Author: Luther Weeks

IRV: A Grain Of Truth, A Ton Of Bulloney

Could IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) avoid recounts? A slew of stories from Minnesota claim that recounts are a headache and that IRV is the cure.

Recounting Is Not A Problem – Its A Symptom Of Election Integrity in Minnesota

Could IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) avoid recounts?  A slew of stories from Minnesota claim that recounts are a headache and that IRV is the cure.  Two examples:

The Star Tribune <read>

Instead, the $40 million-plus campaign continues to permeate our headlines and limit our forward momentum. The Coleman-Franken race is now in a contentious recount and is almost certainly headed to the courts from there. The recount and its aftermath will be a protracted and high-priced affair, and no matter the outcome, most voters will be left wondering if there is not a better way to express our preferences.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) would have produced an entirely different election.

The South St. Paul Examiner <read>

In a contest so close as the one that has unfolded in Minnesota, a hand recount is likely the only alternative to determine who is number one and who is number two to figure out how number three’s (Dean Barkley) votes are alloted. The election between Landslide Al Franken and Landslide Norm Coleman is an anomoly. It may go down as the closest race in the history of the United States, but IRV would save us the indignity of staring at Big Goof and Little Goof’s ballots and the money a hand recount costs in almost all other instances.

IRV Defined

From the Examiner:

First choices are counted (one, two, or three). If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is defeated, and those votes are transferred to the next ranked (one or two) candidate on each ballot. The votes are recounted.The process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.

Many believe that if IRV was used in Florida in 2000 then Ralph Nader would have received many more votes and that Al Gore would have easily won the state and the Presidency.   If employed nationwide many believe that George Bush I would have been elected President in 1992.

A Grain of Truth

The articles are likely correct, that if Minnesota had used Instant Runoff Voting for the Senate race and if there were only three candidates, then the winner would likely have been determined much sooner, on election night, and a recount would have been unnecessary.

Several Doses Of Reality – The “Cure” Makes Makes The “Problem” Worse

There are several issues that are glossed over in these one-sided simplistic articles:

  • Recounts are necessary when counts are close. Minnesota has dramatically demonstrated that the careful counting of votes by hand is crucial to actually approaching the ideal of counting every vote and following the voters’ intentions in the declared result.
  • IRV does not eliminate recounts. Ultimately, an IRV race comes down to two candidates, if the final margin is 0.5% or less, the voters deserve a careful recount.
  • IRV actually makes recounts more likely.   In an IRV election at each stage, there is the possibility of a close margin demanding a hand recount.   Worse there are multiple reasons a hand recount may be necessary at each stage:   The difference between two candidates to be potentially eliminated may be close, the order of elimination can effect the final result.  The difference between the required winning margin of 50% and the highest candidate count may be less than 0.5%, the victor may change if another round of elimination is required.
  • IRV will change the nature of the election. One of the differences with IRV would be more candidates competing and more votes for third parties.   Like many people, I see this as a potential advantage of IRV.    However, glossed over is that this means that voting and counting of elections gets more complex.  Today we have, including write-ins, three to five candidates for President in each election.   With IRV, expect six to twelve or more!  In Connecticut we can expect similar numbers for Senate races.  These numbers also add to the rounds and add to the frequency of recounting.
  • IRV will make recounting more complex and expensive. The order of voter preference will be critical – recounting an IRV race is straight-forward, but much more time consuming than recounting under the current voting system.

Recounting Is Not A Problem – Its A Symptom Of Election Integrity

CTVotersCount  does not share the concern with the time and cost of recounting.  In the overall scheme of things the expense of recounting is small compared to what is spent in running elections, what is spent on campaigns, and the billions at stake in the decisions and actions of a Senator.  Who cares if the winner is declared on Nov 4th or Jan 31st?   If its important that Minnesota have two Senators on Jan 6th.   Then its even more important that Minnesota have the voters choice as Senator for the six years after Jan 31st.

From the Examiner:

Minnesota and its reputation for good government have taken some hits from the Senate brouhaha. It’s too late to duck that punch or the ones we can expect in the weeks — and maybe months — yet to come. It’s not too late, though, to make sure we don’t get into this situation again.

It’s time for Minnesota to consider adopting IRV and preserve its tradition as a leader in electoral integrity and good governance.

