National Popular Vote | CTVotersCount.org

OP-ED: Voting Requires Vigilance. Popular Isn’t Always Prudent

Our Op-Ed published yesterday by CTNewsJunkie, outlining the integrity risks of the National Popular Vote Compact, now being considered by the Connecticut Legislature, for the fourth time since 2007.

Our Op-Ed published yesterday by CTNewsJunkie, outlining the integrity risks of the National Popular Vote Compact, now being considered by the Connecticut Legislature, for the fourth time since 2007: Voting Requires Vigilance. Popular Isn’t Always Prudent <read>

by Luther Weeks | Jan 21, 2013 7:16pm
Posted to: Opinion

One third of Americans vote on machines, without the paper ballots we use in Connecticut. Our president is chosen based on faith in those unverifiable machines, vote accounting, and unequal enfranchisement in 50 independent states and the District of Columbia.

In 2000, we witnessed the precarious underpinnings of this state-by-state voting system combined with the flawed mechanism of the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Accounting Act. The Supreme Court ruled votes could not be recounted in Florida, because even that single state did not have uniform recount procedures. What could possibly make this system riskier?

The National Popular Vote Compact now being considered in states, including Connecticut, would have such states award their electoral votes to a purported national popular vote winner. The Compact would take effect once enough states signed on, equaling more than one-half the Electoral College. Then the President elected would be the one with the most purported popular votes. Sounds good and fair at first glance. Looking at the touted benefits and none of the risks many legislators, advocates, and media influence the public to make the Compact popular in some polls. Popular is not always prudent. Voting requires vigilance.

The Compact, cobbled on an already precarious system, would exacerbate its flaws, adding additional risks. Currently errors, voter suppression, and fraud can only sway the result in the few swing states. With the Compact errors, suppression, and fraud in every state would count toward the popular vote total.

Compact supporters overlook and proponents befog the reality that there would be no official national popular vote total available in time for states to choose their electors. The only official popular vote total is the sum of the Certificates of Attainment sent by each state to the national Archivist. They cannot be used for choosing electors, since certificates are not required to be sent until seven days after electors are chosen and are not required to arrive in Washington until fifteen days after the electors must be chosen. Supreme Court decisions in 2000 and 1876 stress that these dates must be strictly followed.

Even if the totals could be obtained in time from each state, they would not be audited and could not be recounted. Compact proponents obfuscate this by describing how some states routinely perform audits or recounts. They conveniently ignore that about one-third of the states do not have audits and recounts; many voting machines cannot be audited; state recounts are based on close-vote margins within a state, so even in those states, recounts would not be triggered by a close national vote. Just as critical, there would be insufficient time for recounts or audits given the strict Constitutional deadlines. The Supreme Court would likely reject any recount going beyond state borders, using the same reasoning used to reject the 2000 Florida recount, as insufficiently uniform.

Additional legal challenges and maneuvers under the Compact would also be available for partisans bent on sending any reasonably close election to the Supreme Court or Congress. States not signing the Compact could delay certifying and transmitting results until the latest deadline. Partisans could dispute results in their states or sue their Secretary of State for using uncertified results from other states, delaying reporting or negating the state’s Electoral College vote.

Nothing is available, but legal challenges, even in Compact states, to deter a future partisan Secretary of State from failing to follow the Compact.

Supporters and opponents debate other contentions for and against the Compact, most of which are subjective and speculative. e.g. Which is more ideal, the current Federal system or the popular vote? Would small states or large states benefit more from the Compact? Where would candidates campaign and join with PACs in media buys? How equal would every voter actually be, given the state-by-state system of voter enfranchisement, disenfranchisement, suppression, and registration?

An accurate, fair, and credible popular vote requires a uniform, workable national voting system we can trust. That is, a system with uniform enfranchisement, paper ballots, effective audits, and national recounts, enforceable and provably enforced as a prerequisite to a considering a national popular vote.

Luther Weeks is executive director of CTVotersCount.

