Dori Smith interviews Brad Friedman, Dr. Alexander Shvartsman, and yours truly. She talks to Brad about the recount in NH, outsourcing to LHS, the chain of custody in NH, and implications for Connecticut. She talks to Dr Shvartsman about NH procedures, vendors on election day, and his soon to be released report on memory cards in Connecticut. She talks to yours truly about the Coalition report on the results of our observation of the recent audits in Connecticut. The election report starts about 10 minutes into the broadcast. <summary text and link to listen>
Category: CT
Correction: What Do Elections Cost?
I recently wrote elsewhere that:
- A good audit costs $.25 to at most $.50 per ballot cast – (less than the cost of one mailing by a candidate or one of those newsletters from our state representatives and senators)
- The costs of running an election is over $3.00 to $20.00 per ballot cast
- Candidates spend $millions of our money to get our votes
- Special interests spend $millions more, some say, to get their votes
- The costs of the wrong candidate being elected involves innocent lives and millions in Connecticut, $trillions in Washington, and thousands of lives in war
- The value of integrity and confidence in our elections? Priceless
Apparently the $3.00 per ballot cast may be way low for Connecticut. Continue reading “Correction: What Do Elections Cost?”
Connecticut Reporter Uncovers Voting Machine Problems In New Hampshire
Dori Smith of TalkNationRadio.org articulates problems with voting machines in New Hampshire for Brad Blog in Diebold Voting Machine Failures Found Across State During New Hampshire Primary <read>
Election Officials Confrim that Employees from LHS Associates, Diebold’s Sole Programmer, Vendor, and Service Provider in NH, Were Allowed to Access Vulnerable Optical-Scan Systems Throughout Election Day
…
All four counties I contacted on January 10th that had used Diebold’s electronic machines last week reported problems during the election with the machines. Two other calls that same day turned out to have been to areas where electronic voting is not in use, where hand counts are done instead. If the small sampling is any indication, a statewide study would likely reveal that voting machines failed many times during the 2008 Presidential Primary across the entire state.
…
The paper ballots cast by 80% of the state’s voters have never been examined by anyone to determine the mechanical vote-counting accuracy. The computer counting of those ballots is overseen by a single, private company which is routinely granted extraordinary access to the systems, and interviews with a number of state officials indicate they all seem to have different understandings of what, if any, rules exist to regulate that access…
Just like New Hampshire, Connecticut purchases our optical scanners from LHS Associates and outsources the programming of our elections and the maintenance of our election equipment to LHS.
Recounts: Some Good News. Some Not So Good News.
Update: 1/11/2008 I have scanned in the actual report of the New Canaan recount sent to the Secretary of the State’s Office. Read the full report <here> the critical information provided by the Head Moderator is:
Totals were the same as the original count or close with the exception of Paul Foley (-31 votes) [MINUS 31]. An assistant registrar, a registrar, and I independently recounted (again) all tally sheets and totals for the recanvass and the tapes’ data from the tabulator print-outs on the moderator’s report for the 11/06/07 returns finding no error. The cause of the variance of Foley versus the other six candidates is unknown.
In other words the machine counted 31 votes more than the paper indicated. Perhaps we can say a lot of things but we cannot say that “the machines counted perfectly or accurately”. We could say “the machines counted every vote (and then some)”.
Original Post 1/4/2008:
Continue reading “Recounts: Some Good News. Some Not So Good News.”
Doth The Courant Protest Too Much?
Perhaps there is one thing worse than a voting system we cannot trust, outsourced, and unaudited. It is a media we cannot trust, downsized, outsourced, bent only on profits, oligarchical, and failing to actually do the work necessary to do the research and reporting necessary for democracy.
Updates:
Brad Friedman defends us all against false accusations <read>
Sometimes its politically correct to believe the exit polls <read>
NH Secretary of State’s Press Release On Recount
Starting 1/16: <read>
Dennis Kucinich statement: <read>
Oberman + Rush Holt, Excellent Video <watch>
Will the recount be satisfactory? Questions raised <read>
Perhaps there is one thing worse than a voting system we cannot trust, outsourced, and unaudited. It is a media we cannot trust, downsized, outsourced, bent only on profits, oligarchical, and failing to actually do the work necessary to do the research and reporting necessary for democracy.
