UPDATED: What is “statistically insignificant”?

There is no agreed upon level of difference that would be considered “statistically insignificant” in Connecticut.

In another nearby town officials are concerned about the cost of audits.

Update:  One of the Greenwich Registrars has commented on the first story below and corrected some misinformation.

by Fred DeCaro III
12:46 pm on Sunday, December 4, 2011

It is a shame that poor “reporting” and the absence of fact-checking led Mr. Weeks to comment on this story.

The “reporter” of this story simply copied from a Greenwich Time story, including mistakes in that story.

First, he places the term “statistically insignificant” in quotes. This is not a quote from me, but a quote from the Greenwich Time news story the “reporter” copied from.

Second, because the “reporter” did not verify anything, and merely copied from Greenwich Time, he copied their erroneous statement that 1,250 ballots were hand counted. There were 2,500 ballots counted by hand, and the discrepancy was .36%, which is under the threshold mentioned by Mr. Weeks, who is a well-respected CT election watchdog.

Most disturbing to me personally is when the “reporter” uses inflammatory language and says “the registrars reportedly decided that since the discrepancy was “statistically insignificant” that they wouldn’t bother to take the time to investigate the error.”

Not only is the phony quote used again, but the word choice of “wouldn’t bother to take the time” makes it seem like we didn’t care about the discrepancy.

Together as Republican and Democrat Registrars we made the decision that spending an additional $240 an hour of taxpayer money (with a minimum of 2-3 more hours necessary) to research this matter would not enhance public confidence in the process. I doubt very many Greenwich taxpayers would disagree with that decision.

Greenwich Patch: Voting Machine Audit Takes Nine Votes From Marzullo <read>

A state-mandated hand recount of votes cast in the Nov. 8 election in two of Greenwich’s polling places to determine the accuracy of the new electronic voting machines on Thursday reportedly revealed that Democratic Selectman Drew Marzullo received a “statistically insignificant” nine fewer votes than were originally tabulated by the machines…

The registrars reportedly decided that since the discrepancy was “statistically insignificant” that they wouldn’t bother to take the time to investigate the error

Revised comments: There is no agreed upon level of difference that would be considered “statistically insignificant” in Connecticut. The nine votes out of 2,500 in this case represents just 0.36% of the votes which is approaching the 0.5% threshold for a recanvass. To me anything over that threshold or anywhere near it is significant. Especially since we do not even consider differences in the audit attributable to scanners’ inability to read voters’ intent. We could benefit by established standards for accepting counts and for triggering further investigations.

In another Fairfield County town, officials are concerned about the cost of audits. The Daily Weston: Weston Officials Blast State’s Election Audit <read>

“Am I happy about this? Of course I am not happy about it. This is ridiculous, it’s an unfunded mandate,” said First Selectman Gayle Weinstein…

The purpose of the audit is to make sure voting machines are working correctly, Merrill said. “With this audit, we now must take the step of checking the machine totals from Nov. 8 to ensure the accuracy of our optical scanners. We are committed to making sure Connecticut voters have continued confidence that their votes were recorded accurately, and that’s why these independent audits are so vital.”

The actual hand counting of the three races, Weinstein said, will happen Saturday at Town Hall. But she said the audit is unfair because the town must pay poll workers to spend the day counting votes. Weinstein estimates the audit could cost taxpayers $2,500.

“We have to sit here and count each ballot by hand. I can’t believe it,” said Laura Smits, the Democratic registrar of voter. “I am hoping we get this finished in one day, but who knows. This is costing us a lot of money.”

We were in Weston to observe the audit. It was very well conducted and efficient. If we had not read the article beforehand, we would have never guessed there was any official in Weston concerned with cost. All seemed concerned with performing the audit as intended.

The audit likely cost a bit less than $2500, perhaps $1,500, which would have been about $0.60 per ballot, or about $0.06 per ballot cast in the election statewide given the 10% audit. Perhaps also around 7% of the costs of the ballots printed for the election statewide or less than 1% of the cost of running the election statewide. See <Election Costs $ – Democracy? Priceless!>

Scanners like ours: Optical scanner counts differ for same ballots

There should be an investigation, however, we suggest that determining the cause is not a complete cure. I could happen again. It could have happened in the past. Maybe in Connecticut.

Brad Friedman reported the story last week <read>

A close race on election night. Rescanned to check but the other candidate won. Then they did a hand count and confirmed the original result. UT like Connecticut is fortunate to have chosen optical scanners with voter completed paper ballots. But we need to verify the accuracy of scanners with audits, recanvasses, and recounts.