The author has it all backwards.   Minnesota’s leadership in electoral integrity is why   manual recounts are required.  Looking objectively at the care taken with every aspect of the recount only enhances Minnesota’s reputation for good governance.

As A Cure, IRV May Be Worse Than The Problem

IRV sounds great.  We want a vibrant democracy.   Wouldn’t it be great if we could vote for our favorite candidate and still have our preference expressed in the result.   We could vote for Pat Buchannan, Ross Perot, Ralph Nadar, or Dennis Kucinich, yet still see Al Gore or Bob Dole elected President.  Who knows, perhaps in a few years we would have a third viable party.

I live in a condominim, IRV might be a very good way for us to elect directors.

How could anyone possibly object?    Consider that the cure may be worse than the disease:

  • IRV means a more complicated, huge ballot. Consider a ballot with an average of four candidates for each of five offices (similar to November in CT, with a few candidates added because of IRV).  Instead of five bubbles to fill in, a contentious voter would need to fill in fifteen bubbles (A ranking of three choices out of four for each of five races).   In a municipal election, voting for six out of say 18 candidates for town council, instead of 6 bubbles, we would fill in 17 bubbles – instead of 18 bubbles  on the ballot there would be 324 (18 x 18), for just this one race.   The ballot would be large, voting would take more time,  more knowledge, and more voter education.
  • IRV means more complicated and slower election accounting. For my condo or the local mayor’s race it may be worth it, its not that complicated.   How would we handle a state wide race for Senate with ten candidates?   We would have to know the order of votes on each ballot or have a count from each precinct of each possible combination (4,838,400 not including various combinations of over votes and under votes) – every vote would have to be maintained and accumulated electronically, votes that are counted by hand today would have to be input electronically as well.  Once again, this only considers the complexity added for just one race, the whole process is even more involved.
  • Recounting would be complex and time consuming. It would be straight-forward.   One way would be to count each round separately – each round costing about the same as the Minnesota recount.  Perhaps there is a way to speed it up?  Even to count all the 1st and 2nd choices of each voter in our ten candidate race would mean 10o possible combinations (10 x 9 + 10 more for votes for only one candidate)
  • Post-Election Audits would be more complex and time consuming. Once again, it would be straight-forward.
  • There would be pushes for more electronic voting, less recounting, less auditing. Pre-election testing would be less adequate, more complex, and more expensive.  The whole process of election integrity would be more difficult for election officials to comprehend and execute well.

So there we have it.   Instant Runoff Voting – a ready cure for many real election concerns – yet, risky, complex, and time consuming, quite likely causing more and greater problems than those it is intended to cure.

PS: Here in Connecticut there is no requirement for a hand recount.  From what we saw in the Courtney/Simmons 2006 recanvass, we question if hand counting votes here would result in the same level of scrutiny of each ballot and each rejected absentee ballot we have seen in Minnesota.  Would we come anywhere close to the detail and objectivity apparent in Minnesota?

**************
Update 3/23/2009:   Party Looks At Sample Ballot, Reverses Course On IRV <read>

“Anyone who could look at that and not think that the average voter is going to find that totally frustrating is totally out of touch with the average voter in the City of St. Paul,” Repke said.

On another flier distributed by IRV opponents: mucked-up ballots from the contest between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. During the Senate recount, goofy ballots such as one endorsing “€œflying spaghetti monster” got most of the attention. But much more common were routinely botched ballots in which a voter’s intent simply couldn’t be discerned because of unusual markings.

Thune believes IRV would only compound such problems and disenfranchise voters. “While this may seem like a wonderful thing in Cambridge for a bunch of Harvard professors, we’ve got a general population that has trouble filling out one oval in a Coleman-Franken race,” he says.

CT: Unfortunately, we were correct.

Last week, we said “There are likely many other differences that have not been discovered.”

Last week, we said: “There are likely many other differences that have not been discovered.”

Unfortunately, we were correct.  We checked our own town of Glastonbury web’s reported results against the Secretary of the State’s results:

Totals for ROV in Glastonbury, on Glastonbury site:  9,018   8,501 <read>
Totals for ROV in Glastonbury, on SOTS site:           9,001   8,491 <read>

Checking with Zelda Lessne, Registrar of Voters-D, this is the difference between the originally reported results and those one the web listed as amended on November 17th.

