CTVotersCount.org

Carter Center: Study of Norway’s Internet Voting

A recent post, brought the Carter Center’s report to our attention. Today we highlight Scott M. Fulton’s thoughtful post based on the report.

I look at a chart like this and see a gold mine of potential exploits–handoffs, air-gaps,… How long before such a system is cracked once, someplace in the world?

A recent post, brought the Carter Center’s report to our attention: Expert Study Mission Report The Carter Center Internet Voting Pilot: Norway’s 2013 Parliamentary Elections. <.pdf> The Carter Center report is highly enlightening, covering Norway’s pilot, Internet voting in general, and the challenges of credible observation of elections.

Today we highlight Scott M. Fulton’s thoughtful post based on the report: Scytl e-voting exposes the dangers of automating a democracy <read>

The truth is, any forward progress we make toward better communication with one another, toward social awareness, toward even expanded conscience of the world around us, can only be accomplished by each of us individually. Technology can empower us to do that, or to do the precise opposite. It is neither to credit nor to blame.

But the corollary to that principle is this, and it is a caution I try to repeat as often as possible: Because technology has no inherent polarization toward progress, simply applying it to a problem does not solve it…

The process of voting in Norway, according to that [Carter Center] report, was not at all dissimilar to the way B-52 bombers were told to attack Moscow in the movie Dr. Strangelove:

In order to vote, a voter had to register their mobile phone with a centralized government register (one could do so online while the voting was underway). The voter should have also received a special card… delivered through the postal service, with personalized numeric return codes. These cards provided the voter a list of four-digit numbers corresponding to each party running for election. The four-digit numbers were randomly assigned for every voter so that, for example, any two voters who wanted to cast their vote for Labour would unlikely have the same return codes associated to the Labour party.

The Carter Center charted the conceptual model of the technology involved:

Imagine your local school board election being charted by a process model this complex. Consider the degree to which people who are already disenchanted by the whole concept of contributing their 1/10,000 of a preference, will simply avoid the process altogether. Maybe this fact alone is what makes it so attractive to people in the election business.

As someone who has regularly sat next to security engineers, I look at a chart like this and see a gold mine of potential exploits–handoffs, air-gaps, SMS as the communications medium. Perhaps Scytl’s system is lock-tight today, but the very fact of its complexity, coupled with its wide-ranging impact on the public, makes it an automatic target. How long before such a system is cracked once, someplace in the world? And when that happens, how many other elections’ veracity will be called into question? How many Bush v. Gore cases will this nation withstand?

The Carter Center report goes into further details that add to the understanding of complexity of the system. Thinking about each part it is easy to speculate on the risks of attack, especially attacks by insiders – from public employees, vendor personnel from the system vendor, and various network support contractors. Add that the near impossibility of independent verification of every possible critical point; along with the impossibility of public trust in any such complex and technically sophisticated evaluation.

Crumbling infrastructure – its not just highways and bridges anymore

The big news in Connecticut these days is Congress’s patched-up highway bill to continue patching-up our highways, while Connecticut has the the worst highway conditions in the nation.

But we are also just as dependent on electricity and the Internet. A Washington Post editorial highlights the risks, while Ed Snowden through Glenn Greenwald confirms the reality.

The big news in Connecticut these days is Congress’s patched-up highway bill to continue patching-up our highways, while Connecticut has the the worst highway conditions in the nation. CTMirror: White House says CT roads and bridges deficient <read>

The White House issued an alarming report Monday that said 41 percent of Connecticut’s roads are in poor condition and more than 9,500 jobs in the state will be lost unless Congress acts quickly to replenish a fund that pays for a lion’s share of the state’s infrastructure construction and repair.

