Includes many of the same recommendations in the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits and expands the scope to include auditing of the whole election process.
Includes many of the same recommendations in the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits and expands the scope to include auditing of the whole election process: <web intro> <Report .pdf>
This report consists of four key parts: Recommended Guidelines for Election Audits, Criteria for an Election Auditing Law, Glossary of Election Audits Terminology, and Election Audits Resources. These sections are intended to be used together in their entirety.
We conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence…Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently
In some cases as many as twenty-four (24) fewer ballots were counted by hand than recorded by optical scanners. For individual candidate races, vote counts between hand counts and scanner tapes varied by as much as three-hundred-sixty-six (366) votes in one race or as much as 46% in another.
We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.
Read the press release, full report and excerpts at CTElectionAudit.org
Summary, from the Press Release and Report:
Connecticut’s November 2008 Post-Election Audits Report
Large Differences From Optical Scanner Totals
Coalition Calls On Legislature To Act
The Coalition noted large differences between reported results by electronic voting equipment and the hand count of ballots by election officials across Connecticut. In some cases as many as twenty-four (24) fewer ballots were counted by hand than recorded by optical scanners. For individual candidate races, vote counts between hand counts and scanner tapes varied by as much as three-hundred-sixty-six (366) votes in one race or as much as 46% in another. Most officials attributed the widespread differences to the inability to count votes accurately by hand.
In this report, we conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued lack of
• standards,
• detailed guidance for counting procedures, and
• consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.We also note continuing failures to follow audit and chain-of-custody procedures.
Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently.
Several audit supervisors attributed discrepancies between machine counts and hand counts to human limitations; other supervisors attributed these to inaccurate scanners. We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.
Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “Given the variation in the counting procedures used, there is no way to distinguish when officials or machines counted accurately or inaccurately. When differences are dismissed as human counting errors, it is unlikely that an audit would identify an election error or fraud should that occur.”
Cheryl Dunson, League of Women Voters of Connecticut’s Vice President of Public Issues, stated, “We have reorganized our recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature. Along with improvements to laws, and audit procedures, we recommend that an Independent Audit Board be established.”
Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director, Connecticut Common Cause said, “Gaps in ballot chain-of-custody, election accounting, and the post-election audits must be addressed to assure integrity and provide confidence to the voters of Connecticut”
Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said “This is our fourth report showing similar weaknesses in the post-election audits. After these reports and five public hearings around the state, it is time for the Legislature to act.”
Read the press release, full report and excerpts at CTElectionAudit.org
“Our economy is in dire straights,” she said. “We have a desperate need for strong leadership in our state. People are looking for new leadership full of action and creative ideas full of vision.”
From the Middletown Press <read>
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz intends to file the official documents to run for governor.
Bysiewicz said she is not yet certain when she will do so, but Monday she said she has received encouragement for the idea.
“I am planning on filing papers and I haven’t filed them yet, but I will be in the near future,” Bysiewicz said.
The current economic situation calls for an influx of ideas and ways to solve problems, Bysiewicz said.
“Our economy is in dire straights,” she said. “We have a desperate need for strong leadership in our state. People are looking for new leadership full of action and creative ideas full of vision.”
Article in Akron Beacon Journal expresses concerns with a statewide recount. What about a nationwide recount? What would the National Popular Vote cause?
We have nothing against the well intentioned voters and legislators supporting the National Popular Vote Agreement. We encourage them to recognize and consider the impact of unintended consequences.
Article in Akron Beacon Journal expresses concerns with a statewide recount. What about a nationwide recount? <read>
Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy did not know she had defeated Republican Steve Stivers in a central Ohio congressional race until Dec. 5, more than a month after the 2008 general election.
The mix-up was the result of a contest too close to call when the polls closed, uncounted and disputed provisional and absentee ballots, tag-teaming lawyers and a litany of litigation.
For Ohio at large, that race exposed the continuing weaknesses in the state’s elections system.