What We Worry? What Could Go Wrong On Election Day?

America’s elections are run entirely on the honor system. What could possibly go wrong?

Detroit News op-ed: BenDor and Stanislevic: What could go wrong on Election Day? <read>

We worry that the nation will end up with no confidence in the election results, regardless of who wins.

That’s because we have no systematic way to detect malfunctions in the voting machines or tabulators on Election Day…

We worry that there could be widespread fraud in the sending of voted military and overseas ballots by fax, email or other vulnerable internet methods…

We fear that close elections will go to the courts without any prospect of credible numbers. This is because of two widespread conditions that preclude complete, meaningful recounts: no paper ballots and no manual counts….In states that do allow a hand recount, like Michigan, the burden is often on the apparent losing candidate, not only to pay for the recount, but also to bear the stigma of “poor loser.” The voting public has no say.

We lose sleep over the prospect of the ultimate disenfranchisement of thousands of voters…

America’s elections are run entirely on the honor system. What could possibly go wrong?

And from the New York Times some “bad news/it could be worse news” if we had the risky National Popular Vote Agreement: Disruption From Storm May Be Felt at the Polls <read>

Some New Jersey voters may find their hurricane-damaged polling sites replaced by military trucks, with — in the words of the state’s lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno — “a well-situated national guardsman and a big sign saying, ‘Vote Here.’ ” Half of the polling sites in Nassau County on Long Island still lacked power on Friday. And New York City was planning to build temporary polling sites in tents in some of its worst-hit neighborhoods.

Mayor Bill Finch of Bridgeport, Conn., with Secretary of the State Denise Merrill at the Longfellow School, a closed polling place.

The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy is threatening to create Election Day chaos in some storm-racked sections of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — and some effects may also be felt in other states, including Pennsylvania, where some polling sites still lacked power on Friday morning.

Disrupted postal delivery will probably slow the return of absentee ballots. And with some polling sites likely to be moved, elections officials were bracing for a big influx of provisional paper ballots — which could delay the vote count in places.

Weary local elections officials vowed that the vote would go on. “Come hell or high water — we had both — we’re voting on Tuesday,” William T. Biamonte, the Democratic commissioner at the Nassau County Board of Elections, said in an interview…

With turnout projected to be down in all these states, Mr. Obama could see his share of the national popular vote reduced.

Caltech/MIT: What has changed, what hasn’t, & what needs improvement

The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project has released a thorough, comprehensive, and insightful new report timed to the 2012 election. We find little to quibble with in the report. We agree with all of its recommendations.Several items with which we fully endorse were covered in this report which sometimes are missing from the discussion or often underemphasised.

The report itself is 52 pages, followed by 32 pages of opinions of others, including election officials, advocates, and vendors, some of whom disagree with some aspects of the report. Every page is worth reading. The report is not technical. It covers a wide range of issues, background, and recommendations.

The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project has released a thorough, comprehensive, and insightful new report timed to the 2012 election: VOTING: What has changed, what hasn’t, & what needs improvement <read>

We find little to quibble with in the report. We agree with all of its recommendations although we might place different emphasis in particular areas:

As we have studied the areas where progress has been made since 2001, and where progress has stalled, we have developed the following recommendations. All have been discussed earlier in our report, and we summarize them here. They are not in priority order. First, regarding voting technology, we recommend:

Legislation mandating effective election auditing, which at a minimum would require post-election auditing of all voting technologies used in an election.

Continued strong support for voting systems security research, emphasizing auditing and the verifiability of election outcomes.

A movement toward mandating statistically meaningful post-election audits, rather than setting security standards for election equipment, as the primary way to safeguard the integrity of the vote.

A new business model led by states and localities, with harmonized standards and requirements.

Second, regarding voter registration, we recommend: » Streamlining the provisional balloting process in many states and the creation of common best practices and voluntary standards across states.

The development of voter verification systems in which states bear the cost of stringent voter ID regimes, in those states that desire to increase ID requirements for in-person voting.

