates fax and email voting this year, just like the bill vetoed by Governor Malloy last year.

S.B. 432 National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact An act we have long opposed because it would make a flawed system for electing the President even worse. We would be in favor of the popular election of the President if we had a, verifiablyaccurate, uniform, enforceable, and enforceable election system.

S.B. 433 Creating a Democracy Index A well intentioned idea to collect, publish, and track data around election performance. We like the idea, but will remain skeptical until we see what is collected, how accurately it is collected, and if the program is well done for several cycles. Otherwise it may just produce some feel good statistics or be quietly ignored. As Norman Augustine said, tong in cheek, “Most projects start off kind of slow, and then sort of taper off”.

H.B. 5999 Provisional Ballots For State And Municipal Offices A good idea, still needed even with Election Day Registration. e.g. When a voter claims to be eligible to register or to vote when already checked-off and officials question that.

H.J. 36 To Change The Constitution To Allow The Legislature To Decide Early Voting We supported this because the Legislature may be in a better position to choose and correct voting methods than the blunt method of specific Constitutional Amendment. But we wonder some times when we see inadequate early voting bills proposed to take effect before and amendment, after years of insisting an amendment is necessary. Either it is or it is not necessary – pass one set of bills with confidence or perhaps face court challenges.

ACLU Forum on Electoral Dysfunction

On Wednesday night I participated on a panel in Waterford, CT on Electoral Dysfunction, sponsored by the ACLU, Common Cause and the LWV. It was a very good discussion with a variety of views from the panel, a wide range of excellent questions, and unsurpassed moderation. In the near future we may have video available. I promised to provide more information here on the topics covered.

Introduction

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight.

CTVotersCount is dedicated to voting integrity for the benefit of the voters of Connecticut. We want your vote to count; We want your vote counted accurately; And we wanted it counted exactly once.

As a technologist, I am dedicated to the responsible, effective and efficient use of technology.

Beyond elections and technology, I am committed that Democracy Flourish and to Government that Works for Everyone.

Basic and Bold Steps

Last November, President Obama saw the long lines and said “We need to fix that. In response we posted three sets of basic and bold steps to fix our elections and democracy; For Connecticut Elections; For U.S. Elections; and steps Beyond Election Integrity. Ten basic and bold steps in all. Tonight I will highlight just four.

First, for Democracy: Media Reform – A necessary requirement for democracy according to the founders. Saving the Internet is a last ditch start.

If you want more details on these or any of the other topics I discuss today, visit CTVotersCount.org tomorrow.

Second idea, for U.S. Elections: Mandate paper ballots optically scanned, nationwide; With recounts and independent manual audits; H.R. 12 co-sponsored by each of Connecticut’s House Members would do just that.

Next, fix the 12^th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act; [I wonder how many of you know what they are? I will have more to say later].

Finally for Connecticut: Do For Elections What We Have Done For Probate:

Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize

Our town-by-town election system relies on 339, registrars of voters, often very part time, inadequately funded and trained. This system limits our capacity for serving voters and providing voting integrity. We can save money, yet also improve service and integrity.

Regionalization is key to efficient early voting and fixing our woeful ballot chain-of-custody.

IRV

Now for IRV and the NPV. I have three concerns with IRV

First, surveys show voters do not understand IRV. I am opposed to any voting scheme that requires a smarter voter.

Second, in close elections, where it might have value, it can take days or weeks to determine a winner, IRV is technically challenging to count, audit, and recount. The challenges grow with the size of the jurisdiction.

Finally, IRV does not deliver as promised – it provides the smarter voter with an impossible challenge to help and not hurt their candidate.

That is all I will say for now on IRV. Like all voting methods can be a crap shoot.

National Popular Vote Agreement

There are more serious issues with the National Popular Vote Agreement.

Like many of you, I learned in the fifth grade, in Ms. Hesbelt’s class, of the odd and unique Electoral College. She taught that we should elect our President by National Popular Vote. I believed that. I still do.

I have come to view our election system, through the eyes of a computer scientist. Reading the Agreement in 2007, I immediately saw unrecognized problems. Since then, I have continued to study our presidential election system, the Agreement, and those unrecognized problems,

I am convinced that the Agreement, cobbled onto an already risky system for determining the winner adds to that systems flaws. Seriously so.