Luckily for this state and the nation, the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain was not close.
Imagine the chaos that would have ensued if Ohio were the last state standing in the presidential race because of uncounted provisional and absentee ballots. It’s not a stretch to think we would have been — and unless problems are addressed, could well be — the next Florida from 2000.
We have two points to make relative to this article.
First, we disagree with the thrust of the article that there is something wrong with counting carefully after a close election.  We are not familiar with the Ohio details, but waiting to Dec 2nd to get it right is well worth it. Since we have absentee ballots, provisional ballots, military and overseas ballots they should be counted, especially when they may change the result. These voters demonstrate a higher commitment to democracy, often working harder to vote than the average voter.
We support of the careful process in Minnesota in the recent Coleman/Frankin statewide recount. We have a national obsession, stoked by the media and apparent winners, with knowing the election results almost immediately. We jump to the conclusion that the winner of the first approximate count on election night is actually the winner, even though there are many votes not yet counted and frequent errors in the reporting and accumulating of results.
If we want every vote to count and count accurately, then we need to take the time to get in right every time. That includes counting very carefully when the results are close.
Second, imagine national popular election of the President. Would we have a nationwide recount as careful as the Minnesota recount? I doubt as we can rely on every state to do as good a job. Some states without paper trails could not under any circumstances. Could the country wait for a good job to be accomplished in all 50 states, with the media and the questionable initial winner pushing to complete the job? Would there be endless suits? Voters, parties and candidates going to court to challenge accuracy in many states. With the National Popular Vote Agreement, could each state’s voters go to court against their state challenging the award of their electoral votes based on questionable counts from other states? Could they go to court against those states for providing questionable numbers?
Worse. Right now many states have recounts on close votes. If there were a close presidential vote, only the states with close votes would actually do a recount – perhaps none. But since every vote, every error and every fraud could change the result, a close vote should require a national recount. Even then, every state has its own way/standards for recounts.
Faced with 1) the facts of questionable counts, 2) the media and questionable winners sturring up worries, complaining of delays while filing suits, and 3) all the law suits – what would happen? Would every reasonably close presidential election be decided by the Supreme Court?
The myth of every vote being equal, the risks of error and fraud, and the potential for legal chaos is why we are opposed to the popular election of the President, in any form, unless and until there are uniform election laws, enforceable, and enforced nationwide.
We have nothing against the well intentioned voters and legislators supporting the National Popular Vote Agreement. We encourage them to recognize and consider the impact of unintended consequences.
the “gross” error rate is about 1 in 1000, or a gross accuracy of 99.91%.
Andrew Appel has analysed the official results of the Minnesota recount and pronounced them “Extremely Accurate”, <read>
There were 2,423,851 votes counted.
The recount added a total of 1,528 votes to the candidates, and subtracted a total of 642 votes, for a gross change of 2170 (again, not including absentee ballot qualification). Thus, the “gross” error rate is about 1 in 1000, or a gross accuracy of 99.91%.
Another story of candidates and parties shorted votes. This time it is the Working Families Party and Joe Courtney.
Update 1/15: Add Sherman and Plainfield to the list
Another story of candidates and parties shorted votes. (Previous story with links to earlier reports of inaccurate reported results) This time it is the Working Families Party and Joe Courtney.
Update 1/15: Add Sherman and Plainfield to the list
***************Original post************************
David Bidell noticed nine cases where the Working Families Party got zero votes.
Checking today, we see that according the Secretary of the State’s website, in Colchester, the votes for representative in the 2nd district are:
Sullivan-Rep: 2474
Courtney-Dem: 5120
Deshefy=Green: 175
Courtney-WKF: 0
Vachon: 1
But Courtney and the Working Families Party should have been credited with 208 more votes!
The question in an email from David Bidell:
Dear Ms. Bray:
I saw published election results that Joe Courtney beat Sean Sullivan
5,120-2,474 in Colchester. Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Scott Deshefy (Green), and how many of Courtney’s votes
werecast on the Working Families Party line? I am trying to assess the
impactof third-party voting in CT.Thank you for your assistance.
