CT: Are Connecticut Voters Left Behind By Web Site?

Update 3/21/2009: Another analysis rates CT’s election web site in the lower tier.
**************Original post:
PEW project report, Being Online Is Not Enough, State Elections Web Sites
Connecticut rates 48th out of 51 (50 states and D.C.)

Update  3/21/2009: Another analysis rates CT’s election web site in the lower tier: <read>

Update 3/26/2009: Author responds to state’s request for further clarification:

The following clarification of the above review, from the author, was passed on to us by Lesley Mara, Deputy Secretary of the State.  Deputy Mara also passed along the following link to an additional portal provided for last fall’s election:  http://www.vote-ez-ct.com/more-info.php

Deputy Mara stated “As you’ll see, our site serves its purpose according to Ethan Klapper.  As you know, we are part of the overall state portal and that may affect some of the design issues he refers to…”

From: Ethan Klapper
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:57 PM
To: Gilman, Michelle
Subject: Re: Connecticut SOTS website

Michelle–

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Before I continue, I want to let you know that I issued a clarification to this post yesterday: http://www.socialgovernment.com/2009/03/24/clarification-to-state-election-web-sites-post/

That being said, the content on the Connecticut Web site is definitely there — I did not have trouble finding anything. However, it’s not organized in the most efficient way — the “SOTS: Elections and Voting” page is a bit cluttered and could be intimidating to some.

Finally, the box on the left-hand side of the page “About the Secretary, News, Business Services, Elections and Voting, Resources, Contact Us” seems to “cut into” the content — especially the first set of links under the heading of “Elections and Voting.” Also, that box isn’t “padded” — meaning that the links it cuts into creep right up next to it without any spacing. This kind of confused me when I visited the Web site.

So that was my rationale, design-wise at least, for the low rating. However, the site definitely serves its purpose.

I apologize for any confusion that might have occurred. Hopefully this clarification will clear things up for everyone.

Thank You!

Ethan Klapper

Ethan Klapper
Founder and Editor
social GOVERNMENT
www.socialgovernment.com

On Mar 23, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Gilman, Michelle wrote:

Good afternoon,

Our office recently saw the report post on your blog regarding good/bad state election websites.

Last year, our office completed the first phase of a website redesign project and also launched “Vote Ez” to streamline voter education information.  However, we are always looking for ideas to improve our website and your suggestions would be very helpful in making additional assessments to do just that.

If possible, I would appreciate your forwarding me the report you compiled that compares state websites and the criteria you used to assess them to help us develop a stronger website.

Thank you for your assistance,

Michelle Gilman

Michelle Halloran Gilman
Chief of Staff
Office of Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz

**************Original post:
PEW project report, Being Online Is Not Enough, State Elections Web Sites <read>

PEW Reviews State Voting Web Sites and Asks:
– Can I Find It?
– Does It Work?
– Does It Help?

PEW Says Voters Ask:
– Am I Registered, or How Do I Register?
– Where Do I Vote?
– What Candidates and Issues Are On The Ballot?

Connecticut rates 48th out of 51 (50 states and D.C.)

Compare for yourself:
#1 Iowa
#2 Texas
#3 Utah
#4 Pennsylvania
#48 Connecticut

Report: Is America Ready To Vote?

Verified Voting, Common Cause, and the Brennan Center for Justice released a major report today: <press release> <report>

Is America Ready to Vote? State Preparations for Voting Machine Problems in 2008

States Get Mixed Reviews on Readiness for Voting Machine Problems — Citing Improvements, Election Experts Call for Backup Measures to Secure the Vote on Nov 4th

From the Press Release:

With millions of Americans expected to confront an array of voting technologies on Nov. 4, today election administration experts from the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause and Verified Voting issued a 50-state report card that grades each state on its preparedness

“There’s no question that in the last few years, election officials around the country have made dramatic improvements that will make it much less likely that voters are disenfranchised due to voting system failures,” said Lawrence Norden, director of the Voting Technology Project at the Brennan Center. “Unfortunately, there is still much work to be done to ensure that every voter will get to vote and every vote will be counted if something goes wrong with voting systems on Election Day,” he stated.