But we are also just as dependent on electricity and the Internet. A Washington Post editorial highlights the risks: Congress is overdue in dealing with the cybersecurity threat <read>

THE INTERNET security company Symantec revealed recently that a group of hackers known as Dragonfly infiltrated malware into legitimate software belonging to three manufacturers of industrial control systems — the stuff that controls factories and power grids. In one case, the contaminated control software was downloaded 250 times by unsuspecting users before the compromise was discovered.
This kind of cyberattack is not new, but it is audacious and dangerous. One of the first such assaults was the Stuxnet campaign, which had sabotage as its primary goal, against the Iranian nuclear program. By contrast, Dragonfly was a multi-pronged infiltrator, aimed at cyber- espionage and gaining long-term access to computers, with sabotage as a future option, perhaps flicking off the electrical power to a city or shutting down a factory. Dragonfly probably was state-sponsored from somewhere in Eastern Europe…
A torrent of cyberattacks — disruption, espionage, theft — is costing U.S. business and government billions of dollars. This is reality, not science fiction. In March, Chinese hackers broke into the U.S. government agency that houses the personal information of all federal employees.
For several years, it has been clear to many in government and the private sector that the nation needs to vastly improve protection of its private networks and that only government has the sophisticated tools to do that. But Congress has balked at legislation that would ease the necessary cooperation….

State Sponsored – is that some kind of official conspiracy theory to spend gobs of money on another threat beyond terrorism? Of course that could be the result even if the threat is real. But we don’t have to believe the Government – we could read proof from the Snowden documents: Hacking Online Polls and Other Ways British Spies Seek to Control the Internet<read>

The secretive British spy agency GCHQ has developed covert tools to seed the internet with false information, including the ability to manipulate the results of online polls, artificially inflate pageview counts on web sites, “amplif[y]” sanctioned messages on YouTube, and censor video content judged to be “extremist.” The capabilities, detailed in documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, even include an old standby for pre-adolescent prank callers everywhere: A way to connect two unsuspecting phone users together in a call.

The tools were created by GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), and constitute some of the most startling methods of propaganda and internet deception contained within the Snowden archive. Previously disclosed documents have detailed JTRIG’s use of “fake victim blog posts,” “false flag operations,” “honey traps” and psychological manipulation to target online activists, monitor visitors to WikiLeaks, and spy on YouTube and Facebook users. [Hi English spy guys, welcome back to CTVotersCount]
Prime Minister David Cameron has justified as an “emergency” to “help keep us safe,” a newly released top-secret GCHQ document called “JTRIG Tools and Techniques” provides a comprehensive, birds-eye view of just how underhanded and invasive this unit’s operations are. The document..is designed to notify other GCHQ units of JTRIG’s “weaponised capability” when it comes to the dark internet arts, and serves as a sort of hacker’s buffet for wreaking online havoc.

Yes, nothing to worry about, just our friends the British and probably our friend Israel is even farther along, every body does it…ask Germany about their friend in North America. What chance is there that the Russians and Chinese are up to the same things, along with all sorts on non-government friends and non-friends as well? And of course nobody inside the U.S. Government itself would have any interest in influencing election outcomes, would they?

Internet voting, that is probably as safe and trustworthy as Facebook.

“It happens all the time.” All over the place (Part 4)

Here we continue our review of some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts.

Here we continue our review o some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts. Last time we covered the 2nd half of CTVotersCount posts from 2009. Continuing from there:

Detroit: Chain-of-Custody violations put recount in question <Jan 2010>

CT Registrar alleged to have fudged petitions for herself and relatives <Feb 2010>

KY longstanding fraud by polling place officials <Feb 2010>

AB Vote “Harvesters” in Dallas <Apr 2010>

False testimony in vote caging, leads to appointment to Federal Elections Commission <Apr 2010>

What’s the matter in Tennessee? <Sep 2010>

Perhaps the most significant Internet voting hack <Oct 2010>

The cause of the specific problem in Bridgeport <Nov 2010> <more>

SOTS powerless in Bridgeport <Nov 2010>
PS: They still are.

Bridgeport wrap-ups <Dec 2010> <Jan 2011>

CT still overlooking vote counts <Dec 2010>

That completes 2010. We will continue another time.

Ignore this post – it is based on facts and reason.

Like Don Quixote, we have spend almost seven years tilting at myths. Unlike Don, we arm our posts with facts and reason. According to a new report, that is a losing strategy.

Note: That report itself is based on facts, reason, and that most untrusted Science, known as statistics. Therefore, it is unlikely that the report will make a significant difference.

Like Don Quixote, we have spend almost seven years tilting at myths. Unlike Don, we arm our posts with facts and reason. According to a new report, that is a losing strategy.

