Author: George Barnett

Three Issues After Monroe, CT 2006 Audits

Previously I covered my concerns with audit differences in the audit of the 2006 election. Today I will cover my observation of the Monroe, CT audit.

On November 27, 2006 I was able to witness the audit that was taking place in Monroe, CT. Monroe has four voting precincts and two of them were selected for full hand recounts.

There were three issues associated with the audits and several problems with the election process.

Read the details:

Continue reading “Three Issues After Monroe, CT 2006 Audits”

Were 2006 Election Audits “Good News”?

If the auditors were employed by or under the control of the SOS[Secretary of the state], such factors might include the perception that “good news” should be the primary object in the audit report. (emboldening added)
– Candice Hoke, Testimony to U.S. House, March 20, 2007

We have very good news to report today, because it is now clear that the optical scan machines performed very well on Election Day and without any problems. Any changes in vote totals found in these audits were due to ballots being marked incorrectly by the voter, not to any problems with the optical scan machines. (emboldening added)
-Secretary of the State, Susan Bysicwicz, Press Release, Dec 7, 2006

Consider the results of the audits conducted after the November 2006 Connecticut election:

Continue reading “Were 2006 Election Audits “Good News”?”