Continued standardization of voter registration databases, so that they can be polled across states.

Third, with respect to polling places and pollworkers, we recommend:

Continued improvement of pollworker training and more reliance on network technologies to facilitate pollworker training.

Development of applications deployed on mobile devices that bring more information to pollworkers, and transmit real-time data about Election Day workloads back to the central voting office and the public at large.

Increased functionality of electronic pollbooks and their wider adoption.

Development of applications that gauge how long voters are waiting in line to vote, so that wait times can be better managed and reported to the public.

Fourth, regarding absentee and early voting our first two recommendations repeat those we issued a decade ago; the third is new:

Discourage the continued rise of no-excuse absentee balloting and resist pressures to expand all-mail elections. Similarly, discourage the use of Internet voting until the time when auditability can be ensured and the substantial risks entailed by voting over the Internet can be sufficiently mitigated.

Require that states publish election returns in such a way that allows the calculation of the residual vote rate by voting mode.

Continue research into new methods to get usable ballots to military and overseas civilian voters securely, accurately, and rapidly and to ensure their secure return in time to be counted.

And, finally, regarding the infrastructure and science of elections: » Continued development of the science of elections.

Continued, and expanded, support for the research functions of the Election Assistance Commission.

Development of an Electoral Extension Service, headquartered in each state’s land-grant colleges, to disseminate new ideas about managing elections in the United States.

Several items with which we fully endorse were covered in this report which sometimes are missing from the discussion or often underemphasised:

The Risks of Mail-in and No-Excuse Absentee Voting

The report thoroughly covers the disenfranchisement risks of mail voting which are about double polling place voting. Such voting does not increase turnout significantly, except in local elections. We would have liked to seen more coverage of the organized fraud, vote buying, and coercion frequently occurring via such voting. These are not just theoretical risks. New to us was the surveys showing that the public at some level recognizes the risks and show less confidence in elections with expanded absentee or mail-in voting.

The Emphasis on Election Auditing over Machine Testing and Certification

It is theoretically impossible to develop or test a completely safe voting technology. Extreme testing and slow certification requirements stifle innovation, add costs, delay improvements and are ultimately ineffective. High confidence, efficient statistical audits, paper ballots, combined with a strong chain-of-custody are a necessary solution that eclipse the elusive pursuit of technical perfection.

The Need and Value of Quality Voter Registration Combined with Online Voter Check-in

The report points to the fallacy of votER fraud. Yet there are efficiencies and enhanced enfranchisement available from better, more accurage voter registration databases. There are solutions with online check-in that also provide voter-id without the disenfranchising aspects of the currently proposed voter-id laws.

The Challenges of the Election Technology Industry

My years of experience in the software industry always lead me to the conclusion that the election technology industry is a losing business proposition. While I am not enamored with any of the current voting technology vendors, there is little incentive for them or new players to enter the field. The closest analogy is the defense industry. That industry is not fragmented, has essentially one customer, which designs products and pays for research and development. The voting technology industry is fragmented and has a fragmented customer base, with varying demands, coupled with a very difficult sales environment.

Recognition of One of the Risks of the National Popular Vote Agreement

The proposed National Popular Vote (NPV) may have negative security implications, since the opportunity to perform proper post-election audits appears to be considerably diminished.

CTVotersCount readers know that we would go farther and cover the risks of a national popular vote in our current state-by-state fragmented system, not designed to provide an accurate national popular total. Alleged popular totals cannot be audited, cannot be recounted, and electors must be chosen before an official count is available. The National Popular Vote agreement does nothing to address the existing risk issues with the Electoral College and, in fact, adds to the risks.

Village Independent Democrats’ resolution against National Popular Vote initiative

Echoing the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Village Independent Democrats passed a resolution against the National Popular Vote initiative, urging the Governor and Legislature to vote against the initiative.

