CTVotersCount.org

Some (more) concerns with the National Popular Vote

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

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

Why National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea <read>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is incorrect because:

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

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

The Courant hits some good points, yet ironically misses the mark on election accountability

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported <read>

Voting. Voters report to one of hundreds of precincts on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, unless they have a specific reason to apply for an absentee ballot. The system worked well when more women were at home and more people walked to the polls.

Should it be tweaked to fit the needs of the 21st century? Secretary of the State Denise Merrill thinks so, and she is right. With the technology available today, there’s no reason that online registration should not become the norm — and, as soon as it can be adequately secured, online voting. A voter should be able to get an absentee ballot for any reason.

We agree that online line registration is a good thing that can save money, increase convenience, and increase integrity.

But when it comes to unlimited absentee balloting and online voting we disagree.

After every election we hear stories from around the country of absentee ballot fraud. Here in Connecticut we have had several charges, prosecutions, and penalties in our largest cities involving absentee voting fraud.

We recently had a symposium hosted by the Secretary of the State with national experts pointing out the risks of online voting, even if it were restricted to military and overseas voters. Fortunately the Courant called for waiting until “as soon as it can be adequately secured” – that will likely be a long time away given that it would require the repeal of a major theorem of computer science.

It may be possible for towns to save money by using regional voting centers. Instead of voting on Tuesdays, how about weekend voting? Voting by mail may make sense. The idea is to have a robust debate over what will work best in Connecticut.

Perhaps we should have that robust debate – a robust debate with everyone at the table – more than a couple of op-eds at the Courant. If security is a concern and the debate includes election integrity advocates and security experts -with complete, fair coverage in the new media, old media, and extensive legislative hearings we expect we would find it too risky for democracy.

Voting on weekends instead of Tuesday would, in our opinion, need to start with a U.S. Constitutional amendment. There is a reason for an set national day for Federal elections – so that all states vote on the same day, such that voting does not continue after partial results are known. There other issues to consider with weekend voting <see>.

Regional voting centers would be convenient. The convenience would come at a considerable price – perhaps towns would save money if the State paid for it. In our opinion, it would require a Connecticut Constitutional Amendment to allow the State to take over some of the town by town responsibility for voting. Watch for debates along the lines of redistricting debates about the number and locations of the regional voting centers.

Registrars. If voting is dragged into the 21st century, it then behooves us to ask if each and every town needs to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on two registrars of voters. Would one nonpartisan registrar do the trick for a town — or even a regional registrar?

At the very least, the legislature must eliminate a quirk in the law that has caused Hartford to have three registrars. The law says the candidates for registrar of voters who garner the highest and second-highest number of votes win the posts. But if a major-party candidate — Democrat or Republican —- is not among the top two finishers, that candidate must also be named a registrar.

In 2008, a Working Families Party candidate outpolled the Republican registrar, meaning that both of them, along with the Democrat, are all registrars. The cost of the extra registrar approaches a quarter-million dollars, money the city can ill afford to waste. Change the law.

We agree with evaluating regional registrars – we support professional civil service election management – “doing for elections what we have done for probate”. It would also require a Constitutional Amendment and effective, deliberate planning.

But as we have pointed out before there are good reasons when registrars are political having the check and balance of two individuals of opposing parties. We also see the original logic in having three registrars in situations like Hartford. And as we have pointed out before there is no reason why Hartford had to increase total salaries and staffing just because a third registrar was elected.

Courant declares Government Accountabiliy priorty for 2012 – we applaud

Like state employees, most election officials aim for integrity. All must be accountable for fully following laws and procedures. Elections should be independently audited to provide the value, integrity, and confidence the public deserves and democracy requires.

Courant Editorial First, Make Government Accountable <read>

A democratically elected government must be accountable to the people it serves. It must be organized to provide necessary services efficiently and economically. It must avoid waste and duplication.

In 2012, The Courant’s editorial board will make accountability in government a top priority, along with fair play in Connecticut politics and job creation in the state.