The first “recount” of Provo’s Municipal Council District 1 ballots — carried out on the same op-scan systems that tallied them in the first place — was held yesterday, only to be abruptly called off when the results were found to be “extremely in favor of the opposite candidate.”…

“The numbers were varying too much,” Utah County Chief Deputy Clerk/Auditor Scott Hogensen tells the Deseret News about the District 1 race. “It became obvious the machines weren’t counting things correctly.”

But whether the Diebold op-scanners tallied the ballots inaccurately on Election Day or during the so-called “recount” remains unknown at the moment.

According to Deseret News, “Morrow said she asked for the recount to be done by hand in the first place but the request was denied.”…

two hand-counts on Wednesday have now confirmed the accuracy of the original optical-scan count giving the election victory to Gary Winterton after all. The “recount” on the same op-scan systems seem to have been inaccurate, while the original count was accurate. We still don’t know why, of course.

It was not a small, trivial difference, we are talking over 700 votes!

No word yet on why the second scanner might have miscounted. There should be an investigation, however, we suggest that determining the cause is not a complete cure. No matter the cause:

  • It could happen again in Utah or Connecticut
  • Another time it might be the original scanner, not the second one, and/or election day officials making the error
  • It might be far enough off that there is no automatic recount or recanvass
  • It might not be the machine, it might be procedures, yet exonerating the machine does not provide comfort, whatever the cause it can happen again in Utah or Connecticut
  • Perhaps it has happened before – maybe last year in Connecticut one or more of the differences between hand counts and machine counts might not have been human errors as assumed by the Secretary of the State’s office. <read>

We leave with this further item from Brad illustrating the tendency for officials to leap to unfounded, yet assuring conclusions based on assumptions:

Amusingly, and for reasons unknown, [Utah County Chief Deputy Clerk/Auditor Scott] Hogensen told Deseret News that, according to the paper, he “does not believe machine malfunctions affect the outcome of any other races in the county.”

This has happened a couple of times before with other scanners. <one example><another>

Secrecy vs. Anonymity of ballots

From Aspen we have a discussion of the value of anonymous ballots and the meaning of the secret ballot. What voting free from coercion requires is the secret casting of ballots and the ongoing safeguarding of those ballots along with the anonymity of the voter associated with each ballot.

Recently we discussed the distinction between integrity and confidence. From Aspen we have a discussion of the value of anonymous ballots and the meaning of the secret ballot. What voting free from coercion requires is the secret casting of ballots and the ongoing safeguarding of those ballots along with the anonymity of the voter associated with each ballot <read>

Before 1947, Col­orado bal­lots were marked with unique num­bers and were not anony­mous. Vot­ers might mark their bal­lots in secrecy, but their votes were trace­able through delib­er­ate num­ber­ing. A 1947 con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment out­lawed any marks on bal­lots that make them trace­able. This rev­o­lu­tion­ary change facil­i­tated effec­tive pri­vacy of Col­oradans’ vot­ing process and is the foun­da­tion of our civil right to expect our votes to remain secret. This vot­ing method — some­times referred to as the “secret bal­lot” — iron­i­cally does not allow for secrets on ballots.

How­ever, oppo­nents of elec­tion trans­parency talk end­lessly about “secret bal­lots.” Hate to tell you, there’s no such thing. “Secret bal­lots” have no place, indeed no mean­ing, in our elec­tion law. Vot­ers are enti­tled to pri­vacy while vot­ing and a sys­tem designed to pre­vent trac­ing a bal­lot to a voter. These safe­guards ensure NO ONE learns how any­one else voted. They ensure what every­one wants: Nobody knows how I voted.

We agree with the writers. When lawmakers use the word secret ballot we believe the actual intent is that the identity of the voter should always remain secret, which is equivalent to anonymous ballot, not that ballots remain secret. In fact, in order to perform publicly observable audits, recounts, racanvasses, or to make ballots public requires that they not be secret. In fact, if non-transparent audits, recounts, or recanvasses or any official review of ballots is allowed then ballots would not be secret – they would be available for officials to inspect but kept from the voters.

In the Connecticut Constitution we have, in Article 6 Section 5:

The right of secret voting shall be preserved.

Obviously consistent with anonymous ballots, rather than preserving ballots in secret.

Update: 04/17/2012: On to the Colorado Supreme Court <read>

If banks loose billions online, why would we leave democracy to online voting?

Even if ecommerce transactions were safe, the security technology underpinning them would not suffice for voting. In particular, the voting security and privacy requirements are unique and in tension in a way that has no analog in the ecommerce world.