Last month the Village Independent Democrats passed a resolution against the National Popular Vote initiative (formally titled as the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote an Interstate Compact forwarding it with a cover letter to New York Governor Cuomo and leaders of the legislature, urging them to vote against the initiative. Many of their thoughtful points echo our concerns with the generally unanticipated consequences of changing to a popular vote without election integrity reforms:

WHEREAS the popular vote in some States other than New York has been unfairly affected by barriers to voting, such as lifetime disenfranchisement due to felony conviction, requirement for government-issued photo ID and/or other documents, which creates unfair restrictions on certain groups of voters such as minorities, the poor, the disabled, and the elderly; and

WHEREAS many States use paperless electronic voting machines that cannot be independently audited, and only a few States perform any audits of their elections, so that in most states malicious tampering and innocent errors that increase or decrease vote tallies cannot and will not be detected; and

WHEREAS federal legislation would be required to compel all states to participate in meaningful audits of their elections for national offices, but Congress has not passed such legislation during the past nine years during which it has been introduced, and

WHEREAS New York State is the only state that worked diligently for four years to obtain electronic voting equipment that consists of secure machines and software by requiring electronic voting equipment to pass testing by an independent testing lab prior to purchase, so that our vote tallies are likely to reflect the votes cast; and

WHEREAS New York’s participation in the NPV initiative would constitute our endorsement and toleration of insecure voting systems, and of prejudices and restrictions against minority and less powerful voting groups; and

WHEREAS New York’s participation in the NPV initiative would be contrary to the principles of New York State and would compromise the voting freedoms and principles we endorse;

THEREFORE the Village Independent Democrats urges our State Assembly and State Senate to oppose any legislation supporting NPV.

The Village Independent Democrats reflect the concerns of the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said:

There would be genuine pressures to fraud and abuse. It would be an election no one understood until the next day or the day after, with recounts that go on forever, and in any event, with no conclusion, and a runoff to come. The drama, the dignity, the decisiveness and finality of the American political system are drained away in an endless sequence of contests, disputed outcomes and more contests to resolve outcomes already disputed. That is how legitimacy is lost.

For all of CTVotersCount posts on the National Popular Vote, see <CTVotersCount Index>

Some (more) concerns with the National Popular Vote

We are glad to see Democrats raising concerns with the National Popular Vote Agreement. Both political sides and those who support or oppose the Agreement create an unending stream of issues supporting their case. Some issues are objective, others are subjective, and others are subjective and speculative. Many issues raised have merit and are worth discussing.

We have long been opposed to the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact. Not because we are against the popular election of the President in theory, but because the Agreement would cobble the popular vote onto a flawed electoral accounting system making it more risky and more subject to manipulation than the current electoral college system. Be careful what you ask for! An article from the Huffington Post raises some issues to consider.

Why National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea <read>

This blog post is a joint effort with Leslie Francis, former executive director of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

As the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement steps up its effort to impose a direct election for president, attempting to enlist states with a sufficient number of electors to constitute a majority (268) and to bind them to the winner of the national popular vote, those states considering the proposal might first reflect on the nightmare aftermath of the 2000 presidential election.

Because there was a difference of less than 1,000 tabulated votes between George W. Bush and Al Gore in one state, Florida, the nation watched as 6 million votes were recounted by machine, several hundred thousand were recounted by hand in counties with differing recount standards, partisan litigators fought each other in state and federal courts, the secretary of state backed by the majority of state legislators (all Republicans) warred with the state’s majority Democratic judiciary — until 37 days after the election the U.S. Supreme Court, in a bitterly controversial 5-4 decision effectively declared Bush the winner.

That nightmare may seem like a pleasant dream if NPV has its way. For under its plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.

We are glad to see Democrats raising concerns with the National Popular Vote Agreement. Many Democrats are in favor of the Agreement in the mistaken belief that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if the Agreement would have been in place. We point out that if there had been a complete recount of Florida, under the Electoral College he likely would have won under that system; the official popular vote gave Gore a slim margin, but without a recount it is not guaranteed that he did actually receive more votes than George Bush; and most important if the popular vote had been in effect, we agree that more individuals would have voted but nobody knows if Al Gore or George Bush would have benefited more from that.