We agree with all three goals: Accountability in Government; Fair Play in Politics; and Job Creation. CTVotersCount is especially associated with accountability in the elections arena of government and election integrity which are basic components and prerequisites for fair play in politics.

It extends well beyond the state, state employee accountability, and reasonable pensions.

Americans Elect – A license to steal the presidency?

This is seriously dangerous. If you don’t join Americans Elect, their vote could determine the President. If you do join Americans Elect, the vote could be manipulated in the backroom or by hackers. Or the self-appointed board could override the actual vote.

We have written before of Americans Elect it seems the real story gets more and more suspect, more and more dangerous. A new story/investigation in Irregular Times: Americans Elect: A Corporation and a Political Party <read>

In July of 2011, Americans Elect Chief Operating Officer Elliot Ackerman declared, “The key delineation to make is that we’re not a party.” These unequivocal claims are contradicted by Americans Elect’s observable behavior; Americans Elect has registered as a political party in a number of states…

Why does it matter whether Americans Elect is or is not a political party? As a registered 501c4 corporation, Americans Elect can hide the sources of unlimited funding from the American people. If it declared itself to be a political party, it would have to follow the rules for political parties, which include significant limitations to how much money they may take from individuals and mandate disclosure of them. Americans Elect is simultaneously using party status to get on the ballot for 2012 and sloughing off party status to avoid contribution requirements…

There are three elections envisioned by the Americans Elect bylaws, two of them taking place online. The first election is to select an Americans Elect presidential nominee, and only registered Americans Elect Delegates (see below) will be able to participate. The second election is the presidential election on Election Day 2012, one in which the Americans Elect nominee will be on the ballot in all 50 states and in which every registered voter in America will be able to participate as usual. The third election will take place after the November presidential election if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes. In that circumstance, Americans Elect will hold another online vote of its Delegates to decide whether the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate will be given the electoral votes won by Americans Elect’s candidate. This third election would allow Americans Elect to throw the presidency to either party, a powerful position to hold. Americans Elect needs to win just one state in order to occupy that powerful position and trigger a third election…

In the top tier of Americans Elect is the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors and only the Board of Directors appoints its own members and corporate officers. The Board of Directors and its appointed designates write the rules for the Americans Elect elections and may overrule all actions of Employees. The Board of Directors may overrule nearly all actions of Delegates and writes the rules within which Delegates “independently” make a presidential nomination, constraining Delegates’ choices. The Board of Directors is the only body in the entire Americans Elect system to make procedural decisions by democratic majority vote, making it the swiftest means for Americans Elect to take political action…

Another reason why Americans Elect needs to disclose information about its origins, funding and activities is its unfortunate history. It’s not just that Americans Elect is currently making claims that don’t match the observable facts; there’s a history of misrepresentation, misdirection and malfunction in Americans Elect’s previous effort under the name Unity08

These are just some snippets. The full details in the article demonstrate the dangers.

Rich Sivel 1952 – 2011

Director of TrueVoteCT – Unstoppable Activist – Friend

Richard Franklin Sivel Jr. <obit>

Rich was instrumental in the Voter Verified Paper Record law and selection of Op Scan in Connecticut, , a post-election audit observer for the Coalition. The Obituary is really wonderful without being overblown. I had lunch with him earlier this year: Everything great! 1st grandchild; mother still in PA.

Director of TrueVoteCT – Unstoppable Activist – Friend

San Francisco voters have trouble with ranked-choice elections.

We have often articulated our concerns with Instant Run-Off Voting also often called Ranked-Choice Voting. This article from the New York Times provides some further confirmation of our concerns

From the New York Times: Analysis Finds Incorrect Use of Ranked-Choice Voting <read>

We have often articulated our concerns with Instant Run-Off Voting also often called Ranked-Choice Voting. We have three concerns:

It requires more knowledge and expertise by voters, it can be confusing, and result in very large ballots
It can be difficult to calculate winners, recount, and audit, especially as more districts and jurisdictions are included in the same race
In theory and frequently in practice it does not provide the benefits claimed – like conventional voting, with more than two candidates, the winner is a crap-shoot.

This article provides some further confirmation of our concerns:

Despite a $300,000 educational campaign leading up to last month’s elections, including a new smiley-face mascot, publicity events, and advertising on buses and in newspapers, only one-third of voters on Nov. 8 filled out all three choices in all three races, according to an analysis released this week by the University of San Francisco.

Under the city’s system, voters were asked to rank their top three choices for mayor, sheriff and district attorney.

Perhaps the analysis’ most troubling finding is that 9 percent of voters, mostly in Chinatown and southeastern neighborhoods like the Bayview, marked only one choice for each office, either because they considered only one candidate suitable or because they did not know how to fill out their ballot correctly.

Many advocate or assume voters can rank all the candidates and claim that their will be more candidates in the race. Presumably the more to rank or choose from the more challenging for voters and those working to educate and encourage voters. And it does not seem to reduce the opportunities for candidates and voters to look to the system and manipulation to explain the result:

Mr. Latterman, an associate director of the Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good at U.S.F., said voters in neighborhoods with large black or Asian populations tended to vote for different candidates than residents in other parts of the city. But the Nov. 8 election was the first time researchers saw a geographic or perhaps ethnic difference in how people used ranked-choice voting.

The findings indicate one of two things, Mr. Latterman said: Either campaigns tried to manipulate the results by focusing on specific groups of people or there is not a clear understanding of how to use the system.

A recent Bay Citizen analysis revealed that 16 percent of ballots in the mayoral race — those of more than 31,500 people — were filled out correctly but were discarded when all of their chosen candidates were eliminated from the race. San Francisco does not allow voters to rank all the candidates on the ballot.

Our past posts on IRV <Index>

Concern with electronic skulduggery is Right, Left, and Center

Hackers threaten Presidential Primary. The particular threat may or may not be real. Yet, being concerned with electronic skulduggery is Right, Left, and Center

AP, via Yahoo: Iowa GOP worried by hacker threat to caucus vote <read>

As the article points out the particular threat may or may not be real, but as those quoted in the article point out, cyber threats to voting are real:

With two weeks remaining before Iowa kicks off the 2012 campaign with its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, the state Republican Party is taking steps to secure its electronic vote collection system after receiving a mysterious threat to its computers…

state authorities have not taken any actions since the call to “peacefully shut down” the caucuses does not amount to a crime, said Jim Saunders, director of the Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center at the state’s Department of Public Safety…

The GOP is also encouraging the party activists who run the precinct votes to use paper ballots instead of a show of hands, which has been the practice in some areas. The ballots would provide a backup in the event of any later confusion about the results…

Drew Ivers, chairman of Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign in Iowa and a member of the state GOP central committee, said party officials and consultants will also monitor for any hacking threat using software and other methods, but added, “How do you stop a hacker? That’s the question.”…

Among the early voting states, the hacking concerns have most spooked officials in Iowa. In New Hampshire, whose primary is one week after the Iowa caucuses, officials rely on a mostly manual process that uses paper and is less vulnerable to an attack on computer systems, said Assistant Secretary of State Anthony Stevens. In South Carolina, which follows 11 days later, State Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire said he was not aware of any concerns.

But Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa who has consulted for both political parties, said the Iowa Republican Party is right to be concerned about the security of their computer systems. The Internet, he said, is “becoming more and more like the Wild West.”

Voting machine investigation leads to serious issues and cover-up

This is serious stuff. The words that come to mind are: Illegal, unacceptable, unconscionable, ridiculous, unconstitutional, and undemocratic.

Brad Friedman articulated the details last week <read>

Forensic Analysis Finds Venango County, PA, E-Voting System ‘Remotely Accessed’ on ‘Multiple Occasions’ by Unknown Computer

Battle for independent election investigation rages in rural Republican county, pitting renegade Election Board against County Commission, giant E-Vote firm ES&S…

What is wrong in this situation?

Illegal software found on vote accumulation machine
On several occasions the system was accessed remotely, unauthorized
Evidence of an illegal flash drive mounted on the system
The log shows out of sequence events
The Election Board that should be leading the charge to get to the bottom of the problem is fighting to cover-up the evidence and avoid investigation
The vendor, ES&S who should be offering to assist in the investigation is keeping the code secret and suing the investigators to stop, to keep the evidence hidden
There is no paper record of the votes such that investigators and citizens can determine if votes or elections were comprised

This is serious stuff. The words that come to mind are: Illegal, unacceptable, unconscionable, ridiculous, unconstitutional, and undemocratic.

Hats off to the citizens of Pennsylvania who fight for voting integrity, the researchers at Carnegie-Mellon, and the interim Election Board.

According to the Initial Report from a landmark independent forensic audit of the Venango County, PA, touch-screen voting system — the same system used in dozens of counties across the state and country — someone used a computer that was not a part of county’s election network to remotely access the central election tabulator computer, illegally, “on multiple occasions.” Despite the disturbing report, as obtained by The BRAD BLOG and posted in full below, we may never get to learn who did it or why, if Venango’s County Commissioners, a local judge, and the nation’s largest e-voting company have their way. And that’s not all we won’t get to find out about.

The battle for election integrity continues in Venango, with the County Commissioners teaming up with e-voting vendor Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) on one side, and the county’s renegade interim Republican-majority Board of Elections on the other. The Commissioners and ES&S have been working to spike the independent scientific forensic audit of the county’s failed electronic voting machines that was commissioned by the interim Board of Elections. Making matters worse, the Board has now been removed from power by a county judge, a decision they are attempting to appeal as the three-person board and their supporters continue to fight the entrenched establishment for transparency and accountability in the rural Western Pennsylvania county…

Omaha-based ES&S, which had issued no objections prior to the start of the study, but changed its mind quickly after it began (as we detailed in an Exclusive report in late October) has now hardened their position, sending threatening legal letters to both the county and the two computer scientists. The e-voting firm has warned them they are likely to face a lawsuit if they do not agree to complete confidentiality and if results of their analysis are released publicly without their prior review and approval…

There were real, not just theoretical, concerns motivating the investigation in the first place:

As the analysis finally began, Election Integrity advocate Marybeth Kuznik, founder of the non-partisan watchdog organization VotePA.us explained that the Board was calling for the investigation after the county had experienced “numerous reports of vote-flipping, candidates missing from screens, write-ins missing, and high undervote rates in their May 17 Primary.”

While reporting on the Venango Board’s efforts to get their analysis under way during one of our regular fill-in stints as guest host for the nationally syndicated Mike Malloy Show in late October, we received an unexpected call from Adams to offer more details on why his Board had sought the forensic audit.

“It started with an election in 2008 when the machines were basically showing a large number of undervotes,” he explained. “And then there were candidates for positions in the county and they had zero votes, but there was like 250 or 260 undervotes.”

“Wait a minute, there were people who had zero votes on the ballot? Is that normal?” we interrupted to ask.

“No. No, it is not normal,” he responded directly, describing the anomaly as “a red flag.” When pressed to explain why he believed the the County Commissioners and their legal representatives had been working so hard for months to keep the audit from happening, Adams told us bluntly: “They know there’s something wrong.”

This provides one more reason to scrap unverifiable election systems without a voter verifiable paper record in favor of more economical, auditable optical scan technology. But that is not enough!

Every state, every ballot should be subject to sufficient post-election audits. But that is not enough!
Strong security and chains of custody is needed for ballots.
And a total audit of voting systems and election systems should be required: e.g. Do pollbook counts match ballot counts? Are voters given a fair opportunity to vote? Are absentee ballots properly secured and submitted? Is there any evidence of machine tampering or irregularities?

Do instructions on the ballot exaggerate the ZigZag effect?

Take a look at the back page of a Connecticut Sample Ballot <look at the 2nd page here>

It is likely that the example shows two columns and rows is designed to be as simple as possible and by showing two candidates selected in different parties is intended to be fair (at least to the two dominant parties). But it would suggest, at least subconsciously, to some voters that voting in a ZigZag is particularly appropriate.

Note also that the vote for one example looks very similar on the instructions with two rows and columns, also showing a ZigZag pattern.

The ZigZag Conjecture – Another reason to scrap our lever-like ballots

With anecdotal evidence and rational speculation, we introduce the ZigZag Conjecture which may randomly “help” determine election winners and losers in Connecticut.

With anecdotal evidence and rational speculation, we introduce the ZigZag Conjecture which may randomly “help” determine election winners and losers in Connecticut. We doubt we are the first to suggest such an effect. Perhaps someone has or will use statistics to study it.

Our Lever-Like Ballots

Like several states, Connecticut does uses a ballot design that could be best described as a the “face of a lever machine on paper”, with boxes for each candidate’s name and bubble. It takes up a lot of space, when there are a lot of parties and unaffiliated candidates. It can include a lot of blank space when some parties only offer a few candidates. For examples see the ballots from November 2011 <view> It can include a lot of blank space when some parties only offer a few candidates or there are unaffiliated candidates, for example <here> and <here (be sure and scroll down)>

Party order is specified by the State (the current Governor’s party 1st). Candidate order in vote for multiple races is selected randomly by lottery.

It used to be that you had to use a party lever to vote in Connecticut. Vivian Kellems took care of that, eventually the party levers were removed, and now you cannot vote for a party without filling all the bubbles.

Other states use a clearer ballot that wastes less space, such as this sample from Minnesota <view> It takes away the party emphasis, presumably it would take a voter a bit longer, a bit more care, and preparation to register a party line vote.

The ZigZag Conjecture

Conjecture: Many voters vote in ZigZags: voting from left to right across the ballot they want to vote for a mix of candidates, unaffiliated and from various parties. In vote for multiple races many tend to vote for one candidate in each column, even thought they could vote for more than one in the same column.This can hurt candidates in certain locations on the ballot.

Anecdotal Evidence:

This possibility first came to our attention when one particular candidate was unexpectedly the lowest vote getter in a vote for multiple race. It was quickly suspected that the cause was her location on the ballot directly below the highest vote getter in the race.
Observing a post-election audit in another town, officials were wondering why a traditional high vote getter did not lead his party in the election. Inspecting the ballot and the results he was located above the highest vote getter in the other party.
A similar anecdotal cases were seen in that election and others

Certainly these anecdotes are not conclusive. Perhaps a statistical study could be performed evaluating a large number of local elections to determine the extent to which results support this conjecture. Since ballot position is completely random within a party, if the conjecture were false then we would expect in each municipality on average each party candidate would receive and average number of votes for their party without regard to candidates in the same column – if a statistically significant correlation were shown based on candidates in the same column between the higher vote getters in each party vs. the lower vote getters in the other dominant party, then the ZigZag conjecture would be supported.

Other possible problems and implications.

Additional research might include:

Does the ZigZag Hypothesis apply between races as well as in a single race?
Does the ZigZag Hypothesis increase or drop-off from left to right in a race or across the ballot?
Does the first column in a race or ballot effect the direction of the entire ZigZag – or is there correlation between columns?
Is it advantageous to be to the right and above or below a high vote getter?
Are less informed, less interested voters, especially in local races, more likely to ZigZag in a well intended attempt at fairness and balance?
Would successful efforts toward higher turn-out through convenience actually increase the ZigZag effect, bringing more less informed voters to the polls?

Our own speculation would be yes to all of these questions, adding more weight to the need to scrap our lever-like ballot design.