Is America Ready to Vote? evaluates each state by four criteria: procedures for issuing emergency paper ballots, reconciling ballot tallies, providing paper records of votes cast, and post-election audits. The report reveals a broad range of preparedness across the country to address Election Day voting system meltdowns.

How does Connecticut rate? Continue reading “Report: Is America Ready To Vote?”

CT: Secretary Of The State: Misstatements on WNPR

(Note: We have offered the Secretary of the State’s Office an opportunity to comment on this post)

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, was on “Where We Live” on WNPR this AM. She made several misstatements and misleading omissions (these are not exact quotes as we have no transcript)

Misstatement:
Bysiewicz: UConn tests the cards before they are used in the election.

Fact: UConn does pre-election testing of some cards before some elections and produces a report after the election. As far as we know none of the cards pre-election tested by UConn have been used in an election.

  • In Nov 07 the tests did not cover all districts and we have no reason to believe that the cards were selected randomly – and they showed that less than half of election officials fully followed procedures.
  • In the Feb 08 Presidential Primary there was no pre-election test.
  • In the Aug 08 Primary single cards were shipped to UConn from the vendor, LHS, for testing and not randomly selected.
  • Given this record, we cannot predict what method of testing will be used this November.

Fact: CTVotersCount.org pushed for 100% pre-election testing of memory cards by UConn under a transparent chain-of-custody and controls. The Secretary of the State and the Government Elections and Administrations Committee supported this.  However, the bill was not taken up by the Legislature and the Secretary of the State has not chosen to pursue such testing. This would cost money, but so does the campaign to educate voters in filling out ballots.

Misstatement:
Bysiewicz: LHS invented the Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scanner.

Fact: This was debunked here the last time we heard the Secretary make this misstatement in March: <read>

Omission:
Bysiewicz: Your paper ballots will be counted in the audit.

Fact: Only some paper ballots will be counted in the audit – only those counted by machine in the district – exempt are centrally counted absentee ballots, ballots hand counted in precincts etc.

Omission:
Bysiewicz: In close elections in a recount each ballot is checked by two individuals.

Fact: The Secretary did not mention that most ballots are then simply counted again by machine. See recent events in Washington D.C. to understand the practical dangers of such recounting <read>

Omission:
Bysiewicz: Our 10% audit is the toughest in the country.

Fact: The 10% is only one parameter. Our audit law has many loopholes and exemptions which make it less than adequate <read>

Fact: Actual observations of the audits have shown them to be of questionable credibility. <read>

UTC Ends Bid To Buy Diebold

Hartford Courant article <read>

In a letter to Diebold released Monday, UTC Chairman George David said UTC was withdrawing its offer of $40 a share, which valued Diebold at about $2.6 billion…

On Sept. 30, Diebold filed a late 2007 annual report with securities regulators. It also filed revised quarterly reports for the second and third quarters of 2007 and the first two quarters of 2008. Securities Exchange Commission and Justice Department investigations of Diebold’s accounting practices remain open.

Earlier coverage of Diebold’s problems<here>

UConn Report Shows Junk Memory Cards Direct From Vendor

Posted on October 11, UConn has a new report dated October 7th of the Pre-Election testing of memory cards for the August 2008 Primary, Pre-Election Audit of Memory Cards for the August 2008 Connecticut Primary Elections <read>

There was a different methodology used to gather cards for this report. Previous reports were of an incomplete selection of memory cards shipped to UConn by registrars — which should have been subject to pre-election testing before selection and shipping to UConn. Those reports demonstrated that many election officials failed to properly follow pre-election testing procedures. In addition there were questions about “junk” data cards that could not be read. This latest report avoids the embarrassing level of failure to follow procedures, while getting closer to the source of the “Junk” memory card problem — cards were shipped to UConn directly from the vendor, LHS:

Larger than acceptable number of cards contained what we describe as “junk” data. By saying that we understand that the card does not contain proper programming, and instead contains what appears to be random noise. When one puts the card containing the “junk” data into the AV-OS terminal it issues a prompt requesting to format the card. Thus such cards are easily detectable and cannot possibly be used in an election. It seems unlikely that these cards were (electromagnetically) damaged in shipping. Consequently, it appears that these cards were either not adequately tested by LHS Associates, or they experienced some kind of hardware/software failure at some point. Among the audited cards 5.4% of the cards contained junk data. This percentage is high and this issue has to be resolved in the future.…

We performed pre-election audit of cards for all districts, and in this sense it is a complete audit. However the cards do not contain the results of pre-election testing done by the districts, and they were not randomly selected by the districts for the purpose of the audit. Instead the cards were provided to us directly by LHS. The results of the audit would be strengthened if it covered also the pre-election testing done by the districts. Our previous memory card audits in fact included this. However, our forthcoming companion report (to be available at http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/Reports.html) will document the results of the post-election audit, covering most of the districts, and containing the observations about the card usage in pre-election testing at districts and in the election itself.

This is a useful report as it gets closer to the source of memory card errors and is an example of UConn’s excellent work. We must also recognize that none of the memory card reports accomplished so far have really covered a complete and random selection of memory cards.

DemocracyNow: Greg Palast – Jennifer Brenner

A full hour on voting integrity:

I especially recommend the 2nd segment with Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner.  She demonstrates that while she has her hands full in Ohio, she understands the issues and has moved aggressively to improve voting integrity and voter access.  She commissioned the Everest reports and has used them to the benefit of voters.

Greg Palast on Vote Rigging and Suppression Ahead of the 2008 Election <watch listen read>

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on Voter Rights, Faulty Electronic Voting Machines, Voter Fraud and GOP Voter Challenges <watch Listen read>

Report: Voter Purging Process Is Shrouded in Secrecy, Prone to Error and Vulnerable to Manipulation <watch listen read>

<watch listen read the entire show>

Times Editorial: Critics Should Not Be Dismissed.

The New York Times in an editorial, That’s a Pretty Big Glitch, nails the issue again <read>

In the early days of electronic voting, critics who warned that it was unreliable were dismissed as alarmist. Now it seems that hardly an election goes by without reports of serious vulnerabilities or malfunctions.

Unfortunately, for the most part, we are still being dismissed by many.

Computer scientists have shown that electronic voting machines are easy to hack. And voters report errors like vote flipping, in which the vote they cast for one candidate is recorded for another. Ohio’s secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, is suing Diebold over the vote-dropping and noted that its machines crashed repeatedly during last year’s voting in Cuyahoga County.

There is no time left between now and Election Day for states and localities to upgrade their machines or even to fix the vote-dropping software. All they can do is double-check their vote totals, audit their paper trails and be on the lookout for the next, as-yet-undiscovered computer glitch. After that, Congress must require that all states adopt voting systems that include voter-verifiable paper records for every electronic vote cast.

Graphic Demonstration: Problems With Machine Recounts

We keep making the case that recounting by machine is unreliable and not up to the demands of Democracy. Kim Zetter has a readable and detailed article describing the ups and downs of the recent Palm Beach recounts. We have always said that recounting by machine can cause the same errors, if any, to simply be repeated – but Palm Beach proves that new errors can occur as well. <read>

Officials expected the machines would reject the same ballots again. But that didn’t happen. During a first test of 160 ballots, the machines accepted three of them. In a second test of 102 ballots, the machines accepted 13 of them, and rejected the others. When the same ballots were run through the machines again, 90 of the ballots were accepted…
Continue reading “Graphic Demonstration: Problems With Machine Recounts”