We also find that most Republicans want to retain the Electoral College system as they believe it currently increases their chances for victory.

Both political sides and those who support or oppose the Agreement create an unending stream of issues supporting their case. Many of these issues have merit and are worth discussing e.g. Supporters argue for one person one vote while opponents argue for the Federal system and the wisdom of the Founders. Some issues are objective, others are subjective, and others are subjective and speculative. e.g. To what extent will candidates spend more time and money in non-swing states under the Agreement (speculative) and what value to democracy is more money to local outlets of national media, more mailers, more phone calls, and more candidates visits with the same sound bites (subjective); are small states disadvantaged by the Electoral College as proponents argue when visiting Connecticut, or are large states disadvantaged as the proponents also argue based on less electoral votes per person making their votes less equal? (subjective).

Each of these issues deserves an intricate debate before our system is changed.

However, we say that election integrity issues trump all the subjective issues. That the popular election of the President, especially via the Agreement, is too risky without effective reform of electoral accounting. For more details see our past posts and our testimony last year opposing the Agreement and opposing endorsement of the Electoral College as the best possible system of the electing the President.

While we agree that “That nightmare [of 2000] may seem like a pleasant dream if NPV has its way.” we point out the incorrect claim that:

For under its plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.

This is incorrect because:

There is no official popular vote number available to officially determine the need for a recount prior to the date that each state is required to specify their electors
Many states do not have laws providing for recounts based on close vote margins
States that do have recount laws for close votes are based on close margins in those states, not based on national margins.
The Agreement does nothing to change that and in any case only applies to the states that sign it.

The article is inaccurate and too optimistic in that regard. The rest of the article brings up several issues, subjective and speculative, that are worth evaluating before making a choice between the popular vote or the Electoral College.

Justice John Paul Stevens: Bush v. Gore, “frivolous”

Stevens recalls talking to fellow Justice Stephen Breyer about Bush’s suit – and them both agreeing that, “the application was frivolous… To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent an … irreparable injury. Bush’s attorneys had failed to make any such showing.”

Tom Hartman covering Justice Stevens’ new book <read>

According to a new book by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens – the lawsuit brought to the high court in 2000 by George W. Bush regarding the recount in Florida was “frivolous” and should never have been heard. In his book “Five Chiefs” – Stevens recalls talking to fellow Justice Stephen Breyer about Bush’s suit – and them both agreeing that, “the application was frivolous… To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent an … irreparable injury. Bush’s attorneys had failed to make any such showing.” Yet – the High Court took up the case anyway – and as well all know, stopped a recount in Florida that would have proven Al Gore was the actual winner of the 2000 Presidential Election. Not to mention that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife was working on the Bush transition team at the time – and Justice Scalia’s son was working for a law firm representing Bush at the time. Not only was the Bush presidency defined by corruption – it was birthed by corruption as well.

For more background see our testimony earlier this year, <read page 6>

since the founding, close election controversies have all been decided in seemingly partisan decisions by Congress, special commissions, or the Supreme Court.

GAE Committee changed title and substance of bill

A “Technical” change to existing statutes becomes a National Popular Vote Agreement.

Earlier this year, the Government Administration and Elections Committee held hearings on a bill, H.B. 6331

Here is how it looked as originally submitted and still showing as the “Raised Bill” on the General Assembly Web <Raised Bill>:

AN ACT CONCERNING TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN ELECTION-RELATED STATUTES REGARDING TABULATORS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Subsections (a) and (b) of section 9-168a of the general statutes are repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof…

This bill was the subject of a public hearing on February 10, 2011 <Agenda>

And here is the “Substitute Bill” that was passed by the committee on April 1st <Agenda> Note the change in the name of the bill on the agenda.<Substitute Bill>

AN ACT CONCERNING AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO
ELECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage) The Agreement Among the
States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote is hereby
enacted into law…

It looks a lot like a bill H.B. 6163 where a public hearing was held on March 11, 2011 <Agenda>

I attended both hearings and the meeting on April 1st. The Committee did debate the National Popular Vote, yet no member noticed/mentioned that they were passing a completely different bill than the bill number on the agenda.

As a final note, currently the Bill Status page remains confused as to the name and the purpose of the bill <read>

AN ACT CONCERNING AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE.

To make technical corrections to the elections statutes, including updating the statutes to reflect the current use of voting tabulators.

According to the rules of the General Assembly:

[15.] (b) Hearing Requirement for Favorable Report. Except as provided in Rule 32 (2)(A), no bill and no resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution or other substantive resolution shall be reported favorably by a committee unless a public hearing has been held as provided in Rule 6, but no further public hearing shall be required for a favorable report on a substitute for such bill or resolution, provided the substitute is based on or is germane to the subject matter of the original bill or resolution, or for a bill or resolution petitioned under Rule 11 on which a subject matter public hearing has been held.

I suppose it all depends on how inclusive a definition of “germane” is implied. I understand that similar changes happen regularly.

Courant Op-Ed: Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of national popular vote risks

We have learned more about voting integrity since the time of Senator Moynihan. It would be even worse than he imagined.

Courant Op-Ed by Chris DeSanctis: NO: Electoral College Votes Should Represent State Voters’ Choice <read>

The op-ed quotes the late New York Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

With a national vote differential of only 500,000 (less than a 0.5 percent) between the two candidates, a national popular vote Electoral College compact would have caused Florida’s problems to appear minor in comparison. Both campaigns would have contested votes state by state, precinct by precinct, looking for a few thousand here and a few thousand there. That struggle would have taken place across America, rather than just in Florida.

The late Democratic senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once remarked about such a circumstance under a national popular vote agreement: “There would be genuine pressures to fraud and abuse. It would be an election no one understood until the next day or the day after, with recounts that go on forever, and in any event, with no conclusion, and a runoff to come. The drama, the dignity, the decisiveness and finality of the American political system are drained away in an endless sequence of contests, disputed outcomes and more contests to resolve outcomes already disputed. That is how legitimacy is lost.” Close presidential races are managed more effectively with the Electoral College.

We have learned more about voting integrity since the time of Senator Moynihan. It would be even worse than he imagined. There would and could be no recount.

Unlike the the op-ed writer, I am theoretically in favor of one person, one vote and the popular election of the President. However, given the current unequal state by state franchise and voting arrangements, votes are not equal and cannot be made so by the Compact or a simple Constitutional amendment.

As a computer scientist and voting integrity activist I find there are extreme risks in the National Popular Vote Compact’s mismatch with our existing state by state voting system. The Compact would aggravate an already weak electoral accounting 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 limits the risk and the damage to a few swing states in each election. With a national popular vote, errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

There is no national recount available for close elections, to establish an accurate 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.

With the Compact there is every reason to believe that any close election would be decided the Congress or the Supreme Court – the same Court that ruled in Gore v. Bush, that not having a uniform recount law in Florida was grounds to stop the recount to avoid harm to the apparent winner. Citizens and candidates can be expected to bring court challenges of Governors and Secretaries of State for relying on and providing inaccurate results in awarding Electoral College votes.

Reference testimony on the National Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College

Testimony on eight bills, including the National Popular Vote

Today the Government Administration and Election Committee (GAE) held hearings on a variety of election related bills. We testified against seven bills and lukewarmly for one.

Since 2007, I have been the only person to testify against the National Popular Vote (NPV) Compact in Connecticut. Finally, this year I was not alone. But I remain the only Connecticut citizen to testify against the NPV Compact.

I challenge anyone to a responsible public blog debate on any and all of the issues we raised in our testimony on the National Popular Vote Compact.