Once again, this may not matter in the result in this eleciton, but it seems there are many errors out there that could change future results.  Its good that towns recheck their work after a good night’s sleep, but those results also should be reflected in the State’s posted results.

CT: More Errors In Reported Results?

We have covered reports of differences between the results posted on the Secretary of the State’s web site and actual election results in Shelton and Stamford. We have learned of a third problem in the results posted for the Congressional race in Avon, with the possibility of similar problems in several other towns. David Bedell … Continue reading “CT: More Errors In Reported Results?”

We have covered reports of differences between the results posted on the Secretary of the State’s web site and actual election results in Shelton and Stamford. We have learned of a third problem in the results posted for the Congressional race in Avon, with the possibility of similar problems in several other towns.

David Bedell (Green Party candidate for Registrar, Stamford) was researching the effect the Working Families Party may have had in the recent election. He noticed several anomalies: 9 towns with instances of zero counts for WFP and one with duplicate results for the Democratic and WFP for a candidate.

He checked with the Avon Registrar and she reported U.S. Representative Chris Murphy’s results were Democratic-5111 and WFP-269, making a total of 5380.

Checking this morning at the Secretary of the State’s web site we see totals of Democratic-5577 and WKF of 0, an extra 197 votes. By our calculations that amounts to about 1.9% of the initially reported results for the race in Avon.

As we have pointed out before, the manual calculation of votes, usually with three transcriptions and several additions along the way is an error prone process. It can be a daunting task for voters, candidates, and parties to check results independently, since the State publishes summary results which must be verified against multiple hand written reports and machine tapes held in each town hall. There are likely many other differences that have not been discovered.

Perhaps no errors, discovered or not, in the November election would change the winner in any contest, however, it could matter in future, closer elections and it does matter in the next election how votes are allocated to parties in this election.

A Winner In Minnesota

OpEd by Mark Halversen, Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, testifies to the integrity of the Minnesota recount <read> A recount to count on As nonpartisan election integrity advocates with front-row seats at the U.S. Senate recount, we believe Minnesotans can be confident the process has been methodical and fair. The intense scrutiny given to each … Continue reading “A Winner In Minnesota”

OpEd by Mark Halversen, Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, testifies to the integrity of the Minnesota recount <read>

A recount to count on

As nonpartisan election integrity advocates with front-row seats at the U.S. Senate recount, we believe Minnesotans can be confident the process has been methodical and fair. The intense scrutiny given to each step of the process and to each vote in the Senate recount has provided an incredible civics lesson for Minnesotans and the nation.

Hundreds of Minnesotans have volunteered as nonpartisan observers in at least one of four statewide manual counts — the 2006 and 2008 post-election audits, the 2008 judicial primary recount and, now, the U.S. Senate recount. These efforts were organized by Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota in partnership with the League of Women Voters Minnesota and Common Cause Minnesota.

The winner is: Voting Integrity

Our current election laws effectively prevented the chaos that could have clouded the process.

Minnesota’s election process is characterized by transparency and openness. The most recent example is the live online streaming of the canvassing board’s review of the challenged ballots.

As we discussed recently, unlike Connecticut, Minnesota has the right idea, a complete, thorough, manual recount

A manual recount is the best way to be confident in the accuracy of the results in such a close race.

A meaningful recount is possible because the paper ballots provide a physical record of each voter’s intent and enable a way to independently verify the machine tally.

Although some have argued that a machine recount would have been cheaper and quicker than a hand count, it would not have been as accurate in determining voter intent.

Vote totals typically rise whenever there is a hand recount of a machine tally, as we’ve seen in this recount. This is because some voters mis-mark their ballots — for example, by circling an oval instead of filling it in — in such a way that optical scanners cannot detect their intent.

Just counting the paper is not enough. Counting the paper by hand is not enough. Minnesota could have done it much sooner if they just counted the paper by hand, but they do the whole job. Democracy can stand the wait, its speed that puts it in danger.
(See our recent post: Minnesota Recount vs. Connecticut Recanvass )

FAQ: When Do We Worry About Money?