The response from the Colchester Town Clerk, Nancy Bray:
Hello Mr. Bedell:
Happy to answer your questions; G. Scott Deshefy received 175 votes for
Congressman. Joe Courtney received 208 votes under the Working Families
line. Anything else you need, please feel free to e-mail or call me.
Update 1/15:
From David Bidell to Plainfield Registrars:
I saw published election results that Joe Courtney beat Sean Sullivan
3,952-1,746 in Plainfield. Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Scott Deshefy (Green), and how many of Courtney’s votes were
cast on the Working Families Party line? I am trying to assess the impact
of third-party voting in CT.
From Sonia Chapman, Plainfield:
J Courtney received 280 votes from working families and S Deshefy recieved
107 votes
From David Bidell to Sherman, Assistant Town Clerk Ellen Hipp:
I saw published election results that Chris Murphy beat David Cappiello
1,026-1,024 in Sherman. Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Harold Burbank (Green), Thomas Winn (Independent), and how many
of Murphy’s votes were cast on the Working Families Party line? I am
trying to assess the impact of third-party voting in CT.
From Assistant Town Clerk Ellen Hipp:
Burbank – 16
Winn – 15
Murphy Working Parties – 48
Murphy Unknown – 24Unknown votes are when a person votes for a candidate under 2 different
parties and only one vote is counted.
We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.
We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy. Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.
Today, we delivered our petition to the Governor, Secretary of the State, Government Administration and Elections Committee, and the Connecticut General Assembly <read petition>
We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.
We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy. Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.
Here is the complete text of our cover letter:
The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor
The Honorable Susan M. Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Connecticut General Assembly                                                             January 9, 2009Re:      Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections (2009)
Nine-hundred-ninety-four (994) voters of Connecticut request that laws be enacted to enhance integrity and confidence in elections as outlined in the attached petition.
Over the last year and since the petition was initiated, several relevant developments have transpired:
- Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits has been released and endorsed by The Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, The American Statistical Association, and others. These principles closely parallel the details in the petition.
- Connecticut has completed four post-election audits. The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition has issued three reports indicating that the current post-election audits are inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective. These reports also uncovered extensive gaps in ballot chain-of-custody and frequent failures to follow procedures.
- A series of five public hearings were conducted in 2008 by the Government Elections and Administration Committee demonstrating significant gaps in election integrity.
- Nationally, the November 2008 election went smoothly, however, in that election and others over the year, several problems have demonstrated the risks of error and fraud in our voting systems. Several of these errors highlight the critical need for effective post-election audits and manual recounts to assure the voters’ intent is realized.
- In Connecticut the November 2008 election and post-election audits has once again demonstrated the need for significant improvements in our chain-of-custody and post-election audits. In addition discrepancies between results posted online by the Secretary of the State’s Office and the actual results have highlighted the need for a more effective and transparent system for reporting and totaling votes.
- Finally, the fiscal situation in Connecticut and the Nation has become critical. We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy. Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.
CTVotersCount has prepared, with suggested text, an act that will fully meet the requirements outlined in the Principles and the petition. We also have available alternative text with minimal fiscal impact that would significantly increase the effectiveness of post-election audits and the integrity of elections in Connecticut. We ask that you give full consideration to our concerns in the petition in the 2009 legislative session.
Also attached are the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits, copies of original signatures on paper, and a list of all signers both paper and online.
Secretary Bysiewicz slammed a PEW report on Military voting citing their incorrect information on Connecticut. She also stated strong objections to voting via Internet.
Update 1/16: PEW Director responds, defends report.