Note: That report itself is based on facts, reason, and that most untrusted Science, known as statistics. Therefore, it is unlikely that the report will make a significant difference. Yet, we remain committed to our best efforts to base our recommendations on facts and reason.

New York Times: When Beliefs and Facts Collide <read>

Do Americans understand the scientific consensus about issues like climate change and evolution?

At least for a substantial portion of the public, it seems like the answer is no. The Pew Research Center, for instance, found that 33 percent of the public believes “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time” and 26 percent think there is not “solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades.” Unsurprisingly, beliefs on both topics are divided along religious and partisan lines. For instance, 46 percent of Republicans said there is not solid evidence of global warming, compared with 11 percent of Democrats.

As a result of surveys like these, scientists and advocates have concluded that many people are not aware of the evidence on these issues and need to be provided with correct information. That’s the impulse behind efforts like the campaign to publicize the fact that 97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming.

In a new study, a Yale Law School professor, Dan Kahan, finds that the divide over belief in evolution between more and less religious people is wider among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn’t a lack of information. When he instead tested whether respondents knew the theory of evolution, omitting mention of belief, there was virtually no difference between more and less religious people with high scientific familiarity. In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

Mr. Kahan’s study suggests that more people know what scientists think about high-profile scientific controversies than polls suggest; they just aren’t willing to endorse the consensus when it contradicts their political or religious views…

The deeper problem is that citizens participate in public life precisely because they believe the issues at stake relate to their values and ideals, especially when political parties and other identity-based groups get involved– an outcome that is inevitable on high – profile issues. Those groups can help to mobilize the public and represent their interests, but they also help to produce the factual divisions that are one of the most toxic byproducts of our polarized era.Unfortunately, knowing what scientists think is ultimately no substitute for actually believing it.

We see such from partisans of all stripes, when we work to disrupt the “common wisdom” on election issues, tilting with facts and reason:

Internet Voting. No matter the theoretical risks of the Internet attested to by Scientists, the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and our CT utilities regulatory authority, and actual breeches by the NSA, foreign governments, bank fraudsters, and hackers, objections are met with claims of complete confidence in election officials to provide secure voting systems.
Voter Fraud. There is very little actual fraud by individual voters – the challenge is to get people to vote – very few illegal aliens would risk their deportation to vote. In any case, most cases of fraud or voting in error would not be prevented by voter ID.
Mail-in Voting (Absentee Voting). Here sides change. It is more convenient to vote by mail for many. Yet at what price. There is proven absentee voting fraud after almost every national election. Opening up to more mail-in voting, simply opens up more opportunity and benefit for fraud. Like climate change denial, we have many that deny the fact and opportunity.
Electronic Voting without audits and recounts. Officials and many in the public subscribe to the belief that “If it seems to work and I have noticed no problems, then it must be safe”. Just like nuclear power, DDT, and many other risks, our intuition can be wrong.

Until a year ago many thought that the NSA spying on everyone was a myth. Today, many still believe that “I have nothing to hide, so they can look at all my emails, bank accounts, and health records”. For those with those beliefs, please send me all your passwords (and be sure not to encrypt the email).

Suggestions for reading and viewing on the 4th of July

Once again, we have some suggestions for the 4th of July. A Centennial address from 1876, a short video from last month, and a historical movie from the late 1600’s.

Robert G. Ingersoll was likely the most widely known orator of the late 1800’s, following Emerson, and preceding Mark Twain. In 1876 he gave this oration on “The Meaning of the Declaration of Independence” <read>

all things considered, it was the bravest political document ever signed by man. And if it was physically brave, the moral courage of the document is almost infinitely beyond the physical. They had the courage not only, but they had the almost infinite wisdom to declare that all men are created equal. Such things had occasionally been said by some political enthusiasts in the olden time, but for the first time in the history of the world, the representatives of a nation, the representatives of a real living, breathing, hoping people, declared that all men are created equal. With one blow, with one stroke of the pen, they struck down all the cruel, heartless barriers that aristocracy, that priestcraft, that kingcraft had raised between man and man. They struck down with one immortal blow, that infamous spirit of caste that makes a god almost a beast, and a beast almost a god. With one word, with one blow, they wiped away and utterly destroyed all that had been done by centuries of war—centuries of hypocrisy—centuries of injustice….