If banks loose billions online, why would we leave democracy to online voting?<.pdf>

This is a very fair question, and it deserves a careful, thorough answer because the reasons are not obvious. Unfortunately it requires substantial development to explain fully. But in brief, our answer is in two-parts:

  1. It is not actually “safe” to conduct ecommerce transactions online. It is in fact very risky, and more so every day. Essentially all those risks apply equally to online voting transactions.
  2. The technical security, privacy, and transparency requirements for voting are structurally different from, and actually much more stringent than, those for ecommerce transactions. Even if ecommerce transactions were safe, the security technology underpinning them would not suffice for voting. In particular, the voting security and privacy requirements are unique and in tension in a way that has no analog in the ecommerce world.

The rest of this essay expands upon these two points in order.

73 Districts in 44 Municipalites selected for November Post-Election Audit

UPDATED: Today we assisted the Secretary of the State in randomly selecting 10% of the districts in the November election for the post-election audit.

Today we assisted the Secretary of the State in randomly selecting 10% of the districts in the November election for the post-election audit. The districts are listed in the Secretary’s Press Release <read> <CT-N Video>

Read the press release closely, and you will find only 72 districts selected along with 15 alternates. To make up for the miscounting, the 1st alternate will be included.

Update:  We originally posted that 54 municipalities were selected. The correct number is 44 municipalities. We regret the error.

Why Tuesday? Why Saturday? Why Sunday?

UPDATED: Representative Larson to introduce “Weekend Voting Act”. We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.

UPDATED: Our Representative, John Larson will be introducing a bill, “Weekend Voting Act” to move elections to the weekend. <read>

HARTFORD — With low voter participation across the nation at the polls this week, Congressman John B. Larson (CT-01), announced today that he supports an initiative to move elections from Tuesdays to the weekend to make it easier for all citizens to do their civic duty.

“As a representative democracy, voting is a fundamental responsibility for all Americans and the system should be as accessible as possible for as many as possible,” said Larson. “Unfortunately, the system we have now was designed to meet our country’s needs over 160 years ago and it no longer makes any sense. It’s time we stop making people choose between exercising their responsibility to vote, and meeting their everyday obligations.”

The current system, with national and local elections held on Tuesdays, was originally established in 1845 to accommodate the schedule of a largely agrarian society. Today, as an urban society, with many competing demands on everyone’s time, taking the time to go vote during a busy workday is a large impediment for many Americans. In fact, voter turnout has decreased in almost every presidential election since 1965.

The solution is simple, Larson says, “moving our elections to the weekend would make it much easier for everyone to get out and vote.” That is the goal of the ‘Why Tuesday’ Initiative, a non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2005 to find solutions to increase voter participation.

‘Why Tuesday’ supports the Weekend Voting Act which will be introduced this Congress to move Congressional and presidential elections to weekends. “Bill Wachtel and the folks at Why Tuesday are right,” Larson noted. “Even one American voter disenfranchised because of an outdated scheduling policy is too many. I will be working to make this change in how we vote so that more Americans can participate without having to choose between work, or their families, and their desire to vote.”

Reading the details we find some voting integrity implications and we are skeptical of the benefits:

  • We question if weekend voting would actually increase turnout, decrease it, or be a wash. In Connecticut we have about half the turn-out in municipal elections as in Federal elections – clearly some of the voters are less motivated for municipal elections. Would elections on weekends motivate those same and other voters to interrupt their weekend activities or mini-vacations to vote? We see arguments for weekend voting but no rigorous argument at WhyTuesday. The overall effect seems difficult to predict.
  • Which days would we vote? Saturday and/or Sunday? I am a big supporter of separation of State and Church, but staffing elections might be challenging because many voters and potential election officials hold Saturday or Sunday as days reserved for their religion. Most might be willing to vote, but many might pass on working the polls or participating in get out the vote efforts – some might reasonably be expected to be offended by such efforts culminating on their day of worship.
  • On the other hand it might be possible to attract other individuals without strong religious or other weekend commitments to be poll workers. Once again, perhaps a wash as some people prefer taking a vacation day to work the polls rather than sacrificing “their time” on a weekend. Retired folks might prefer during the week and keep the weekend for visiting children and grandchildren. Once again, it might be difficult to predict.
  • With weekend voting we might find more volunteers on election day around town and around the polls holding signs encouraging everyone to vote. Especially if the election were Saturday, much of the flyering activities now largely accomplished on the weekend before the election would have to be accomplished during on the weekdays prior.
  • Would it have an effect on the demographics of who votes?  Once again, hard to tell. On the surface it would seem to favor those whose work makes it impossible to vote during polling hours – those that are not out of town all day (those out of town all day are eligible to vote by absentee ballot), or so busy working and driving children around that voting before or after work is just too much of a hassle. It should have little effect on the unemployed, or the many who work on weekends.