As I have written on Englehart’s Comments at the Courant:
It seems from the Courant articles and editorial yesterday, and now this cartoon, that the machines are infallible and the past proven accuracy of polls is completely disregarded.
The cartoon should be showing the Crystal Ball as a Diebold optical scanner and a trusting media expressing complete faith in its unchecked results.
There are legitimate questions about the discrepancy between the polls and the machines. The way to resolve these questions is not through faith, but through science by actually counting the paper.
There is no proof the machines were inaccurate. There is no proof the polls are inaccurate. What there is, is an absence of solid investigation to give us confidence.
Yesterday we had a flurry in the Courant all focused on the idea that the polls were wrong. Two articles, the lead editorial, an op-ed, and four letters to the editor:
Big Loser In N.H. Race: The Pollsters <read> Where with no evidence arguments are developed to explain the discrepancies in the polls – except any acknowledgement of the possibility that the machines did not count accurately.
Clinton’s ‘Cry’ Resounds in Presidential Campaign <read> Where the argument that it was Clinton’s crying that moved the voters.
Editorial: Only Pollsters Are Upset <read> Confirming the case made in the earlier articles. Surprisingly the Courant ignores all the voting advocates that are concerned with the lack of auditing of the machines and the unanswered questions. I would say we are not surprised at the lack of investigation yet we are more than concerned with the state of election integrity <read> <read> and the media’s rush to judgement.
Letters to the Editor <read> Four letters to the editor, in their own box in the print edition serve to reinforce the same theme.
Op-Ed: Is U.S. Ready For Obama <read> An op-ed, more than hinting that the voters in N.H. are racist and lied to the pollsters to cover that up.
Remember that the Courant Editorial Board has a reputation to keep. They must stick to their earlier claim that “So far, no one appears to have figured out how to tamper with the machinesâ€. <read> Completely discrediting the vast majority of computer scientists, the Carter-Baker Commission, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Secretary of the State of California, and Dr. Shvartsman and his team at the UConn Voter Center.
Update: David Lindorf article <read>
Jonathan Simon, an attorney and co-founder of the group Election Defense Alliance, says that the vote discrepancies between machine and hand counts in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary are troubling, and defy easy explanation.
“The trouble is, whenever you have a surprise result in an election, and it runs counter to the polls, the media always say the problem is the polling, not the counting.” But he adds, “The thing is, these things always work in one direction-in favor of the more conservative candidate, and that defies the law of quantum mechanics.”
Greenwich Complains: Democracy Too Much Work. Too Expensive.
We often hear election officials and politicians lamenting the lack of participation in Democracy, especially in Connecticut. We also hear that our late primary leaves us out of the process of selecting the Presidential candidates. Secretary Bysiewicz, to the appreciation of many, has led the charge to move our primary to February from March.
Not so in Greenwich, where the registrars seem to be growing weary of paying the price and baring the burdens of Democracy, aggravated by frustration in finding willing help wintering in town:
Continue reading “Greenwich Complains: Democracy Too Much Work. Too Expensive.”
Comparing Voting Computers To Electric Meters
We often hear voting computers compared to ATMs. We have debunked< the notion that Voting Computers can be trusted like ATMs. Today an article by the Courant's consumer watchdog, George Gombossy, Once Again Meter Madness, has me considering how Connecticut’s Voting Computers and Electric Meters are the same and different.
Update: Courant Editorial calls for Independent Audit <read>
We often hear voting computers compared to ATMs. We have debunked the notion that Voting Computers can be trusted like ATMs. Today an article by the Courant’s consumer watchdog, George Gombossy, Once Again Meter Madness, has me considering how Connecticut’s Voting Computers and Electric Meters are the same and different.
I suggest reading Gombossy’s article 1st and then returning here for the comparison: <read>
Same: Voting computers and electric meters are complex pieces of equipment that the ordinary citizen and voting official do not understand.