Update 1/16:PEW Director responds, defends report. Doug Chapin letter to the editor in New Haven Register:<read>
The 90-day period referenced by Bysiewicz is available only when service members request a special, blank ballot. As we note in our report, special absentee ballots are not an adequate solution…Bysiewicz is wrong in her assertion that Pew recommends electronic remote voting. Our report repeatedly cites privacy and security concerns associated with returning a completed ballot using electronic means. We do recommend providing overseas voters with a blank, printed ballot by fax, e-mail or other electronic means. This raises no security concerns and allows more time to complete the voting process — a conclusion shared by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
********Original Report*******
Secretary Bysiewicz slammed a PEW report on Military voting citing incorrect information on Connecticut. The New Haven Register has the story: Study slams state over military voting <read>
The study, by The Pew Center on the States, takes Connecticut to task for sending out absentee ballots after the date necessary for military voters to meet all required deadlines. The study in all 50 states and the District of Columbia examined the process that military personnel stationed overseas have to go through to vote.
Overseas military voters from Connecticut can fax their ballot requests, but the state requires the ballots to be transmitted to and from voters by postal mail, according to the report. Because the time needed for ballots to travel by mail takes longer than the time Connecticut provides in its process, the statemilitary voters abroad would need 13 additional days to have enough time to vote…
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz responded angrily to the report, saying that Pew researchers simply didn’t do their homework.
“If they had gone to the trouble of calling my office, they would have known that there is a 90-day period during which military personnel from the state can request a ballot and send it back, Bysiewicz said. The 45-day period cited in the report is for civilians who are overseas at the time of an election.
Bysiewicz said her office has a section of its Web site devoted to how state residents who are overseas serving in the military can go about voting. And now that the General Assembly has begun its 2009 legislative session, Bysiewicz said she is seeking to have legislation introduced that would make blank ballots available to overseas military personnel in January every year.
“While many candidates for office have not declared at that point, it would allow military personnel to take their time, research who is running and write in their names,” Bysiewicz said.
Byseiwicz statement on Internet voting:
“There are significant security issues surrounding electronic remote voting that need to be overcome,” she said. “Until there is a technology like digital imaging or retinal scanning that is widely available that can identify an individual that is casting a ballot via electronic remote voting, I don’t think youre going to see this kind of voting method used.”
We completely agree with Secretary Bysiewicz on Internet voting. Her statement is consistent with the Computer Technologists Statement on Internet Voting, which I have signed. <read>.
Could IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) avoid recounts? A slew of stories from Minnesota claim that recounts are a headache and that IRV is the cure.
Recounting Is Not A Problem – Its A Symptom Of Election Integrity in Minnesota
Could IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) avoid recounts? A slew of stories from Minnesota claim that recounts are a headache and that IRV is the cure. Two examples:
The Star Tribune <read>
Instead, the $40 million-plus campaign continues to permeate our headlines and limit our forward momentum. The Coleman-Franken race is now in a contentious recount and is almost certainly headed to the courts from there. The recount and its aftermath will be a protracted and high-priced affair, and no matter the outcome, most voters will be left wondering if there is not a better way to express our preferences.
Instant-runoff voting (IRV) would have produced an entirely different election.
The South St. Paul Examiner <read>
In a contest so close as the one that has unfolded in Minnesota, a hand recount is likely the only alternative to determine who is number one and who is number two to figure out how number three’s (Dean Barkley) votes are alloted. The election between Landslide Al Franken and Landslide Norm Coleman is an anomoly. It may go down as the closest race in the history of the United States, but IRV would save us the indignity of staring at Big Goof and Little Goof’s ballots and the money a hand recount costs in almost all other instances.
IRV Defined
From the Examiner:
First choices are counted (one, two, or three). If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is defeated, and those votes are transferred to the next ranked (one or two) candidate on each ballot. The votes are recounted.The process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.
Many believe that if IRV was used in Florida in 2000 then Ralph Nader would have received many more votes and that Al Gore would have easily won the state and the Presidency. If employed nationwide many believe that George Bush I would have been elected President in 1992.
