Statisticians, Political Scientists, Election Officials, and Advocates Recommendations to NIST

“We strongly recommend that the next version of the VVSG support auditing election outcomes by facilitating small-batch reporting in standardized electronic reporting formats, and usable voter-verifiable cast vote records.”

Last weekend I participated in a working meeting in Alexandria, VA to design pragmatic post-election audits.   One result was a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) making suggestions for the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines which they are in the process of updating.   I am one of two participants and endorsers from Connecticut <Letter>

Overview

Two key goals of vote tabulation audits are

-To verify that the election outcomes implied by the reported vote totals are correct, and
-To provide data for process improvement: specifically, to identify and quantify various causes of discrepancies between voter intentions and the originally reported vote totals.

Difficulty in obtaining subtotals of the machine tallies to compare with manually-derived totals from small batches of ballots is a major problem. Efficient vote tabulation audits require – in addition to software-independent audit trails – timely, comprehensive, detailed, standardized, machine-readable subtotals of the votes as recorded by the vote tabulation systems. For greatest efficiency, individual ballot interpretations should be available to support emerging methods that audit at the ballot level (that is, batches of size 1) without breaching confidentiality.

Future VVSGs should contain audit-related requirements for all voting systems, designed in consultation with experts in election auditing, to ensure that the next generation of voting systems facilitate election audits.

Key areas for standards include:

-Usability of the paper record
-Comprehensive reporting of all important data elements
-Small-batch or individual ballot reporting capability
-Machine-readable, standard election result reporting formats, with support for standardized identification of contests and candidates, –that facilitate aggregation for electoral contests spanning multiple jurisdictions
-Machine-readable, standard audit result reporting formats, including audit units selected and discrepancies found

…

Voting systems should make it easy to create detailed reports with subtotals by contest, by ballot batch, by precinct, or by scanner or tabulation machine.

One common, standardized data format is needed for reporting audit results, as well as initial election results. Implementation details are outside the scope of this letter; election auditing experts should participate in specifying these requirements.

In summary, we strongly recommend that the next version of the VVSG support auditing election outcomes by facilitating small-batch reporting in standardized electronic reporting formats, and usable voter-verifiable cast vote records.

One a personal note, it was great to meet in person several political scientists, officials and advocates whom I’ve know only from frequent email and conference call presentations; see again, those I have met previously; and meet several additional scientists, advocates, and officials dedicated to election integrity.

Another Candidate for Secretary of the State?

Opponent charges that Mary Glassman might run for Secretary of the State and resign in a year if she is reelected First Selectman, this fall.

Courant: Rough Tactics In Simsbury First Selectman Race <read>

Opponent charges that Mary Glassman might run for Secretary of the State and resign in a year  if she is reelected First Selectman, this fall:

Darren Cunningham, the Republican challenger of incumbent First Selectman Mary Glassman, issued a news release Friday calling on Glassman to pledge that, if re-elected on Tuesday, she will serve out her two-year term and not run for higher statewide office.

Cunningham is calling for Glassman to make such a pledge because of an article Thursday in the online newspaper New Haven Independent. In that article, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano said that he is not endorsing a local candidate for Connecticut secretary of the state because he is waiting to hear whether Glassman will be a candidate for that office.

In 2006, while much attention was paid to the Ned Lamont/Joe Lieberman Primary and U.S. Senate election, there was also a hard fought Democratic Primary for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.  John DeStefano prevailed over Dan Malloy for Governor, yet Malloy’s choice for Lieutenant Governor, Mary Glassman, prevailed and became DeStafano’s runningmate in the general election.  Although they lost, Mary Glassman gained recognition statewide.

Glassman responded during an interview Friday by saying that she was “disappointed” with Cunningham’s news release.

“I’ve worked hard for Simsbury these past two years, and I am looking forward to serving the town over the next two years,” Glassman said. “I have no plans to run for secretary of the state.”

Timely Reminders from Secretary Bysiewicz and CTVotersCount

Referendums and questions are exempt from the Connecticut post-election audit law. However, they are not exempt from the risks of error and fraud.