Looking at Representative Steve Israel’s site we find more details, not readily apparent at WhyTuesday:

The system needs to be upgraded to accommodate the needs of all American citizens. That’s why Rep. Israel introduced The Weekend Voting Act, H.R. 254 in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), which would move Election Day to the weekend. Rep. Israel is planning to reintroduce the legislation during the 112th (2011-2012) Congress. His bill would require polling places in the continental United States to be open on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. EST and close on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EST during a presidential election.

Update:  Representative Israel’s description is inexact.  Here is the summary of the previous bill, our comments are updated accordingly:

Amends the Revised Statutes with respect to the time of election to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every even numbered year, as the days for the election, in each state and territory, of Delegates to, or Members of, Congress. Amends federal law with respect to presidential elections and vacancies to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every fourth year, as the days for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States. Amends such federal laws to establish the same polling place hours in the United States for both congressional and presidential elections, namely from 10:00 a.m. EST on Saturday till 6:00 p.m. EST on Sunday, with polls allowed to close between the hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the state in which the polling place is located.

  • Looks like it would only apply to Federal elections, the ones that currently have the highest turnout.
  • One thing for sure, variation between Presidential, other Federal, Primaries and all other elections would increase voter and official confusion, with may changes required in other deadlines along the way.
  • We also note that while 10:00am to 6:00pm might be fine for many voters and would be hailed by election officials, those hours would make it much more difficult for retail employees required to work on Saturday and inconvenience those voters who would like to vote early and late avoid interrupting their normal Saturday or Sunday activities.
  • With Sunday undefined for hours, would States take into account religious services in setting polling hours? If they did, would that provide opportunities for constitutional challenges?
  • We do find that there are Integrity challenges, at least in Connecticut.  Currently we have only one day of voting, thus securing the ballots, machines, and the polling place would be a new challenge to integrity.
  • At least in Connecticut, it would likely almost double the election day costs for election personnel, building rental, campaigns, and volunteers.
  • Weekends would also present challenges and complains where elections are held in facilities that are currently used during the weekends for other activities.
  • One positive aspect would be an end to long pollworker days. Starting later and ending at earlier  would provide for more rested officials opening and closing the polls.

We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.

Beware: Americans Elect – We were just too optimistic

We were just too optimistic, yet prophetic when we suggested the founders might not be happy with anything but their type of candidate.

In July we posted about Americans Elect a new third party aimed directly at the center of politics as defined by Tom Friedman: Friedman predicts 2012 Presidential candidate via Estonia-like Internet voting system <read> Sadly we were just plain too optimistic when we said things such as:

This is  reminiscent of the article on Estonian voting we covered yesterday. No mention of any transparency in the development, testing, and operation of the actual system. Rather than quoting independent technical experts, we see the system pronounced safe by the architect. Did Ronald Reagan say “Trust Me”?  Of course not. Actually it sounds like something Bernard Madoff might have said. President Reagan actually said “Trust But Verify”…

Or maybe the process is not “hijacked” but the people create a party platform close to some of the results we have seen in some recent polls? A platform of banning guns, protecting Social Security, universal health care, and decriminalization of pot? (Remember when Obama asked his supporters to vote on initiatives after the election? Not much publicity after they voted pot decriminalization as the top priority). What is scary is the potential for insiders to actually hijack the process by disqualifying or discrediting such votes. Or outsiders successfully attacking the system undetected.

No mention here of the possibility of candidates being chosen such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or, Pat Roberson forbid, Michael Moore, Keith Olberman, or Ralph Nadar.

It does not sound transparent financially or electorally. Yet, I can see why almost everyone would want to sign-up to promote their favorite type of candidates and party platform.

We were just too optimistic, yet prophetic when we suggested the founders might not be happy with anything but their type of candidate. So now we have an article from Politico confirming our worst fears and them some. Democracy deficit at Americans Elect? <read>

Rather than gush about this group, I fear many aspects of it: its secrecy; the uncertain security for its Internet election and, most important, the lack of democracy in its system for electing a presidential nominee.

While it is providing voters a path to choose a presidential ticket through the democratizing force of the Internet, the process can, in fact, be overruled by a small board of directors, who organized the group. This board is to have unfettered discretion in picking a committee that can boot the presidential ticket chosen by voters if it is not sufficiently ?centrist and even dump the committee if it doesn’t like the direction it’s heading...

Campaign finance reformers have already condemned Americans Elect for switching its organizational status under the Tax Code from political organization to 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. This change allows an organization to shield its donors…

Kahlil Byrd, the president of Americans Elect, told NPR that the group does not disclose donors because they fear retribution…Who is going to throw a Molotov cocktail through the window of a radical centrist?

Perhaps one reason Americans Elect is hiding the names of its donors is that people might draw conclusions about the group’s interests based on the contributors — especially given the rumor that most of its money comes from the hedge fund industry...

Despite the veneer of democracy created by having ?delegates? choose a presidential candidate through a series of Internet votes, the unelected, unaccountable board of Americans Elect, funded by secret money, will control the process for choosing a presidential and vice presidential candidate — who could well appear on the ballot in all 50 states.

Update: 05/01/2012 Yet another silent majority of almost none starts biting the dust. We are not surprised.

Americans Elect Cancels its First Primary Ballot — not enough Actual People want their Candidates <read>

Well, most Americans don’t agree. As the Pew Research Center documented in a poll last December, most Americans don’t buy centrist talk. Most Americans — three out of four of them — believe there is “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations”. Most Americans believe the “country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.” Most Americans “believe Wall Street hurts the economy more than it helps.” These are not centrist positions. They’re not Americans Elect’s positions. The few financiers of Americans Elect whose names have been leaked out are Wall Street money managers and hedge fund operators. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel last week declared of her organization: “No one at AE can dispute that Mr. Peterson’s message is the right one.” “Mr. Peterson” is billionaire Pete Peterson, who wants to cut social security, cut medicare, cut medicaid and make this country safer for big business.

Senator not impressed by Science and Online Voting Symposium

[Senator] Kane was unable to attend the Oct. 27 panel discussion, but dismissed the warnings from computer scientists. We hope he at least took the time to review the videos of the symposium online.

On October 27th, the Secretary of the State held a Symposium on Online Voting with experts from around the country and the world. Not in attendance was the Senator who sponsored this year’s Online Voting bill, Senator Kane.  The Senator continues to dispute the arguments of the computer scientists. Today’s report from the Waterbury Republican-American: Online voting on minds of lawmakers – Secretary of the state scraps idea; cites security concerns<read>

We hope he at least took the time to review the videos of the symposium online.

Lawmakers came close to requiring that state election officials implement online voting this year, with an eye toward allowing military personnel overseas easier access to the ballot box.

A Watertown lawmaker plans to make a fresh attempt in the next regular session.

Computer scientists who took part in an Oct. 27 panel discussion organized by Secretary of the State Denise Merrill said, unanimously, such a system cannot possibly be secured…

Sen. Robert J. Kane, R-Watertown, said in a telephone interview Friday he remains a proponent to online voting, and plans to introduce new legislation that would require the state to open an electronic ballot box accessible over the Internet.

Kane was unable to attend the Oct. 27 panel discussion, but dismissed the warnings from computer scientists.

“We, as you know, transfer millions of dollars every day via the Internet, via the computer,” Kane said, referring to the use of online systems by banks and financial markets. “Just think about all the commerce that gets done. If we can do that, why can’t we allow our military personnel who are fighting for our country, serving oversees, the ability to vote online for the elections they are defending when they defend our country?”

Shvartsman said banks generally accept a 2 percent loss to online fraud, and there are other key differences between banking and voting systems.

Rivest said the most important difference is the fraud can be identified in a banking system, because there are statements and other records that can be used to verify transactions after the fact, and identify errors or malicious intrusions. That is not possible in a voting system designed to protect the secrecy of each individual’s vote.

As I said in the first comment on the article:

Sad that in the name of serving soldiers we risk the very democracy they serve to preserve.

Also overlooked in [Senator] Kane’s approach are many non-military overseas voters including: State Department staff, Volunteers serving in places such as Haiti or Darfur, Peace Corps volunteers, business people, oil rig employees, missionaries, and military contractors.

There is a much better, more cost effective solution with much lower risk. Provide military and overseas voters with ballots and absentee applications online that can be printed and mailed in a single envelope. The military even provides free express mail, and a special $25 rate is available in most countries for all overseas voters. This system has proven to be effective.

Hopefully, the legislators who attended the Symposium or view it online will understand science or trust the scientists.

Tuesday election is on. Your polling place may move.

The Secretary of the State and election officials have worked out some good ideas and strong cooperation to support the municipal elections on Tuesday.

The Secretary of the State and election officials have worked out some good ideas and strong cooperation to support the municipal elections on  Tuesday.  <press release>