A Grain of Truth
The articles are likely correct, that if Minnesota had used Instant Runoff Voting for the Senate race and if there were only three candidates, then the winner would likely have been determined much sooner, on election night, and a recount would have been unnecessary.
Several Doses Of Reality – The “Cure” Makes Makes The “Problem” Worse
There are several issues that are glossed over in these one-sided simplistic articles:
Recounting Is Not A Problem – Its A Symptom Of Election Integrity
CTVotersCount does not share the concern with the time and cost of recounting. In the overall scheme of things the expense of recounting is small compared to what is spent in running elections, what is spent on campaigns, and the billions at stake in the decisions and actions of a Senator. Who cares if the winner is declared on Nov 4th or Jan 31st? If its important that Minnesota have two Senators on Jan 6th. Then its even more important that Minnesota have the voters choice as Senator for the six years after Jan 31st.
From the Examiner:
Minnesota and its reputation for good government have taken some hits from the Senate brouhaha. It’s too late to duck that punch or the ones we can expect in the weeks — and maybe months — yet to come. It’s not too late, though, to make sure we don’t get into this situation again.
It’s time for Minnesota to consider adopting IRV and preserve its tradition as a leader in electoral integrity and good governance.
The author has it all backwards. Minnesota’s leadership in electoral integrity is why manual recounts are required. Looking objectively at the care taken with every aspect of the recount only enhances Minnesota’s reputation for good governance.
As A Cure, IRV May Be Worse Than The Problem
IRV sounds great. We want a vibrant democracy. Wouldn’t it be great if we could vote for our favorite candidate and still have our preference expressed in the result. We could vote for Pat Buchannan, Ross Perot, Ralph Nadar, or Dennis Kucinich, yet still see Al Gore or Bob Dole elected President. Who knows, perhaps in a few years we would have a third viable party.
I live in a condominim, IRV might be a very good way for us to elect directors.
How could anyone possibly object? Consider that the cure may be worse than the disease:
So there we have it. Instant Runoff Voting – a ready cure for many real election concerns – yet, risky, complex, and time consuming, quite likely causing more and greater problems than those it is intended to cure.
PS: Here in Connecticut there is no requirement for a hand recount. From what we saw in the Courtney/Simmons 2006 recanvass, we question if hand counting votes here would result in the same level of scrutiny of each ballot and each rejected absentee ballot we have seen in Minnesota. Would we come anywhere close to the detail and objectivity apparent in Minnesota?
**************
Update 3/23/2009: Party Looks At Sample Ballot, Reverses Course On IRV <read>
“Anyone who could look at that and not think that the average voter is going to find that totally frustrating is totally out of touch with the average voter in the City of St. Paul,” Repke said.
On another flier distributed by IRV opponents: mucked-up ballots from the contest between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. During the Senate recount, goofy ballots such as one endorsing “€œflying spaghetti monster” got most of the attention. But much more common were routinely botched ballots in which a voter’s intent simply couldn’t be discerned because of unusual markings.
Thune believes IRV would only compound such problems and disenfranchise voters. “While this may seem like a wonderful thing in Cambridge for a bunch of Harvard professors, we’ve got a general population that has trouble filling out one oval in a Coleman-Franken race,” he says.
Last week, we said “There are likely many other differences that have not been discovered.”
Last week, we said: “There are likely many other differences that have not been discovered.”
Unfortunately, we were correct. We checked our own town of Glastonbury web’s reported results against the Secretary of the State’s results:
Totals for ROV in Glastonbury, on Glastonbury site:Â 9,018Â Â 8,501 <read>
Totals for ROV in Glastonbury, on SOTS site:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 9,001Â Â 8,491 <read>
Checking with Zelda Lessne, Registrar of Voters-D, this is the difference between the originally reported results and those one the web listed as amended on November 17th.
Once again, this may not matter in the result in this eleciton, but it seems there are many errors out there that could change future results. Its good that towns recheck their work after a good night’s sleep, but those results also should be reflected in the State’s posted results.