In a press release, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz reminds voters of the importance of questions on the November municipal ballots:

“Towns throughout Connecticut are facing some crucial decisions on
schools, local budgets, road repair and other issues, so it is
imperative that voters make their voices heard next Tuesday,” said
Secretary Bysiewicz.  “Local elections are enormously important for
determining the future direction of all of our communities.”

CTVotersCount reminds voters and the legislature that:

Referendums and questions are exempt from the Connecticut post-election audit law.  However, they are not exempt from the risks of error and fraud. The post-election audit law needs to be strengthened is several ways; including subjecting all critical ballots and contests to be subject to selection for audit; and all ballots and contests are critical.

For more information: FAQ: Why Would Anyone Steal A Referendum?

Another Candidate for Secretary Of The State

Gerry Garcia, a financial adviser, who was 9th Ward alderman from 1996 to 2001, promised to be “a new voice to speak on behalf of Connecticut voters and small businesses.”

New Haven Register: Ex-alderman eyes Bysiewicz’s post <read>

A former Democratic alderman is the first person in Connecticut to declare his candidacy for secretary of the state.

Contrary to the story, he is not “the first person”.  Looking at the SEEC site we see two others who have declared their candidacy and have been listed there for several months.  Republicans Richard Abbate and Corey Brinson.  Also on the list is Rep James Spallone’s exploratory committee which we understand is for Secretary of the State (see Update below for another exploratory candidate, Rep Kevin Roldan).

Gerry Garcia, a financial adviser, who was 9th Ward alderman from 1996 to 2001, promised to be “a new voice to speak on behalf of Connecticut voters and small businesses.”…

Garcia has promised to work to make Connecticut an early voting state, which would allow citizens to send in a paper ballot during a limited period leading up to Election Day. Ballots are now available only to those who will be out of town on Election Day.

Garcia, 38, who attended city public schools and earned his undergraduate and master’s in business from Yale University, said he would try to make voting more accessible in the state and would build on reforms instituted by Bysiewicz.

Garcia, who is of Puerto Rican and Jewish descent, headed a Puerto Rican social service organization while at Yale, as well its largest Jewish fraternity.

He worked as an assistant project director at the Anti-Defamation League in 1994. After getting his master’s degree, he moved to New York, where he was an investment banker before returning to Connecticut in 2006…

For all our coverage of the 2010 Secretary of the State race see 2010

*****

Update: New Haven Independent Article <read>  The Independent points out an additional exploratory campaign: <Rep. Kevin Roldan of Hartford>  So now we count three Democrats and two Republicans.

Here is Garcia’s web site: <GarciaForConnecticut.com>

Hartford Advocate: A New Day? [For Elections Enforcement]

Views of elections enforcement from Representative Chris Caruso and SEEC Director Al Lenge.

Hartford Advocate article on State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) and criticism of its history of enforcement:  A New Day? Critics hope a new head of the state’s Elections Enforcement Commission will be tougher on corrupt politicians <read>

Jeffrey B. Garfield just retired as head of Connecticut’s Elections Enforcement Commission, ending more than 30 years as the official watchdog of our campaign laws.

In theory, Garfield was an ever-vigilant guardian ready to rip the entrails out of any scum-sucking politician who violated our sacred election system.

In reality, Garfield and the EEC more often played the role of flaccid, placid lapdog than ass-chewing election Rottweiler, particularly when it came to incumbent state elected officials.

Garfield’s departure has triggered gushing praise for his long service as well as questions about how effective his enforcement efforts were in the past and whether recent reforms will be able to prevent abuses in the future…

Garfield’s replacement, Albert P. Lenge, insists recent reforms have already made the EEC a tougher, more effective agency. “It’s a brand new day,” Lenge said this week. Let’s hope so…

The EEC seemed more eager to go after challengers and municipal officials than to take on the people who controlled the commission’s budget. The commission almost never launched an investigation on its own, preferring to wait for formal complaints. Garfield said the commission didn’t have the resources to go out looking for violators.

Proof of how weak the enforcement was came in an eruption of federally prosecuted corruption cases that included convictions of ex-Gov. John G. Rowland, Silvester, ex-Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim and ex-state Sen. Ernest Newton III. Those scandals finally led in 2005 to passage of public campaign financing and reforms intended to insulate the commission’s enforcement arm from political pressure.

