Category: National

Voting Machine Mess Can’t Just Be Fixed by Congressional Bills

Excellent article by Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.  It is not just progressives that understand the problems with electronic voting.

In addition to outlining some of the problems, Mr. Ornstein also articulates very well the business reasons why voting machines and ATM’s are different, not just in their function but in the market limitations and economics.  As a former software product manager and buyer, I can vouch for the accuracy of that aspect of his analysis.

He suggests that Apple or Google solve the problem while others often propose open source solutions.  I don’t expect Apple or Google to do anything so significant without a profit motive, any more than I expect Walmart or the Hartford Courant to do so either.   My longstanding belief is that some things are best done by private enterprise, others by government and that either can be screwed up (with us being the ones at the wrong end of the screw).  Obviously the current method is not working for the benefit of Democracy.

Read his article <read>. Some excerpts below: Continue reading “Voting Machine Mess Can’t Just Be Fixed by Congressional Bills”

Blank Memory Cards and No Problems In Recounts?

Update: The Secretary of the State’s Office was offered four hours to comment on this entry before publication, but said they needed more time to gather information. We will post their response promptly.

New York Times: Voting Machines Are Put To The Test – reviews the optical scan performance in the municipal elections, with information from Secretary Byseiwicz <read>

I found a couple of items quite interesting. The following is not a direct quote from Secretary Bysiewicz but from the context seems to be information she discussed with Times. There is no indication of any other source associated with the information:

In a report after that audit, UConn researchers found, after a hand count, that in at least one race, the machine at a polling place in East Hartford counted six more votes for one candidate than the person had actually received. The discrepancy did not change the outcome, but they warned that it could in the future.

No such problems have turned up in 39 recounts of the Nov. 6 election,

This seems contradictory to the recent news describing recounts that resulted in a change in 17 votes in New Caanan and another error in Riverside that overturned the results. I suppose it depends on what is meant by “No such problems”, these may be different in some ways from those in East Hartford.

Also for the first time we learn that UConn has discovered some issues with the cards tested in the pre-election test. It seems that in some cases either a set of blank cards were sent to registrars or sets inconsistent cards, some blank, were sent to registrars.

Mrs. Bysiewicz said that in addition to reviewing the audit results of this past election, the University of Connecticut audited more than 300 memory cards prior to the election and will audit another batch now that the election is completed. The memory card, which she described as the “brains” of the new machines, posed the biggest security concern for UConn researchers, who warned in October 2006 that if someone gained access to the card, the results of an election could be altered.

Mrs. Bysiewicz said the pre-election audit of the cards found that none of the cards had been tampered with, but that a handful were blank, meaning that they had not been programmed with the proper ballot information.

No report yet on how many blank memory cards were discovered in pre-election testing by the registrars. If the same percentage of 6 out of 300 holds, then if each registrar in 695 towns tested at least two cards then about we could expect that about 28 would have been discovered.

Recount Reaffirm’s Wisdom of Recounts in Close Races

That’s not the tittle of article, nor what it says. It says:

with 14 towns holding recounts. New Canaan is included in that and held a recount on Tuesday to reaffirm the 25-vote difference between Town Council candidates Beth Jones and John Emert. That recount showed Jones edging Emert by seven votes.

No. It reaffirmed the winner, not the difference. If Jones had won by 17 votes, perhaps the article would not be so rosy. Then we might have Emert winning by 1 vote. What has been reaffirmed is the wisdom of recounting close races!!!

Read the entire article which includes some thought provoking quotes by voter Jody Eisemann, Secretary of the State Bysiewicz, and George Cody, President of the Registrars Of Voters Association Connecticut. <read>

Courant Fresh Talk: Voting: Too Far From Online

Fresh Talk editorial by Courant intern asks question and answers well: <read>

Why is it when more and more Americans spend more and more of their time at a computer, we still having a voting system that doesn’t incorporate online capabilities?

…Several computer scientists took part in 2004 in federally funded program called the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE, and concluded that a online voting system would create insurmountable security risks.

The study concluded that unless there is some unforeseen or radical change in modern PCs and the Internet, it would be impossible to guarantee a safe and secure system for large-scale online voting.

There is a lot the regular Courant Editors can learn from following the example of their intern, Will Violet, who wrote this editorial. Research and facts trump wishes and myths every time.

Dori Smith Reports At Brad Blog

Dori Smith of TalkNationRadio.org provides a report on Connecticut issues at Brad Blog.  A summary of her excellent broadcasts this fall, along with the issues raised  for Connecticut by memory card problems with the Diebold Premier AccuVote-OS optical scanners in Florida.

Diebold Optical-Scan Failures Reported in Florida May be Affecting Connecticut As Well  <read>

EAC spokeswoman answers questions about agency

Interesting interview with an Election Assistance Commission spokesperson. <read>

What role does the EAC have in dealing with election systems that are currently being used in the U.S. albeit not certified by the EAC? EAC does not have any regulatory authority over states with respect to the voting systems they use. All of EAC voting system programs are voluntary. HAVA very clearly states that EAC has no regulatory authority, except regarding the National Voter Registration Act.