We have recently noticed a natural human tendency: When we are in favor of something, we ignore the costs, no matter how great. When we are against something, we highlight the costs, no matter how small. This is clearly illustrated by two Hartford Courant editorials, one day apart. Monday Dec 22nd: Rell Sharpens The Knife … Continue reading “FAQ: When Do We Worry About Money?”

We have recently noticed a natural human tendency: When we are in favor of something, we ignore the costs, no matter how great. When we are against something, we highlight the costs, no matter how small.

This is clearly illustrated by two Hartford Courant editorials, one day apart.

Monday Dec 22nd: Rell Sharpens The Knife <read>

Last week, Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed her second “deficit mitigation plan” designed to erase the remaining $356 million gap between revenue and expenses in this fiscal year’s state budget. Again, as the first time, she gets rid of the shortfall without layoffs, new taxes or raiding the rainy day fund, a cash reserve account with $1.4 billion in it…

But at $10,000-plus a day, a special session is an expense the state can do without.

Here we are talking millions and billions in decisions. The Courant on this same day ran a front page story of the financial difficulties facing towns such as Simsbury. But the Courant’s problem is $10,000 a day to have our Legislature work on this problem. If we ran government like a business then we would gladly spend $10,000 a day to deal with million and billion dollar issues…that seems to be exactly what the Governor is proposing. Then again we could run Government like a newspaper…

(Note: We really don’t know if having a special session is a good idea or not. However, $10,000 a day for a few days work on the part of the Legislature is negligible if such a session would help deal better with the economic situation)

Sunday Dec 21st: Let Voters Decide <read>

In Connecticut as in many other states, the governor has the sole power to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy until the next scheduled election. Two Democratic officials — Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and state Rep. James Spallone — want to change the law to require vacancies to be filled by special election.

They’re right. It makes more sense to let voters decide who replaces a senator unable to finish his or her term than that constituency of one, the governor…

Changing the law to provide for a special election in the event of a midterm Senate vacancy makes the most sense.

Nary a word in the article about costs, just benefits. What is the difference between a Special Session that costs $10,000 a day for a couple of days vs. a Special Election that costs several million? We can think of several:

  • $10,000 a day is reasonable for dealing with multi-million dollar issues.
    Millions for a Special Election is reasonable for dealing with multi-billion dollar issues.
  • The costs and benefits of the Special Session will be born by all State Taxpayers.
  • The cost of the Special Election will primarily fall on Towns.
  • The direct financial beneficiaries of the Special Election would be the media. Considering campaign expenditures, we can expect those benefits could run in the neighborhood of $10,000,000 to $20,000,000.

(Note: We favor Special Elections for Senate vacancies. However, in considering all proposals we should consider all the costs and benefits. Considering the billion dollar decisions Senators its worth it to let the people decide).

Once again, its a natural human tendency:

  • When we are in favor of something, we ignore the costs, no matter how great.
  • When we are against something, we highlight the costs, no matter how small.

Update:  According to the Republican-American the estimate for a Special Election: <read>

Additionally, GOP lawmakers argued that a special election would be costly to towns and cities. The legislature’s budget office estimated a statewide election to fill a vacancy would cost $6 million.

Update: Towns bemoan cost of special Senate election <read>

Now that Massachusetts is about the exercise the law, Town Clerks are concerned.  We wonder if those same untimely concerns will surface in Connecticut the 1st time we need to exercise our new law?

The election to determine Sen. Edward Kennedy’s successor will cost cities and towns more than $5 million, and town clerks aren’t thrilled.

The upcoming special primary and election will cost individual communities thousands, an expense they hadn’t planned for.

Framingham, for instance, will spend more than $55,000 on the election and primary, with the state expected to reimburse the town about $13,000, or $6,500 for each event.

The Massachusetts Town Clerks Association has sent a letter to the secretary of state to expedite printing of absentee ballots, and there’s been discussion about having the state pay for the whole election.

Once again, we are in favor of the law and believe a Senate seat is worth a vote of the people and worth the small additional insurance of a post-election audit.

Update from MA:  Auditor: Costs for special Senate election are an unfunded mandate <read>

“The state law requiring this special election imposes a significant cost on cities and towns at a time when they can least afford it,” DeNucci said in a statement. “I request that my legal determination lead to full state funding of these costs.”