“What more did they do? They then declared that each man has a right to live. And what does that mean? It means that he has the right to make his living. It means that he has the right to breathe the air, to work the land, that he stands the equal of every other human being beneath the shining stars; entitled to the product of his labor—the labor of his hand and of his brain.

What more? That every man has the right; to pursue his own happiness in his own way. Grander words than these have never been spoken by man.

Two years ago we recommended a biography of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. This year we recommend a video of a talk by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island from last month.

Finally, the movie Belle, if it is playing in your area. A true store, a love story, a story of the evolution of freedom and law <trailer>

An afternoon at the Recount(?)

On June 24th there was a third budget referendum in Colchester, CT. There were separate questions for the town budget and the Board of Education budget, both previously twice voted down. This time the town budget passed by a margin of twelve votes and the BOE squeaked by with a margin of four votes.

This was actually the first time I have attended a recount in Connecticut. In the past I have attended about eight recanvasses. Every time, I have attended a recanvass, either as a member of the public or representing a party or slate, I have learned something. Most often a few good ideas, and new ways not to run a recanvass. This was an exception, I only learned good things. It was a thoroughly effective recount in all regards, and educational for me.

This was actually the first time I have attended a recount in Connecticut. In the past I have attended about eight recanvasses. Every time, I have attended a recanvass, either as a member of the public or representing a party or slate, I have learned something. Most often a few good ideas, and new ways not to run a recanvass. This was an exception, I only learned good things. It was a thoroughly effective recount in all regards, and educational for me.

The first thing I learned was the Connecticut law actually has a recount, yet unlike a recanvass it is essentially undefined! As far as I can tell, there is no definition, no requirements, no rules, no limits or restrictions on how it is conducted. A search of CT Statutes for recount shows it can be ordered by a judge in most elections and primaries, yet like most Connecticut statutes, leaving referendum rules all to each municipality.

In primaries and elections we have a close vote recanvass – when the margin is close there is a recanvass, a weak version of the recounts we have seen in Minnesota and Florida, with less rights to slates, parties, and opposing interests to closely observe the counting, with no rights to object. But at least in the case of Colchester, there is a provision for a close vote recount of a referendum in the town charter, if votes petition for the recount. <Colchester Charter>

Recount of Annual Budget Referendum or special referendums.
Should the vote cast at either the Annual Budget Referendum or a special referendum be decided by a
margin of less than 2.0% of those electors who cast votes, the vote shall be subject to recount upon the
petition of any of the Town voters. During the pendency of such recount, the Town may not take any
action whatsoever in reliance upon the outcome of the initial vote count.

It seems we need to be careful what we ask for, unless it is well defined! A recount could apparently be anything from that ideal we imagine, to perhaps just reading some tapes and forms again. I am not a lawyer, yet it seems one could argue for days in court what a recount should entail.

I was invited by individuals petitioning for the recount, those representing the ‘no’ position on the referendum. I am completely agnostic on this referendum – I am not a voter in Colchester, I have no knowledge of the issues and arguments for or against the budgets. I do enjoy attending and representing some faction in a recanvass (or a recount). especially if the faction needs help in understanding the process and their rights (so far, almost all do). Normally, I will represent any side that will have me, except where I have taken sides in the contest or would have the appearance of bias. Yet, my preference would be to represent apparent losers and outsiders – those not represented by the elected registrars and other election officials. That was the yesterday.

Representing a side means that I will give them my best advice, work to have a fair and observable recanvass/recount, yet at the same time not intentionally act to aid another faction. Usually, the apparent loser is still the actual loser after the recount/recanvass. To me, it is still a win if the recanvass/recount is fair, transparent, and results in the actual loser accepting the result of the recanvass/recount. That was the case today – I likely played a small part in that, but the credit goes to the ‘no’ faction, and the officials. It was an interesting, fair, and transparent process. (Not everyone has this same prospective. In my experience, it seems that many party lawyers scrutinize recanvasses jist enough to find errors, so that if they believe it would be beneficial, they could later challenge the result it court. I am all for such a challenge if it is justified, yet I would prefer an accurate, trustworthy result from the recanvass/recount as well.)

The two registrars assisting the Head Moderator, who led the recount. went will beyond the requirements of a recanvass, to provide a transparent, effective process, open to questions and objections. I wish it was always that way! Too often, some questions are not welcomed, most objections are unwelcome, objections cut-off, transparency to observe ballots limited, and the process not even meeting the inadequate recanvass procedures. Often factions are unaware of their rights, when they should be at least asking for even more. When I represent a faction, I insist on following the procedures, and at least ask for more.

Credit goes to the ‘no’ faction for thoroughly going through all the absentee ballot lists and questioning some items we did not understand – they were well explained by the registrars and town clerk, who was also present. They also closely scrutinized the absentee ballot applications – they found two that were apparently defective – I cannot say that officials officially agreed they were defective – a judge would likely have to finally rule on that.

There was considerable concern about absentee ballots. In the 1st two referendums there were 21 and 19 absentee votes. This time 90. According to the petitioners there was a strong campaign by advocates for ‘yes’ to get out the absentee vote. According to the registrars a major factor was that the third referendum was the 1st week of summer vacation, with many parents (likely ‘yes’ voters) on vacation. I noted that the absentee ballots were all half-sheet paper forms. Talking to the registrars it was motivated by saving money, since the minimum order of ballots is 100, and in the previous referendums, so few were needed. They were counted quite efficiently in four stacks, of yes-yes, no-no, no-yes, and yes-no, there were no partial votes. ‘no’ had won the polling place voting. ‘yes’ had carried the absentee votes.

So, we had an original four vote margin. With two defective absentee applications, that likely would bring the provable margin down to two. If the recount margin were two or less, one way or the other, then a judge would likely call for a re-vote, as the will of the legal voters could then not be determined.

As I suspected there were very few votes that could not be accurately read by the scanner, actually none where there was an issue of voter intent that would have been different for the scanner scanner count. Several bubbles were partially filled in and several ballots that the scanner refused to read, were hand counted. The final margin for the town budget remained at twelve. The final margin for the BOE budget was three – just one vote from a likely successful legal challenge.

Important lessons.

The recount was conducted so well, the relations between officials, ‘no’ faction, and ‘yes’ faction were so cordial that nobody for a moment, as far as I can tell, considered that the final count might be incorrect.
Opposition can work hard, yet remain cordial.
An effective, open process is worthwhile for everyone.
Every detail matters. It is important that every absentee ballot application be scrutinized by official to make sure that it is properly filled out, so that votes and whole elections are later not called into question.
It is important for concerned candidates and citizens to check such details.

What price convenience? Another confirmation that the Holy Grail of voting is not found in conventional wisdom

When you vote in November, consider: What price convenience? What cost convenience? What individual effort is Democracy worth?

To listen to elected officials and many activists, the Holy Grail of Elections, would seem to be Turnout. Given the emphasis you would think that almost nothing else matters: Integrity, candidate access, campaign finance, media bias, or costs – when focusing on turnout, it seems everything else is forgotten. A report from Ohio, confirms earlier studies that early voting does not increase turnout,

We posted a news item from Ohio, earlier in the week from the the Columbus Dispatch: Early voting hasn’t boosted Ohio turnout <read>

Early voting has not led to more voting in Ohio, at least not in terms of total votes cast.
A Dispatch analysis of the vote totals from the past three presidential elections in the state shows that overall turnout in the 2012 race, when Ohioans arguably had the most opportunities in state history to vote early, was lower than in the 2004 election, when there was virtually no early voting in Ohio.
Turnout in 2008, the first presidential race in which Ohioans had no-fault absentee voting and also the first time an African-American was on the ballot, was about 1 percent higher than in 2004.
“People who vote early are people who are typically going to vote anyway,” said Paul Beck, a political science professor at Ohio State University. “So, early voting hasn’t really succeeded in turning out more people to vote. We’ve made it a lot easier to vote, but on the other hand, some people are very discouraged about politics and might not care how easy it is to vote.”

This November voters in Connecticut will vote on a Constitutional Amendment to let the General Assembly to chose early voting methods, if any, for Connecticut. Conventional wisdom is that early voting will significantly increase turnout, wrong! That ignores the evidence. Proponents will tell us that there is almost no absentee voting fraud, wrong! that ignores the evidence.

We posted the evidence almost years ago: Researchers: Early Voting alone DECREASES turnout <read>

States have aggressively expanded the use of early voting, allowing people to submit their ballots before Election Day in person, by mail and in voting centers set up in shopping malls and other public places. More than 30 percent of votes cast in the 2008 presidential race arrived before Election Day itself, double the amount in 2000. In 10 states, more than half of all votes were cast early, with some coming in more than a month before the election. Election Day as we know it is quickly becoming an endangered species…

But a thorough look at the data shows that the opposite is true: early voting depresses turnout by several percentage points…Controlling for all of the other factors thought to shape voter participation, our model showed that the availability of early voting reduced turnout in the typical county by three percentage points…

Even with all of the added convenience and easier opportunities to cast ballots, turnout not only doesn’t increase with early voting, it actually falls. How can this be? The answer lies in the nature of voter registration laws, and the impact of early voting on mobilization efforts conducted by parties and other groups on Election Day.

That was just one, will conducted study. Here in Connecticut, Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill created an Election Performance Task Force. Election administration expert Doug Chapin summarized his review of available studies, covered here: Elections Performance Task Force: Technology Fair and Doug Chapin <read>

Early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and voting centers are strong trends. They can provide voter convenience. They can save money or add to costs. Data does not support significant changes in participation.
Once you start early voting, taking it away can have an impact, once people are accustomed to it. (As taking away local polling place voting may also have a similar impact)
Survey voters to determine their levels of satisfaction and confidence in the process.
Do not expect increases in participation based on changes or reforms in election administration. Satisfaction and convenience can be increased but not participation.

Thus the Ohio research tends to confirm the other studies. (We say “tends to confirm”. It is not as thorough a study as the early ones, since it covers whole statewide elections and is not a thorough comparison between matched districts in states with and without early voting – there are a lot of factors which affect turnout, so just comparing elections in a single state cannot attribute differences to any one factor.

Plus we highlight many instances of votING fraud after almost every election via absentee voting, in Connecticut and across the country <here>

Here is the bottom line:

Early Voting (unlimited absentee voting or in-person early voting) does not increase turn out. Alone it decreases turnout.
Election Day Registration increases turnout (Except perhaps in Connecticut, where we have implemented in a much less convenient way than in states where it has proven effective)
When Early Voting is combined with Election Day Registrati0n (maybe not in Connecticut) turnout is not harmed or helped by Early Voting.
In-person Early Voting would be expensive or impossible in Connecticut, given our New England style town by town election administration and jurisdictions. It might be done expensively, and in a way biased against some populations.
Fraud has been demonstrated in absentee voting. In Connecticut with excuse absentee voting, it occurs frequently.
It does increase convenience.

When you vote in November, consider: What price convenience? What cost convenience? What individual effort is Democracy worth?

The dirty secret(s) of vote counting

In college I followed our nationally ranked hockey team. With ringside seats at an ECAC semi-final game, we struck up a conversation with a referee, who frequently stood just in front of us on the ice. For a long while it was a tie, and we learned from him that refs do no like tie games, with the pressure on every call in a sudden death overtime. Elections can get rougher than hockey, there are more and tougher calls in close contests – calls that can easily expose the little know vulnerabilities of our election system and the flaws in the promise to “count every vote”.

Some of those vulnerabilities are covered in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee. All that, more and less, could happen in Connecticut.

Some of those vulnerabilities are covered in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee: Paul Mitchell: The dirty secret of vote counting <read>

If there’s one thing elections officials pray for, it’s wide margins on Election Day.

A clear and convincing election result allows final tallies to be announced. Winners receive congratulations, losers give concession speeches and everyone else returns to work.

But that’s not what’s happening this year.

In the state controller’s race, we find an incredibly close result that has changed leads repeatedly throughout the counting period. Republican Ashley Swearengin is solidly in first place, nearly guaranteed a spot in the runoff.

But the vote differential between second and fourth is a mere four-tenths of a percent, with hundreds of thousands of votes to count. This easily could go to a recount if the margins remain this narrow.
With the spotlight on and representatives of each campaign lurking over their shoulders, elections officials are engaged in the painstaking process of validating ballots mailed in during the last days of the election or dropped off at polling locations. They are reviewing tens of thousands of provisional ballots used by voters who couldn’t get regular ballots at their polling places.

California doesn’t have the infamous hanging-chad or butterfly ballot, but there are damaged ballots and signatures that don’t match. Ballots are dropped off in the wrong county or mailed in the wrong envelope. Voters show up the day after the election and try to hand in their absentee ballot. Piles of ballots are marked “too late” because the mail arrived after Election Day.

The issue of signatures not matching is becoming an increasingly important wrinkle as more voters cast ballots by mail. Elections officials are reviewing more than 400,000 signatures of the 2 million early absentee voters in the June 3 election who signed registration 25 years ago. Similarly, few new online registrants realize that the signature on their registration form is actually their DMV signature, which could also be decades old. If non-matches can’t be resolved before Election Day, those ballots are invalidated.

All that, more and less, could happen in Connecticut.

We do not routinely check signatures on absentee ballots. Would a court be receptive to a challenge based on checking and verifying signatures? Maybe not, but just the exposure of the lack of actual checking would decrease confidence in a close result.
Unlike several other states we do not require voters to sign in at polling places. That does preclude any checking and embarrassment. Yet, the absence of the signature would leave many questions of error and fraud unanswerable.
Remember that close election for Governor in 2010? Many recall that there were hundreds of ballots not counted yet a citizen recount showed that they tended to confirm the winner. How many recall that the system never recognized those votes, never addressed the question? How many know that the number of voters signed in did not match the number of ballots by large margins in several districts? In a really close election, checking those counts might expose a very soft underbelly – it has happened at least twice since, in other municipalities with little public concern.
We also must point out that most of these problems in California are all related to absentee ballots, in a state with a rising percentage of such ballots. We will have a question on the ballot this November authorizing the General Assembly to provide the same for the Nutmeg State.

“It happens all the time.” All over the place (Part 3)

Here we continue our review of are some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts, covering 2009.

Here we continue our review of are some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts. Last time we covered the 2nd half of CTVotersCount posts from 2008. Continuing from there:

In CT we count most of the votes for most of the parties and most of their candidates, at most <Jan 2009>

Another month and more incorrect results are found from the CT election four months earlier <Feb 2009>

Voter fraud in CT makes national news <Feb 2009>

The limits of paper: Machine votes for wrong candidates, not noticed by voters who are blind <Apr 2009>

Also a problem if you don’t look at or can’t find the paper <Apr 2009>

No paper no problem – or just don’t look at it <Aug 2009>

Again, move along, you can’t see the ballots <Aug 2009>

Exporting questionable elections? <Oct 2009>

Haddam: Who won in ? Without ballot security, we will always have questions of credibility <Nov 2009>

Don’t count your ballots up in Massachusetts <Nov 2009>

We will leave it here until next time, we have completed 2009.

“It happens all the time.” All over the place (Part 2)

Here we continue our review of are some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts. Last time we covered the 1st year of CTVotersCount. 2007-2008. Continuing from there:

It seems the 2nd half of 2008 was a good year for uncovering problems, not so good for credibility.

Here we continue our review of are some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts. Last time we covered the 1st year of CTVotersCount. 2007-2008. Continuing from there:

Book Review: “Witness To A Crime” The result of three years of persistent, detailed investigation of the 2004 election in Ohio. This book proves several times over that the election was stolen. <Jul 2008>

French take back seat to no one, with differences between voters signed in and ballots counted <Jul 2008>

Partisan consultant behind election firewall in Ohio. Maybe nothing wrong, but certainly does not provide credibility <July 2008>

Was something being covered up? Election Observer Arrested – Taken Away In Handcuff <Sep 2008>

Palm Beach officials and machines can’t seem to get counts to agree <Sep 2008> <Oct 2008>

We’ve covered this several times since. Crime and Punishment: Election stolen from Popular Governor – he is punished – in fact he is still in jail <Aug 2008>

How could the Social Security Adminstration contribute to reducing voting integrity <Sep 2008>

CT accused of illegally purging voters <Oct 2008>

Another Audit – Another Diebold Error <Dec 2008>

Shelton Snafu <Dec 2008>

Eurekia! Or should we say just another bug <Dec 2008>

More errors in CT results <Dec 2008> As we predicted, even more <Dec 2008>

We will stop here. It seems the 2nd half of 2008 was a good year for uncovering problems, not so good for credibility.