Note: The General Administration and Elections Committee has taken up several election bills and concepts for this session. We are optimistic that some of the concepts will be developed and passed to provide increased election integrity. Many of the bills taken up, often well intended, have unintended negative consequences. We are highlighting several of them to point out highlighting several of them to point out the good, the bad, and the unbelievable.

Today the Government Administration and Election Committee (GAE) held hearings on a variety of election related bills. We testified against seven bills and lukewarmly for one. We would like to be testifying for bills that would improve election integrity in Connecticut, but when a bill would harm election integrity we testify against it. When a bill would be a help to voters, but has some potentially risky issues, we we will point them out. <our testimony>

Bills included two that would gut the post-election audit, one that would eliminate the secret ballot, one for Internet voting, one to help military voters that was inadequately specified, and one for the National Popular Vote Compact. Since 2007, I have been the only person to testify against the National Popular Vote (NPV) Compact in Connecticut. Finally, this year I was not alone. But I remain the only Connecticut citizen to testify against the NPV Compact. As usual, many of our friends testified for the NPV Compact. Fortunately, we have the facts and logic on our side. It is easy to advocate for something that you understand. I will have more to say on the NPV Compact. Here is the main testimony page. Please also read the additional supporting material in our full testimony it was the first bill on the agenda and is the first few pages of testimony.

I oppose the National Popular Vote Compact. 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.

Three minutes is far too short to change anyone’s opinion. Today, my goal is to open minds to consider a more comprehensive analysis.

What often appears simple is not. The Compact would cobble the national popular vote onto a flawed system designed for the Electoral College, with no means to change that system. It would result in unanticipated, yet predictable consequences that are overlooked and glossed over by advocates for the national popular vote

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 aggrivate the flaws in the system. The Electoral College limits the risk and the damage to a few swing states in each election. With a national popular vote, errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

There is no national recount available for close elections, to establish an accurate 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.

For Example: The inaccuracies in Bridgeport did not change the winner here in the race for governor and would not have been enough to change the Electoral College. If it was closer we would have had a recanvass and presumably those errors corrected. However, with the Compact the errors would have counted in a national popular vote number reported by the media or any other number calculated nationwide.

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 – the same Court that ruled in Gore v. Bush, that not having a uniform recount law in Florida was grounds to stop the recount to avoid harm to the apparent winner. Would that same Court rule differently, faced with a close national popular vote and, even less uniformity between states than existed between Florida counties in 2000? Citizens and candidates can be expected to bring court challenges of Governors and Secretaries of State for relying on and providing inaccurate results in awarding Electoral College votes. As in Gore v. Bush, since the founding, close election controversies have all been decided in seemingly partisian decisions by Congress, special commissions, or the Supreme Court.

This is not a partisan issue. It is opposed by promintent members of both major parties. Those who have publicly spoken against the Compact include former Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz (D), Connecticut College Political Scientist Dorothy B. James, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), and Minnesota Secretary of State and current President of the National Association of Secretaries of State Mark Ritchie (D).

I urge you to consider the risks and chaos made possible if Connecticut were to endorse the National Popular Vote Compact.

I challenge anyone to a responsible public blog debate on any and all of the issues I raised in testimony on the National Popular Vote. If you think I am wrong in any objection, let us us debate it. Right here on CTVotersCount.org. (If you wish to debate, you must use your own name and satisfy me that you are who you say you are, you must be civil, and must avoid excessive redundancy. I am open to changing my mind on my objections. If they are all refuted, I may have more, but I am open to changing my overall conclusions. Email me which item you wish to debate and I will start a post for that item and the debate will begin.)

Lawmakers Seek To Change Presidential Elections [To make them more risky, reduce confidence]

What often appears simple is not. The Compact being proposed would get around the requirement for a constitutional amendment. It would cobble the popular vote onto a system designed for the Electoral College. Such a system has largely unanticipated, but predictable consequences that are overlooked and glossed over by national organizations supporting the proposition – similar to the situations when we focus on the national debt one week and lowering taxes the next.

CTNewsJunkie: Lawmakers Seek To Change Presidential Elections <read>

Once again, Connecticut faces the prospect of the well intended but risky National Popular Vote Compact/Agreement. From the article:

A winner-take-all rule has permitted a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote in four out of 56 elections. Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, wants to stop that trend by implementing something called the National Popular Vote.

If enacted, Electoral College delegates from the state would be mandated to cast their votes for whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

“It’s simple,” LeBeau said Wednesday, “the person who’s elected president becomes the president.”

The goal is to restore voter confidence in the electoral system, LeBeau said. His own confidence was shaken after the 2000 presidential elections when President George W. Bush won the election despite losing the national popular vote to candidate and former-Vice President Al Gore, he said.

Like Senator LeBeau, most people, Democrats and Republicans, believe that Al Gore would have won in 2000 if we had the national popular vote then.

But we do not know who would have won then, because as the national popular vote supporters claim different voters would be motivated to vote under the national popular vote, so the national total would have been different.in 2000.
Under the current system, the damage due to error, fraud, and voter suppression is limited to the few so called, swing states. Under the national popular vote, errors, fraud, and suppression in every state, by anyone, any party would count toward the totals. Rather than restore confidence enacting the national popular pote on top of our flawed state by state system will start open season on fraud and suppression.
Finally, if Florida had a good, uniform, automatic recount law in 2000, then Al Gore would also have won with the Electoral College. More that anything, it was likely skulduggery in Florida and a partisan Supreme Court that decided the 2000 election.

“One could argue that the total disenfranchisement and repression of African Americans throughout the end of the 19th century was largely enabled by the dysfunction of the Electoral College,” [Fleishman] said.

This is the 21st century. Yet, one could also still argue that legitimately today, that the claim that the national popular vote will result in one person one vote is bogus, since states vary in who is franchised today and the obstacles placed in the way of various groups in registering and voting.

Our comments on the post (edited and combined):

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

There is no official national popular vote number complied and certified nationally that can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any reasonably close election.

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

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

With stronger election laws, national uniformity, enforceable and enforced laws in place I would favor the NPV.

For more see: https://www.ctvoterscount.org/the-case-against-the-npv/

For example: The inaccuracies in Bridgeport did not change the winner here in the Governor’s race and would not have been enough to change the Electoral College. If it was closer we would have had a recanvass and presumably those errors corrected. But with the Compact they would all have counted against one candidate toward that national popular vote number reported by the media or any other number calculated nationwide.

We also point to this story we came across today, pointing out just one more example of the normal errors in vote counts that get certified across the country. Human error, not voting machines, skewed Colleton County election results <read>

The Colleton County Board of Elections reported nearly 1,400 extra votes in the November election. The discrepancy came to light after the Election Commission certified the results…

Frank Heindel of Mount Pleasant, who maintains a website documenting problems with electronic voting machines, lined up an independent audit to see if the machines were at fault.

“Why do we have such poorly written software that allows candidates to receive more votes than the number of ballots cast?” Heindel said today. “Poorly written software creates human error.”

He said the independent auditors were still waiting for the files to finish their work.

Whitmire’s explanation differs from Colleton County Elections Director Eric Campbell’s guess at what happened. Campbell had said he suspected some votes got counted twice when he held the memory cards from six smaller precincts in the machine too long while tabulating the votes. That raised questions whether the computer software was at fault. Whitmire said there’s no indication the mistake had anything to do with the machine reading the memory cards.

“It wasn’t a problem with the machines, and it wasn’t something mysterious,” Whitmire said. “Whenever there are humans involved, there is always going to be the chance of error.”

We also point out that apparently this error came to light only through citizen expense and diligence. Instructively, like Bridgeport and Connecticut, the original inaccurate results still stand.

Update: Another post from the Norwich Bulletin. <read> Be sure and read the comments on this and the ones on the article at CTNewsJunkie above.