A 1980 state law requires that state laws imposing new costs on local governments must either be fully funded by the state, or subject to voluntary local acceptance. Local officials, struggling with local aid cuts and an erosion of revenues tied to the recession, are wondering how they will pay costs tied to the Dec. 8 primary and the Jan. 19 special election to fill the seat held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

DeNucci says the $7.2 million estimate covers the cost of wages for election day workers and law enforcement personnel, with costs rising higher when other expenses are factored in, such as the costs of certifying nomination papers, setting up and breaking down polling places, printing voting lists, programming voting equipment and rental and interpreter expenses.

CT: Bysiewicz, Slossberg, Spallone Call For Special Senate Elections

From the StamfordPlus <read>

Bysiewicz and legislative leaders call for special election to fill future U.S. Senate vacancies in Connecticut
By Secretary of the State
Dec 17, 2008 – 3:36 PM

Secretary of the State Points to Senate Vacancies in Illinois, New York as Evidence of the Need for Long Overdue Election Reform

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz today joined the incoming House Chair of the Government, Administration and Elections Committee, State Representative James Spallone (D-Essex) in calling for the adoption of a law designating a special election to fill any future vacancies in Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seats. In the case of a Senate vacancy, current law provides for the governor to appoint a successor to fill out the remainder of a term or until a special election can be called on the date of the next even-numbered general election…

Working together with GAE committee co-chairs, Senator Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford) and Representative James Spallone(D-Essex), Secretary Bysiewicz is vowing to bring a similar Senate vacancy bill before the Connecticut General Assembly in the 2009 legislative session.

What does this have to do with Voting Integrity and CTVotersCount?

Continue reading “CT: Bysiewicz, Slossberg, Spallone Call For Special Senate Elections”

The Perils Of No Excuse Absentee Voting

Vote Absentee: Your Vote May Not Count Today we learn of the problems in Minnesota with absentee voting in a Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial <read> A nasty bug emerges in the state election system Absentee ballots emerged as the biggest flaw in Minnesota’s election system and may hold the key to finally resolving the Senate … Continue reading “The Perils Of No Excuse Absentee Voting”

Vote Absentee: Your Vote May Not Count

Today we learn of the problems in Minnesota with absentee voting in a Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial <read>

A nasty bug emerges in the state election system

Absentee ballots emerged as the biggest flaw in Minnesota’s election system and may hold the key to finally resolving the Senate contest…

But here and nationwide, the rejection of absentee ballots — either because voters improperly filled out documents or because election officials erroneously spiked them — is a problem that’s long been hiding in plain sight.

“For years, people know some part of the [elections] system isn’t working, but it flies under the radar screen because it doesn’t cause problems until you have a situation like Florida in 2000 or Minnesota now,” said Edward Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University’s law school. “Suddenly, it becomes a huge problem. Rejected absentee ballots are the new hanging chad.”

“Boy, is that true,” said Minnesota Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann, who has estimated that more than 13 percent of rejected absentee ballots in the Senate race — possibly as many as 1,580 — were improperly set aside.


Yet, the problem with absentee ballots is much worse than the rejected 13%:

What about the 87% of absentee ballots rejected for legitimate reasons? Most of them represent the votes of legally registered voters that made a simple mistake. Unknown to most of them, their votes did not count and never will. There are other problems with all mail-in ballots, including absentee ballots, see: No Vote By Mail Project

We will hear continuing calls in Connecticut for the Legislature to enact early voting in one of several forms: Early voting in polling places, mail-in voting, and no excuse absentee voting. For a variety of different reasons we conditionally oppose each of these. “No excuse absentee voting” is another name for mail-in voting.

Also, ECM Editorial on issues with absentee voting in Minnesota <read>

Another Audit – Another Diebold Error

Ohio is conducting its first post-election audits. Like the recent audits in Humboldt, CA, and CT, the Ohio audit has uncovered discrepancies in the machine and manual counts. Here is one of the stories, by Kim Zetter at Wired <read> Montgomery County officials discovered that although the five votes were recorded to a memory card … Continue reading “Another Audit – Another Diebold Error”

Ohio is conducting its first post-election audits. Like the recent audits in Humboldt, CA, and CT, the Ohio audit has uncovered discrepancies in the machine and manual counts. Here is one of the stories, by Kim Zetter at Wired <read>

Montgomery County officials discovered that although the five votes were recorded to a memory card inside the voting machine, the votes weren’t counted by the tabulation software when the memory card was uploaded to the tabulation server. Premier’s Global Election Management System (or GEMS) is the tabulation software that counts votes from memory cards.