Includes an extensive listing of information in their clearing house. Also a reminder that it is the public comment period for their Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Next month I will review the guidelines and comment on them to the EAC. I would encourage everyone to take a look at them and reach their own conclusions.

  1. EAC posted its 2005 voluntary voting system guidelines, and just launched an online comment tool for the next iteration of voluntary voting system guidelines. Comments submitted are also available to the public. In addition, the Commission adopted a policy to establish a voting system reports clearinghouse, which is available here.

There is a lot of material in the interview but it seems to be loaded with excuses for not doing all that much, which I can only assume is a reasonable representation of the EAC’s actual value. See a critique of the operation of the clearinghouse in the same newspaper  <read>   Related to the Diebold Premier memory card failure story we have been following <here>

Recount Does Not Match – Mystery? Discrepancy? Error?

Update: Middlefield, a sensible recount discrepancy report, a few votes off in the count, some sensible advice to count again, and a reasonable possible explanation <read>

Update, Colin McEnron interviews Rep Mike Lawlor <listen>

We learn that the counts of votes were higher in several districts, not just one. Lawlor likes a similar explination to that of Head Moderator Jaffe. Lawlor speculates that the checkers did not do their job and did not check off all voters. I am skeptical, election officials can make mistakes, but it just is hard to believe that multiple checkers in one town all made similar mistakes or that 130 voters made the same mistakes without being noticed.

I doubt either of these explanations. Just like the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers like to blame pilot error rather than the aircraft design or manufacture.

Blaming the Secretary of The State’s office is a bit of a smokescreen. Perhaps they should be available on Sunday, or maybe there should be no recounts on Sunday’s and holidays, but that takes attention away from the real issues here.

We don’t know what happened. It could be human error, but more likely one or a sequence of two or three errors rather than 130 errors by multiple people in multiple places.

Update, possibly the most rediculous attempt at an excuse ever <read>

[Head Moderator Lori] Jaffe told the New Haven Register that the new voting system may have confused some voters. “They might get a ballot, make a mistake on it, then go to the clerk and get a second one,” she said.

No – the ballot clerk is responsible to give one ballot to each voter. And to give another one the clerk must give one back and mark it spoiled and is responsible for it. (I don’t believe any Head Moderator would confuse that)
————————-

The East Haven recount shows more votes than on election day and more votes than voters checked off <read>

the recount has completed. Now they are trying to figure out why they have more votes for mayor in the recount than they had voters voting.
… the results of the recount will not be certified by the recount moderator, Lori Jaffe due to significant discrepencies(sic) noted in the previous update. There are 114 more votes cast than people that are thought to have voted. The moderator and the Registrar of Voters will contact the Secretary of State on Tuesday to get instructions.

We also have unconfirmed reports of discrepancies and procedural questions with the recount performed Friday in East Hampton — and that the recount will be redone today.

TalkNationRadio – Raindrops Keep Falling

This week’s TalkNationRadio by Dori Smith, Raindrops Keep falling on Connecticut’s Diebold Voting Machines: <read and listen>

Interviews with Connecticut Registrars, Deputy Secretary of State Lesley Mara, and True Vote Connecticut member George Barnett.  Coverage of the November 6th election and the problems with wet ballots.

Former corporate auditor George Barnett:

‘In 2006 twenty eight of the 550 recounts from seventeen districts there were differences of ten votes or more between the machine counts and the hand counts. In 19 of those of those 28 recounts the machines recorded a higher votes than the hand counts. Now, after these audits the Secretary of State put out a press release saying the optical scan machines performed very well on election day without any problems and that any changes in vote totals found in these audits were due to ballots being marked incorrectly by the voter–not to any problems with the optical scan machine.

So if 19 recounts the machine count was higher than the hand recount during the audit, that contradicts that statement. And I personally reviewed an audit in Monroe where the machine had a higher count than the hand recount and I talked to the Registrars there and they never spoke to the Secretary of State. So it seems like the Secretary of the State made this statement without basing it on fact. She did not look into any of these differences.

Barnett has also written about these issues at CTVotersCount <here> and <here>.

Take Action – Be A Post-Election Audit Observer

UPDATE: The Secretary of the State has extended the audit period. The audits will be conducted through December 12, 2007. Still time to sign up!

Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition

Four Groups Organizing Citizens To Observe
Post-Election Audits

CTVotersCount.org is one of the coalition members and requests that members of our mailing list and readers seriously consider spending a day observing our post-election audits. You will contribute to democracy, be a part of the election process, and learn something valuable – every time I have attend an audit I have learned something new and unanticipated, you will too, please join us.

Learn more and sign-up at www.CTElectionAudit.org

From the Press Release: Continue reading “Take Action – Be A Post-Election Audit Observer”

Fox News iTeam: Cuyahoga County Diebold E-Voting Machines

A six minute report form Cuyahoga Ohio covering Diebold and the California reports.

A recommended short introduction to the issues! <UTUBE Video>

Its almost as if you give someone your keys and yet they are able to hotwire your car faster than putting the key in the ignition – Candice Hoke