“Had they [Garfield and the EEC] been stronger, had the whistle been blown sooner, you probably wouldn’t have seen the level of corruption that came about,” said state Rep. Chris Caruso, a Bridgeport Democrat who formerly served as co-chairman of the legislature’s Government Administration and Elections Committee…

Lenge, who served as the commission’s deputy director and general counsel since 1995, doesn’t agree with many criticisms of the EEC’s past performance and also argues recent reforms have made the agency even stronger…

“Those were strong enforcement actions,” said Lenge. Caruso thinks the penalties should have been much heavier.

“There’s been a tradition within the EEC to level fines of a few thousand dollars on sitting state officials,” said Caruso. “In public opinion, really those are slaps on the wrist.”

Lenge says the emphasis on bigger fines ignores the effect an EEC reprimand can have on an incumbent’s reelection. “Just a finding [of wrongdoing] or a reprimand sometimes sends a strong message,” Lenge said.

He also disputes there was ever an EEC tactic of going after easy targets like local or challenge candidates.

Lenge said creation of an enforcement unit that is insulated from the director and the rest of the EEC staff has made the agency more independent and more likely to take on powerful incumbents. He also argues the commission has lots more resources now, with a staff that’s grown from seven in 1995 to 52 today. The EEC is now auditing every single 2008 legislative campaign and will initiate investigations if need be.

In the past we have criticized the speed of the SEEC and the Legislature because election regulations and procedures are not enforceable by the SEEC, leaving little room for holding election officials to account for lapses in the conduct of elections and audits.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Citizens United v. FEC

the Court would have to ignore several time-honored principles that have served for the past two centuries to preserve the public’s respect for and acceptance of its decisions…At the oral argument last month, one justice seemed to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for a tobacco company to try to defeat a candidate who wants to regulate tobacco, and to use its shareholders’ money to do so.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Citizens United v. FEC <read>

The principles involved and the consequences of the case:

while I have disagreed with many Supreme Court decisions, I have great respect for that institution and for the men and women who serve on the Court. But this step would be so damaging to our democracy and is so unwarranted and unnecessary that I must speak out. That is why Senator McCain and I have come to the floor today.

To overrule the Austin decision in this case, the Court would have to ignore several time-honored principles that have served for the past two centuries to preserve the public’s respect for and acceptance of its decisions. First, it is a basic tenet of constitutional law that the Court will not decide a case on constitutional grounds unless absolutely necessary, and that it if there is no choice but to reach a constitutional issue, the Court will decide the case as narrowly as possible…

The second principle is known as stare decisis, meaning that the Court respects its precedents and overrules them only in the most unusual of cases.  Chief Justice John Roberts, whom many believe to be the swing justice in this case, made grand promises of what he called “judicial modesty,” when he came before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005. Respect for precedent was a key component of the approach that he asked us to believe he possessed…

Talk about a jolt to the legal system. It’s hard to imagine a bigger jolt than to strike down laws in over 20 states and a federal law that has been the cornerstone of the nation’s campaign finance system for 100 years.  The settled expectations that would be upset by this decision are enormous. And subsequent developments surely have not shown that the Austin decision is unworkable. Indeed, the Court relied on it as recently as 2003 in the McConnell case and even cited it in the Wisconsin Right to Life decision just two years ago, written by none other than Chief Justice Roberts. To be sure, there are justices on the Court who dissented from the Austin decision when it came down and continue to do so today. But if stare decisis means anything, a precedent on which so many state legislatures and the American people have relied should not be cast aside simply because a few new justices have arrived on the Court.