I suspect, many of you also believe in electing the President by popular vote.

Today I do not expect to change many long held beliefs, but ask you to be to open some to ideas that you are not aware of, some consequences you have yet to consider –unintended, unrecognized, and unacknowledged consequences of the Agreement.

Choosing the President is governed by the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act. The Supreme Court has ruled that they must be followed exactly — Causing the debacles in 1876 and 2000. Legal scholars call these laws a “Ticking Time Bomb”. The Agreement would not change that.

Just some states have audits and recounts. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no time for Florida’s recounts and that they were insufficiently uniform.

Some say Recounts and Audits are unnecessary in a national popular vote. Some say they are possible under current law. I beg to disagree.

Many believe Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. I say, “Without audits, how do you know”.

If just Florida had sufficient, timely recounts in 2000, and just Ohio had sufficient audits in 2004, we might have had a different candidate declared President. Or! Or we might have a lot more evidence and confidence that the winner was correctly decided.

Under the Agreement there would be no recount or audit to verify results in any election. Current audits and recounts, available in only about half the states are based, on close votes within a single state. Most could not be accomplished in time to satisfy Electoral Count Act. There is no national body to call for a recount, audit, or assess results.

Even worse, there is no official national popular vote number available in time to determine a winner, for Secretaries of State to choose their electors.

The official numbers are required to be sent to the Federal Government days after electors must be chosen and vote in each state. If you think that a future Ken Blackwell or Catherine Harris would not delay their official results to hamper the process, I would like to know what planet you live on.

Add to these risks several items;

There are many reasons under this scheme that voters, candidates, and officials could challenge the results provided and used by Secretaries of State. Any close election would likely end in a Supreme Court; likely to choose the President based on the precedents set in 2000 and 1876.

The Agreement does not make every voter equal, and cannot make every vote equal. Each state has a different franchise. A different level of voter suppression or encouragement.

The result of the Compact will be a race to the bottom without uninform voting methods, access, enfranchisement and integrity from state to state.

Currently fraud, error, and suppression is limited to swing states, with the Agreement it would be open season, without audits, recounts, or an official popular vote number.

Many of you will ask “If we elect our Governor by popular vote, why not the President.” The answer is that we have uniform election laws across Connecticut. We have an equal franchise, audits, and recanvasses.

Finally, let me encourage you to keep an open mind. Consider these unrecognized consequences. There are prerequisites to a trusted, credible National Popular Vote.

Thank you,

We had two minutes each to reply to questions from the audience. A couple of those merit additional links.

Media Reform – for ideas on where to start, I suggested John Nichols excellent book: The Death and Life of American Journalism
Better Voting Systems – I could only allude to the possibility and promise of better voting systems designed to serve the voters and officials, while providing election integrity. We are aware of two efforts, led by Dana DeBeauvoir, Travis County Texas, and Dean Logan, LA County, California. We will have more to say soon on Debeauvoir’s latest update presented at NIST and Logan’s effort. For now here is our coverage of DeBeauvoir’s effort as of two years ago <read>

Note: Deputy Secretary of the State James Spallone participated in the panel, replacing Cheri Quickmire from Common Cause, who unfortunately could not attend.

Testimony: Three bills, including the National Popular Vote

Monday I testified on three bills, primarily the National Popular Vote Compact. Although I oppose the bill, and have since 2007, I actually favor the popular election of the President. Yet, we have a mismatch between our current state-by-state election system which not a match for the demands of a national popular vote that is fair and one we can trust. Like Europe before the Euro, we have a lot of work to do and details to attend to before we could make the change.

S.B. 432 National Popular Vote
S.J. 18 Applauding the Electoral College
H.J. 36 Early Voting
(links are to testimony, which have links to the bills)

I also prepared written oral remarks <read>. I adjusted my actual remarks to address critical issues raised or overlooked earlier in the hearing.

In 2007 and 2009 I was the loan dissenter in testimony opposing the Compact for technical reasons. Since 2011, I have been joined by a growing number of others. This year, most prominently, by former State University System Chancellor, William Cibes. I am sure, all things considered, Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have liked to join us in person.