We also note the excellent comments of John Gideon of VotersUnite <read>

What does Diebold/Premier have to say? “We have not seen this particular condition anywhere else in Ohio or anywhere else in the country,” according to spokesman Chris Riggall. Clearly Riggall is joking. Of course they haven’t seen this condition in Ohio because Ohio has not done these audits in the past and the lack of audits across most of the rest of the country would ensure that no problems would have been found in the past. Where there are audits that may have found this condition, the condition is ignored or just shrugged-off. What they ignore is that there is federal law that dictates accuracy of voting systems and even the loss of these 5 ballots in a county that saw over 280,000 ballots cast is a violation of that law


What does this Diebold error mean for Connecticut?
Continue reading “Another Audit – Another Diebold Error”

CT: Audits Accurate? How Many Votes Is A Handful?

If we dismiss every discrepancy as human hand count error, how would we know if there was an optical scanner error – caused by the scanner hardware, human error, or human fraud?
AP article in the Hartford Courant: Audits: Conn. voting machine counts accurate

If we dismiss every discrepancy as human hand count error, how would we know if there was an optical scanner error – caused by the scanner hardware, human error, or human fraud?

AP article in the Hartford Courant: Audits: Conn. voting machine counts accurate: <read>

Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz (‘BYE-suh-wits) says audits of some of the state’s voting machines show they produced extremely accurate vote totals for last month’s elections.

Bysiewicz says her office reviewed results in 10 percent of the state’s voting precincts, as required by law, by comparing the machine totals with hand-count results.

Bysiewicz spokesman Av Harris says none of the totals were off by more than a handful of votes. He says past experience has shown that minor discrepancies are usually the result of human error during the hand counts.

The University of Connecticut will be doing a more thorough analysis.

Bysiewicz says Connecticut residents should feel confident that the optical scan machines are counting their votes correctly.

The Connecticut Citizen Audit Coalition will also be doing a more thorough analysis. In the meantime, we have reviewed some of the official audit reports filed by municipalities. Here is an image of one report from just one Connecticut city. <view>

To save you time, the discrepancies in various candidate counts in this one district are:
13, -2, 10, -11, 28, 13, 8, 16, 1, 12, 93
(we corrected for the one obvious error in the last column)

The discrepancy of 93 was in one of the Registrar Of Voters races, not one of those “challenging” cross-endorsement races.

Update: From NorwalkPlus: Results of 2008 post election audit show accurate Election Day machine counts <read>

By Secretary of the State’s Office

…“We set a record in Connecticut on November 4th with 1.64 million people casting ballots and Election Day went remarkably smoothly,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “The results of this audit indicate, once again, that the optical scan voting system is secure and extremely accurate. Connecticut voters can be confident in the integrity of our elections and that their votes were counted correctly. Still, I’m not asking anyone to simply take my word for it: that’s why these post-election procedures are so important. We want to shine the light on the electoral process, before and after all votes are cast. So far, Connecticut’s new voting machines have passed the test every step of the way.”

As part of Connecticut’s audit law, believed to be the toughest in the United States…

While the audits did uncover accurate machine counts on Election Day, there were discrepancies in isolated cases involving the hand-count audits for some ballots marked with votes for major party candidates who were cross endorsed by minor parties.

Minnesota Recount vs. Connecticut Recanvass

The Minnesota recount which started on November 19th goes on and will probably continue for several additional days, perhaps weeks. You can read about some of the details of the ongoing Minnesota senate recount at the blog of the Citizens for Voting Integrity MN <blog> We ask: Would this happen here, in Connecticut? Should this … Continue reading “Minnesota Recount vs. Connecticut Recanvass”

The Minnesota recount which started on November 19th goes on and will probably continue for several additional days, perhaps weeks. You can read about some of the details of the ongoing Minnesota senate recount at the blog of the Citizens for Voting Integrity MN <blog>

We ask:

  • Would this happen here, in Connecticut?
  • Should this happen here, in Connecticut?

Continue reading “Minnesota Recount vs. Connecticut Recanvass”