Third, the courts decide cases only on a full evidentiary record so that all sides have a chance to put forward their best arguments and the court can be confident that it is making a decision based on the best information available. In this case, precisely because the Supreme Court reached out to pose a broad constitutional question that had not been raised below, there is no record whatsoever to which the Court can turn. None. And the question here demands a complete record because the legal standard under prevailing First Amendment law is whether the statute is designed to address a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that result…

Does the Supreme Court really believe that the First Amendment requires the American people to accept a system where banks and investment firms, having just taken our country into its worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, can spend millions upon millions of dollars of ads directly advocating the defeat of those candidates who didn’t vote to bail them out or want to prevent future economic disaster by imposing strict new financial services regulations?…

At the oral argument last month, one justice seemed to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for a tobacco company to try to defeat a candidate who wants to regulate tobacco, and to use its shareholders’ money to do so. This is the system that the Supreme Court may bequeath to this country if it doesn’t turn back. Some will say that corporate interests already have too much power

Low Tech, Computer Hack

Just a little reminder that we can have all the physical security, encryption, open source, and source disclosure in the world. Yet, there are still low tech ways to hack systems available to high school “D students”.

Update: Nationwide: Computers Increase Students’ Temptation To Cheat

Just a little reminder that we can have all the physical security, encryption, open source, and source disclosure in the world. Yet, there are still low tech ways to hack systems available to high school “D students”.  Courant story from Manchester. Connecticut <read>

Two Manchester High School students breached the school district’s computer system and altered grades and attendance records, police said Tuesday.

The incident remains under investigation.

Police said the students learned the user name and password to the system from watching a school administrator log in.

They changed grades and attendance records multiple times over the past two weeks, police said. One of the students changed a grade from a D to a C, police said. Another student discovered what they were doing and told a school official about it.

Update: 10/30/2009 Courant: Nationwide: Computers Increase Students’ Temptation To Cheat <read>

More evidenced that it does not take researcg at Princeton or UConn to cheat with computers.  Are registrars any more savvy than school administrators in preventing and detecting fraud?

Much of it is using computers for cheating, but some is hacking:

There’s nothing new about cheating, said Lt. James Wardwell, a computer forensics expert with the New Britain Police Department, “and the computer is just another tool to help someone accomplish a bad deed.”

What is new is that cheating in America’s high schools has become “rampant, and it’s getting worse,” according to a 2008 nationwide survey by the Josephson Institute, the California-based nonprofit organization that runs the Character Counts! youth ethics program in schools in Connecticut and throughout the country.

The survey of 30,000 high school students found that 64 percent said they had cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. The survey did not address school computer hacking, but 36 percent of respondents said they had used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, an increase from 33 percent in 2006.

Some students have been lured into cyber-cheating by the apparent cloak that computers and personal communication devices provide, Michael Josephson, president of the ethics institute, said. Armed with stolen information, kids can enter school record systems from their bedrooms, or they can photograph copies of tests with their cellphones and send them to others who have to take the same test…

Newspaper reports from throughout the country show that the methods students use to crack school computer programs range from simply watching a school staff member entering a password — the method used in Manchester, according to police — to sneaking spyware onto school computers. “Key-logger” programs, for instance, record all strokes on a computer keyboard and send a record to another computer.

In some cases, cyber-cheating students have lifted user names and passwords from hard copy lists left in school offices. Some school staff members use their own names, or slightly altered variations, as passwords, enabling a student to enter a grading or attendance site after a few guesses.

That was the case in Naples, Fla., recently, where police say a 16-year-old boy slipped into school district computers by guessing an employee’s password. The boy was then able to change the grades of five or six students, according to Florida news reports.

Nationwide: Computers Increase Students’ Temptation To Cheat

Open Source Voting Software Released

Open source has great potential to facilitate voting integrity and independence from sole source voting equipment/software vendors and outsourcing of elections. This particular project is comprehensive including voter registration capabilities and has interest from major players.

Wired Article: Nation’s First Open Source Election Software Released <read>

Not actually the first, yet a significant development.  From the Wired article:

The OSDV, co-founded by Gregory Miller and John Sebes, launched its Trust the Vote Project in 2006 and has an eight-year roadmap to produce a comprehensive, publicly owned, open source electronic election system. The system would be available for licensing to manufacturers or election districts, and would include a voter registration component; firmware for casting ballots on voting devices (either touch-screen systems with a paper trail, optical-scan machines or ballot-marking devices); and an election management system for creating ballots, administering elections and counting votes…

Miller said the foundation wasn’t looking to put voting system companies out of business but to assume the heavy burden and costs of research and development to create a trustworthy system that will meet the needs of election officials for reliability and the needs of the voting public for accessibility, transparency, security and integrity.

Open source has great potential to facilitate voting integrity and independence from sole source equipment/software vendors and outsourcing of elections.  This particular project is comprehensive including voter registration capabilities and has interest from major players:

The foundation has elicited help from academics and election officials from eight states as well as voter advocacy groups, such as Rock the Vote and the League of Women Voters, to guide developers in building the system. Technology bigwigs such as Oracle, Sun and IBM have also approached the group to help with the project…

The foundation already has California, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington interested in adopting the system and is in talks with 11 other states. Florida, which has been racked by voting machine problems since the 2000 presidential debacle, has also expressed interest, as has Georgia, which uses machines made by Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) statewide.

Other coverage:

InformationWeek Blog: Can Open Source Software Save Democracy? <read> A good overview and summary of the business challenges for vendors.  This is why we are skeptical that left on their own high quality proprietary solutions will be developed:

But the solutions aren’t necessarily obvious: only electronic voting machines are truly accessible to all voters, technicians do need reset buttons, wireless features are needed to report results in a timely manner, and a paper audit trail doesn’t ensure that votes are counted properly unless you can determine which (the electronic or paper) reflects actual voter intent.

The problems are compounded because there’s little profit margin in voting machines (which are paid for by cash-strapped local governments) and thus little incentive for voting machine vendors to invest a great deal in R&D.

And surprisingly, at least to me,  from the John Birch Society:  Open Source Election Software Revealed <read>

Through a collaborative effort between state and local elections officials and technology experts, the group aims to create federally certified voting software that will restore trust and transparency in elections by allowing anyone to inspect the code. Proprietary voting systems used in recent elections have come under fire for secrecy, unreliability and a host of other problems.

Al Lenge Named Director of State Elections Enforcement Commission

Al Lenge, long time Deputy Director of the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) was named Director, replacing retired Director Jeff Garfield.

From Jon Lender at the Hartford Courant: Al Lenge, long time Deputy Director of the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) was named Director, replacing retired Director Jeff Garfield <read>

Lenge has been deputy director and assistant general counsel since 1995, and previously headed the elections division at the office of the Secretary of the State.

In a statement Wednesday, the commisson called Lenge “a committed and experienced leader who has been involved in all aspects of election and campaign finance law.” Garfield said: “He brings continuity,experience and dedication to his new role and will continue to make significant contributions to the operations of the Commission with the utmost degree of professionalism.”

“I am excited and welcome this new opportunity to continue to serve the Commission and the people of the State of Connecticut in ensuring fairness and impartiality in the administration of election laws. The SEEC faces a challenging year ahead,” Lenge said in a statement. “I will draw on my experience during this critical phase of the Commission’s development and continue to build and foster relationships among staff, other state agencies and our partners. I am honored to serve as Executive Director and I especially look forward to working closely with the legislature on the major reforms concerning public campaign financing.”

This is no surprise.  I doubt there is anyone more qualified.  Although we have criticized the SEEC for lack of speed, we have found both Mr. Garfield and Mr. Lenge easy to work with, committed and knowledgeable. Congratulations.

.

IRV: Not So Fast, Not So Simple

Tutorial information about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and associated concerns.

We have several concerns with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).  At first it seems simple and appealing, however, a closer look reveals concerns and unappreciated consequences, including:

  • IRV can be confusing and difficult for voters to understand.  It can result in a much bigger ballot, requesting voters to rank multiple candidates and not make a mistake.  A single race may take an entire ballot that today can handle an entire municipal election or a combined state and Federal election.
  • IRV does not solve the problems it is intended to fix.  It claims to prevent the “wrong” candidates from being elected by providing a runoff until one candidate has over 50% of the votes.  In reality, sometimes it does and sometimes it does not.  IRV can cause different candidates to be elected than real runoff voting and different candidates to be elected than when the leading candidate  from the first round is selected.  Often IRV awards a race to a less popular candidate than these other methods.
  • IRV is complex and time consuming to count, especially in races covering multiple polling places.  This is because  elimination requires exact information on each ballot ranking be centrally counted or each round centrally counted.  Each round is critical to the final result, thus each round may require all absentee ballots and provisional ballots be counted and perhaps require a manual recount to determine the eliminated candidate.

This last point is covered in an editorial from Minnesota – counting a municipal race my take eight weeks and involve spreadsheet calculations <read>

Minneapolis won’t have the assistance of scanning machines to tabulate votes if no candidate receives over half of the first choices, delaying results for up to eight weeks. Since Minnesota does not certify machines that can count ranked choice ballots, and because cities are prohibited from using non-certified machines, city elections workers must hand-count each ballot. Fortunately, the city attorney has assured elections officials that they can use Microsoft Excel to help tally. Otherwise, votes would still be being sorted well into 2010.

Update: It did not take 8 weeks to count.  Perhaps because of IRV voters stayed away: <read>

What if they gave an election and nobody came? Well, almost nobody came to the City Election last Tuesday. R. T. Rybak got 73 percent of the vote for Mayor, but that was only 33,217 votes. That’s the smallest amount a winning candidate has gotten running for Mayor since 1910. Rybak’s total was less than 15 percent of the number of registered voters. In the last three municipal elections the LOSING candidates for Mayor polled almost as high as Rybak’s winning total

Update:  But it is eight days and some races are still being counted <read>

Several races may be announced Wednesday, the paper says, but the closest council races, in the Fourth and Fifth Wards, won’t come until a later batch of counting.

Update:  17 days past the election and still counting<read>

But the biggest surprise for O’Connor and the elections staff has been how quickly the hand count process has gone. Originally, O’Connor expected that they wouldn’t be ready to announce unofficial winners until December. But they’ve been able to do so several weeks earlier than planned.

Here are some video’s that graphically explain IRV:

  • A clear explination of IRV, what could go wrong, what the MN Supreme Court said and what happened in Aspen Colorado <video>
  • A more detailed version of how a candidate can loose by gaining support <video>
  • We often think of IRV for a single candidate, but it can be used when we vote for several people for town council. Yet its not simple.  Here is one way of counting the votes <video>
  • Third parties tend to like the idea of IRV.  Watch this video to be disapointed <video>

Update: 3/3/2010 Burlington voters repeal IRV <read>

A raucus celebration at Norm’s Grill in the new North End Tuesday night marked a victories end to the YES on 5 campaign in Burlington. A mix of Democrats and Republicans celebrated the defeat of Instant Runoff Voting.

After a debate that brought out big names like Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean urging a NO on 5 vote, Burlington residents voted to repeal IRV by a vote of 3972 to 3669, a margin of only 303 votes.

“It was a grass roots effort and we’re really proud of the people that worked on this, we’re ecstatic,” said IRV opponent Chuck Seleen while celebrating the victory.

Wards 4 and 7 were the only two to vote YES on 5. Both had much higher voter turnout than the other wards. Mayor Bob Kiss says that is a sign most of the city still supports IRV and he suggests the city continues the discussion and possibly have yet another vote on IRV.

“This is a modest voter turnout. I think a bigger voter turnout might have a different result and particularly in the case because if you have two wards that are voting very heavily and I think other wards are more modest so if we heat up that debate we might get a better view of Burlingtonians’ real view on IRV,” Kiss said at City Hall moments after the results were tallied.

Several city councilors and election observers have suggested the IRV vote is a referendum on Kiss and his administration, as it tries to deal with the mess of Burlington Telecom. Kurt Wright, who was elected back to the city council, Tuesday, by defeating incumbent democrat Russ Ellis, says it is time Kiss gets the message.

Two comments:

Saying “Wards 4 and 7 were the only two to vote YES on 5. Both had much higher voter turnout than the other wards.” is pure spin. With equal lack of usefulness one could say that say that if more voters had come out in other districts it might well have gone down further.

Apparently Howard Dean changed his mind from his statement on this video.

Update: Report: Ranked Choice Voting Causes Confusion, Fatigue In SF’s District 10 <read>

The new system produced some surprising outcomes, and in the wake of the results there has been a flurry of criticism and praise of how RCV plays out for voters.