Different: The case of an electric meter is often transparent with a counter you can read that records usage by the customer. Voting computers have internal meters controlled by software that nobody can see or read as votes are accumulated.
Same: Both are sealed with tamper evident seals.
Different: Meter seals are there to keep the customer from stealing electricity. Voting Computer seals are there to keep insiders from stealing democracy.
Same: Meters are read and audited by employees of the electric company that is charged (no pun intended) with charging customers accurately. Voting computers are read and audited by election officials charged with running elections with integrity.
Same: When their electric meters are audited, the customer may be restricted to standing at a distance which precludes the actual observation of the function of the meter. When voting computers are audited the public may be restricted to standing at a distance which precludes the actual observation of the marks on the ballots being counted and the results being tabulated.
Different: The Courant’s watchdog has spent several columns investing and bringing the important issue of electric meter accuracy to the attention of the public. The Courant’s editorial page has, in the face of contrary evidence, touted the accuracy of our voting computers.
Different: The Attorney General is calling for independent testing of a suspect electric meter that has passed two tests by the electric utility. The Secretary of the State, some registrars, and at least one State Representative are considering calling for the elimination of manual recounts of our voting computers, even as some of those recounts and audits show differences in the voting computer results and the manual hand count of the voters intent.
Same: Just because many electric meters are tested and work, it does not mean that all electric meters will work correctly all the time. Just because many voting computers are tested and work, it does not mean that all voting computers will work correctly all the time.
Different: When your electric meter does not work, you get an odd, suspect, transparent bill that can be a trigger to you or the electric company to look for an explanation. When your voting computer flips votes, unless it is audited carefully, nobody will ever know.
Different: All electric meters of the same model are the same unless there is a mechanical flaw in one meter. Voting computers are programmed separately for each election, each district, and each race – each is a unique opportunity for error or fraud involving many voting computers.
Stamford Times: Advantages of new voting machines uncertain
Fortunato said it is too early to tell whether the new machines will save their owners money. Ballots for the optical scan machines cost 50 cents each but older model lever-action machines required costly maintenance.
“I think maybe at the end of next year, after you have the primary in August and election in November, you’d be able to determine was this more costly,” said Fortunato. “I don’t think you’d be able to do that right now.”
This article sets the complete wrong context and criteria: Is the paper cost of optical scan cheaper or more costly than paper for lever machines or DRE (touch screen) voting machines?
The voting machines and the entire voting system is worth nothing unless it provides integrity and confidence that the intention of the voters will be carried out. Cost of election administration per ballot? approximately $3.00; cost of the last Senate campaign? approximately $40 per ballot; cost of one mailing from your State Senator or Representative? approx $1.00; Cost of sufficient audits to protect our vote? $0.25; Value of preserving our right to choose our leaders? Priceless. <read the article>
Audit 54% of the Vote?
Last Monday, with less than 90 percent of the vote counted and the opposition leading by just 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent, President Chavez congratulated his opponents on their victory. They had defeated his proposed constitutional reforms, including the abolition of term limits for the presidency.
… An extremely large random sample – about 54 percent – of the paper ballots are counted and compared with the electronic tally.
Venezuela Is Not Florida by Mark Weisbrot <read>
TalkNationRadio: Memory Card Junk Data and LHS Replacement – Integrity of Testing Procedures in Doubt
UConn is charged with testing a random sample of memory cards sent to registrars to be used in the election. If the actual cards used are replacements sent by LHS after the random card is sent to UConn, then there is no guarantee that the cards tested by Dr. Shvartsman were the same as those used in the election.
Once again Dori Smith presents significant information. Memory card failures are not just a Florida phenomenon. <listen>
Alex Shvartsman of the University of Connecticut’s Voting Research Team joins us to discuss his findings of “junk data†on memory cards delivered to the polls for the November 6, 2007 State and Municipal Election. The team will release their report on the memory card failures shortly.
Perhaps even more disturbing is instances uncovered in Dori’s work that indicate widespread failures during pre-election testing. Although its a small sample it indicates that problems may be much higher than those in Florida: