Our Editorials | CTVotersCount.org

Common Sense: The good, bad, and ugly secret ballot

We often take for granted the idea of the secret ballot. One alternative to the secret vote is the public vote. Sometimes we would prefer a public vote, sometimes it is necessary,

Note: This is then ninth post in an occasional series on Common Sense Election Integrity, summarizing, updating, and expanding on many previous posts covering election integrity, focused on Connecticut. <next> <previous>

We often take for granted the idea of the secret ballot. We see elections in other countries with people putting a folded ballot into a ballot box. We go into a voting booth and want our privacy. Some want to conceal their vote from relatives, friends, employers, fellow union members, or church members. Yet there are alternatives and sometimes we want them, sometimes they are necessary.

Researching the history of the secret ballot, in The Hidden History of the Secret Ballot, a couple of years ago, I was surprised to learn:

It was implemented in the U.S. generally after the Civil War
It was implemented for partisan reasons – to suppress the black vote, under the assumption it would hamper the illiterate from voting.
There is also the tradition of the New England Town Meeting with voters standing or raising their hands to vote.

This year we have fought hard to protect the secret vote in Connecticut, yet not for partisan reasons. It has several benefits:

It keeps votes from being bought, sold, or intimidated – prior to the Civil War votes were regularly bought and voters under peer and other pressures to vote in particular ways.
It helps the losers accept the election result as the actual will of the people.

One alternative to the secret vote is the public vote. Sometimes we would prefer a public vote, sometimes it is necessary:

Our representatives in the Legislature, Congress, and most public bodies vote in public. Not so long ago, committees in Congress voted in secret. Members could tell both sides of the public and lobbyists that they agreed with them and it was ‘others’ who voted the wrong way, blocked, fixed, or promoted legislation. Without a public vote we would have no idea how our elected officials actually voted. No way to hold them individually to account.
Where votes are proportional, they need to be recorded and verified by ownership. Examples include stockholder votes or condo associations where some votes are based on ownership proportions.
A public vote is much easier to verify. After every close election we hear charges by the losing side or their supporters than a particular vote was incorrectly counted – by a candidate or party in Connecticut – or a government official unhappy with the declared winner in another country. Sometimes those charges may be true. In every case it reduces the trust in the process and in democracy.
On the other hand, a public vote can also lead to charges of payments or intimidation deciding the election.

The Connecticut Constitution gives us the right to the secret vote. In considering the Constitutional Amendment this year, we note that it represents a third alternative: A semi-secret vote, if anything a worse alternative than either a secret vote or a public vote with the disadvantages of each. It would allow a special, very vulnerable class of voters, deployed military, to waive their right that their vote be secret – a right we claim is not theirs, but every voters’ right that everyone’s vote be secret. It would have none of the advantages of a public vote, since nobody knows if the soldiers votes are known, only perhaps, a few insiders may know. There would be no public verification, even for the soldier.

One final example. Last year we had a petition circulated in our condo complex to ask the Board to rescind a vote to remove part of a border fence. It became very hot issue. Over two-thirds of the residents signed the petition. The contingent in favor of removing the fence charged that many people were intimidated in signing the petition, others mislead, and others did not know what they were signing. There probably were some cases where each of those concerns were justified. We have had similar changes in every public vote. There are two issues: 1) What would be the actual free choice of the majority? 2) How can the losers accept the result? The answer is to actually conduct a secret vote – yet it must be in a way that everyone trusts the process.

Election Day Registration: Be prepared for lines and dissapointment

Insanity:
1) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
– Albert Einstein
2) doing something different from what has been done over and over and expecting the same result. – The Land of [un]Steady Habits

Maybe not this year, but sometime soon, in a high interest election, we will have a huge turn-out for Election Day Registration, and many voters and candidates disappointed at 8:00pm.

Insanity:
1) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
– Albert Einstein
2) doing something different from what has been done over and over and expecting the same result. – The Land of [un]Steady Habits

On Election Day, next Tuesday, Connecticut inaugurates Election Day Registration (EDR). Election Day Registration has be successfully employed for years in several states, with increased turnout and without significant fraud. Unfortunately, we are trying our own version, expecting the same results:

Other states have done EDR in polling places, essentially accepting the voters word that they have not voted elsewhere, under stiff penalties for fraud after the fact. Presumably, very few would risk penalties for voting illegally – the challenge is to get voters to vote in the first place.
Connecticut requires them to go to a central location and for officials to actually register them on the spot. Plus if they are already registered in Connecticut, in the name of fraud protection, we call the other town and wait ten minutes for a call-back if they have previously voted. It is a time consuming process, even if there are sufficient lines to handle peak volume and the state’s central voter registration system performs under such stress.

We seem to be of two or three minds:

We expect the same results as other states: A 5%-8% increase in turnout.
Without the experience of other states: That turn-out increase comes with the work of 20% to 30% election day registrations. So we expect and prepare for a maximum of around 5% registrations on election day.
We judge that very few will register on election day. We look at past experience with the Presidential Ballot, where unregistered voters could go to Town Hall and only vote for President, it a state where it usually does not make much difference. (Ignoring the huge turn-out at the last minute in 2012 in New Haven and Hartford, and the huge lines we saw then, in a considerably less time intensive process)

CTVotersCount Opinions/Warnings:

We have been against this law since we first read the versoin proposed to the legislature in 2010. We are in favor of Election Day Registration based on success and safety in other states – but not this way.

It will likely start slow this year, with few potential voters aware of it. For the most part, this is a low interest, low turnout election. In the long run we predict, our results and work will likely ramp up to about half the levels of other states that make it convenient – on average across the state.
Yet some year there will be a huge turnout, based on last minute voter excitement, a close race, perhaps coupled with party/candidate activity on Election Day. – especially in large towns with huge voter turn-over and many unregistered citizens. There is even that potential this year in New Haven and Bridgeport.
We will know better after this year, but a single line can handle at most 10 to 15 voters in an hour. What if 1000 voters show up in some town between 7:00 and 7:30, that would require 67 lines!!! – Assuming there were no citizens in line already at 7:00.

There is one more issue in this unproven, almost unmanageable scheme:

The Secretary of the States Office has procedures that, unlike polling places, those in line at 8:00pm cannot register.
Worse, officials have control over who and how many register: Anyone not registered by 8:00pm, according to procedures issued by the Secretary of the State cannot register. Officials at each local EDR location can effect who that last person is – officials running the election determine in advance the number of lines, which can limit the total number of people who can register – favoring the party, expected to have fewer election day hopefuls.
Worse, likely a civil rights issue in statewide elections, our understanding is that the law will not be applied equally across the State. Some officials believe that people in line at 8:00 should be allowed to register and vote. Since the Secretary’s procedures are not enforceable they are presumably free to interpret the law that way.

Maybe not this year, but sometime soon, in a high interest election, we will have a huge turn-out for Election Day Registration, and many voters and candidates disappointed at 8:00pm.

Hartford: Democracy is worth voting NO on question 3. Don’t be misled.

We do not use the word “misleading” lightly. We have three problems with the latest Couranrt Editorial, in addition to the other issues we have been articulating over the the the years. As we have said many times, we have a concern, a criticism, and an alternative proposal.

No system is perfect. Let us remember, the problems come when there is a close highly contested election, where the checks and balances are critical –That is why Hartford voters should not tolerate this change.

Elections are critical. Do not vote for a single appointed registrar.

On Tuesday voters in Hartford will vote on three changes to the Charter. The third question:

Ballot Question No. 3
Shall the electors of the City of Hartford approve and adopt the revisions to chapter III. $7 pertaining to the specific duties [second sentence of $7(A)], Operational Standards [$7(B)], training an certification [$7(B)91] and appointment of the Registrars of Voters [$7(C)]?

The proposed Charter (page 7) would:

If permitted by General Statues the Registrars of Voters shall be appointed by the City Council to serve for an indefinite term.

Also it would require:

the Registrars of Voters and any deputy or permanent assistants, upon no more that one hundred and eighty (180) Days following hiring, shall participate at the next scheduled session regarding any certification program for Registrars of Voters, as set forth in the General Statues in order to obtain certification by the Secretary of the State; or in the event, there is no such program any continuing education programs offered by national organizations or associations pertaining to local election administration.

Let us consider some implications that might not be readily apparent:

The change would allow the partisan majority of the Hartford Town Council to appoint a single Registrar, qualified or not, at any time. Including right before, after, and between the election and certification or recanvass.
They could appoint any number of Registrars, one, two, three or more.
The current Council would likely appoint a Democrat to oversee Republican and Working Families primaries.
There currently is no state certification program for Registrars of Voters
The Registrars, Deputies, and Assistants are not required to be certified, ever. They are only required to “participate in” a program. The Charter proposal does not require Certification or even completing an entire program.

There would be every opportunity for partisan control of elections and thus Democracy by a single party bent on maintaining its control of all aspects of City government. Less oversight and less Democracy.

Why would anyone but a foe of Democracy support such a move?

Perhaps if they were [mis]led by the Hartford Courant Editorial Board into voting for this change under the false premises that the current law mandates unnecessary expenses in unneeded excess. The Editorial Board has been spearheading this change since before the third party Registrar was first elected:

Sept 2008: Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars
Nov 2008: CT: Courant: “How Stupid Is This?” (not our words, the Courant’s)
Aug 2009: Hartford: Wasting $ As Usual (Sometimes checks and balances are worth it)
Oct 2011: Too Many Registrars? Or Too Little Thought?
Oct 2012: A Tale in two Courant Editorials
July 2013:Well intended misstep on Connecticut’s horizon?
Two or three Registrars is not a guarantee, especially in primaries:
Mar 2010: RoundUp: Registrar Error or Election Fraud? – Saving $$$ or Empowering Voters? Further, could we expect a Registrar appointed by one party to effectively administer a competing party’s primary – or expect public trust and credibility?

And in today’s edition we have another misleading editorial: Hartford Charter Changes Worth Voting On <read>

We support these changes, and enthusiastically support a proposal to end the city’s having three registrars of voters.

An anachronistic state law says that if a third-party candidate running for registrars beats one of the major-party candidates, the major-party candidate gets to be a registrar anyway. Since 2008,when a Working Families candidate defeated a Republican, the city has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on three registrars and deputies.

The charter changes would allow the city to appoint “one or more” trained, nonpartisan registrars. It would require a small change in state law, which hopefully will be forthcoming.

We do not use the word “misleading” lightly. We have three problems with this Editorial, in addition to the other issues we have been articulating with the proposal:

It is misleading to say appoint ‘trained’ Registrars because a) The proposal clearly states that the appointments can occur before any training. b) There is no state certified training program. and c) It depends on what you mean by ‘trained’, as the law only requires participation in training.
Since multiple Registrars can still be appointed, there is no guarantee that the Courant’s touting of savings by having only one would be realized. And even one can spend as freely as three, especially with no counter balance.
Finally, calling for a non-partisan Registrar, does not make it so, especially if, that person is appointed by a partisan body.

As we have said many times, we have a concern, a criticism, and an alternative proposal:

Concern: Having three registrars in Hartford has a purpose and is reasonable, and less risky than the Charter proposal.

Why have two registrars? It is a system of checks and balances. Each can watch the other and watch out for the interests of their party.

But, what about Hartford with a weak Republican Party and a substantial Working Families Party? For the same reasons most towns have a Republican and a Democratic Registrar, under the current system, Hartford needs a Democratic and a Working Families Registrar.

Why then have three, if the Republicans are a non-factor in Hartford? Because Republicans are a factor in Connecticut.

We had a close race for Governor in 2010. It all came down to Bridgeport. What if it all came down to Hartford and there was no Republican Registrar – who would trust the result, everyone would blame the Registrars, if there were only the Democrat and Working Families.

The Charter proposal would have one registrar, appointed by a Council Majority. Good grief! Unlike the position of Town Clerk – there are no official qualifications for Registrar – no Certification of Registrars in Connecticut.

Who would trust an election run by a single partisan appointed official?

Criticism of the Argument for the Costs of Three

Hartford Can Be Creative! Beyond Hartford there are 168 towns with two elected registrars, each! Many are very part-time. They fit the registrar and staff hours to the job to be accomplished.

Hartford can do the same thing. If it takes two full time registrars, two full time deputies, and some Assistants, then make the Registrars part-time, say 2/3s. If you still want three full time Deputies, then cut the number of Assistants and make the Deputies salaries half way between Deputies and Assistants.

Unfortunately, with only one appointed registrar, creativity could result in higher costs!

Alternative: Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize

The current system is not perfect – no system is! What would we recommend to the State?

Do for elections what we have done for Probate, for the same reasons and benefits – Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize. Consider best practices from other states.

Regional, professional, election administrators and staff. Not fifty regions like Probate. Perhaps 5-7 voting regions in each Congressional District. You want each region big enough to support at least five to seven full time staff, creating a career path of experienced deputies.

There is no perfect system. I would like to see a Blue Ribbon Commission formed to study best practices in other states. Perhaps municipalities should still elect UNPAID registrars and have UNPAID Election Boards that guide and audit the work of professional regional election administrators.

Let us remember, the problems come when there is a close highly contested election, where the checks and balances are critical –That is why Hartford voters should not tolerate this change.

Elections are critical. Do not vote for a single appointed registrar.

Common Sense: Public Transparency and Verifiability

In our last post in this series, Why Should Audits Be Independent, we ended with “When it comes to elections, are independent audits sufficient? Not really. We need public transparency and verifiability as well.” In this post, we will address transparency and verifiability.

Note: This is the eighth post in an occasional series on Common Sense Election Integrity, summarizing, updating, and expanding on many previous posts covering election integrity, focused on Connecticut. <next> <previous>

According to Wikipedia:

Transparency, as used in science, engineering, business, the humanities and in a social context more generally, implies openness, communication, and accountability. Transparency is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed.

According to Miriam Webster:

Verifiable: Capable of being verified: Verified: to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of <verify the claim>

What we mean by Publicly Transparent and Verifiable is that members of the public can actually determine the election or audit outcome because the process is transparent in a way that allows the public to verify the result.

This goes beyond a call for independent audits. Independent audits require that we trust the auditors. Certainly an independent audit is more trustworthy than a non-independent audit, which in turn is seemingly better than no audit at all. Perhaps not. No audit at all, clearly provides little confidence the process beyond “trust me, and trust all officials in their integrity, in their competence, and in securing the process”.

Yet, a non-independent audit can provide a false sense of confidence. We can never be completely sure, even of an independent audit – the auditors may be biased, incompetent, sloppy, or compromised. Far fetched? We are not so sure, given the history of transgressions in all walks of live. Elections are especially vulnerable because of the central role they play in democracy and the requirement of the secret ballot, making end to end verification impossible.

But if audits, recounts, and elections are publicly transparent and verifyable, there is an alternative! Members of the public (and candidates) can judge the process and determine the results themselves. When it comes to audits and recounts, for hand counting, the public should be provided an opportunity to clearly see and verify,:

each ballot and vote on the ballot as it is being classified
that votes are correctly classified
that votes and ballots are counted correctly by counting teams in batches
that the totals are the valid sums of numbers determined by counting teams in batches
that consolidated reports are based on the numbers determined in audited or recounted districts

This is really the minimum for hand count audits and recounts. For audits and recounts (and elections) to be fully trusted, then the election day process must also be publicly transparent and verifiable and the chain-of-custody needs to also be publicly transparent and verifiable. Let us leave the voting process and the chain-of-custody for another day.

Common Sense: Why should audits be Independent?

Why do we need independent audits for elections just as we have for other business and government functions?

Note: This is the seventh post in an occasional series on Common Sense Election Integrity, summarizing, updating, and expanding on many previous posts covering election integrity, focused on Connecticut. <previous> <next>

In the last few weeks, since the revelations of Edward Snowdon, we have seen the limits of Congressional “Oversight”, when a small number of legislators have access to the “facts” of the implementation of the Patriot Act, FISA, and NSA. But these facts seem to be “we assure you we are not doing anything wrong”, “our warrants are reviewed by a Court (with the facts of the warrants being secret, and the Court apparently rubber stamping every proposed warrant)” etc.

This situation is not much different from audits that lack independence. One of the requirements of the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits is Independent Audits.

The authority and regulation of post-election audits should be independent of officials who conduct the elections. The actual work of post-election audits may be best performed by the officials who conduct the elections and their designees.

a. The independence of authority and regulation may be satisfied from resources inside or outside state government.

b. The actual work of post-election audits—i.e. the handling and counting of ballots and reporting the results—may be best performed by the officials who conduct the elections.

We do not find that Connecticut’s Post-Election Audits meet that criteria, since the authority and regulation of our audits are under the control of the Secretary of the State who is also the Chief Elections Official and responsible for selection and approval of election equipment in the State. What we have seen from Official Post-Elecction Audit reports is the dismissal of all differences between audit counts and machine counts as “human error”, largely without investigation. An independent audit should be expected to provide a thorough investigation of questionable results, rather than providing excuses.

We do not audit our own taxes and send the results in to the IRS. They audit our taxes and expect us to be able to justify random items. The IRS does not attribute differences in their information or calculations to their own counting errors! Similarly businesses often have internal independent auditors and external independent auditors to protect the interests of the shareholders. It does not always work but it often does. Given human nature, we could hardly expect non-independent auditors to approach being equally effective.

Other areas of government conduct independent audits often uncovering serious problems, like recent internal audits in the City of Hartford: <read>

The audit, by Chief Auditor H. Patrick Campbell for the city’s Internal Audit Commission, focused on the revenue management unit of the city finance department, which is responsible for the oversight of general fund revenue due the city, about $550 million this year. The auditors found a number of problems, including:

• Poor control of lease agreements, rental properties and other revenue-producing arrangements. For example, one city parking lease had not been renegotiated since 2000, for reasons that are unclear, the auditors report.

Lease issues are troubling because they were identified in an earlier audit, which supposedly spurred corrective action. The position of asset manager was created to oversee and manage leases, and a lease, licensing and contract database was to be created.

In this review, the auditors discovered that the asset manager position was eliminated and the database was never completed. Eliminating positions that bring in revenue is eating the seed corn.

• 151 bounced checks totaling more than $392,000. More than half of these checks had not been followed up and resolved. Nor was it clear whether late or insufficient-fund fees were being charged. Many fees and charges are handled by individual departments; the auditors recommend they be centralized. You can’t have people bouncing checks at city hall and getting away with it.

• Missing documentation. The department is supposed to keep track of actual vs. budgeted revenues, to determine what might be causing any discrepancies. The finance department did reviews, apparently, but “documentation to support the reviews and follow-up performed is not maintained on file,” the auditors wrote.

Another example comes form the Connecticut Office of State Ethics audit of Statements of Financial Interests filed by state legislators and other officials.<read> It serves as an example of a positive report, yet finds exceptions, and areas for improvement.

Would we really expect a report as critical as the one in Hartford if it was done by the managers and staff of the department making these significant errors? Would we expect legislators and employees to correctly evaluate and report on the accuracy of their own disclosure statements? Would we trust the results of a positive report written by the individuals involved? Would we expect them to find the suggestions for improvement?

That is why we need independent audits for elections just as we have for other business and government functions.

But when it comes to elections, are independent audits sufficient? Not really. We need public transparency and verifiability as well. The subject of a future post.

Military Justice, the NSA, and Independent Election Audits

Recently there were highly publicized hearings in Washington, D.C. on the subject of rape of sexual harassment in the U.S. Military and the military’s failure to make progress in reducing incidents and induce individuals to actually report crimes. One aspect of that is the fact that commanding officers have the responsibility/authority to reduce charges or even pardon the alleged or convicted perpetrators.

The senior officers were concerned for discipline if an independent authority were made responsible for cases involving rape or sexual harassment. They also said that if a soldier had a very good record of valor, that should be taken into account. Let me explain why an independent authority would be a good idea. The basic reason is that an authority that is not independent can often let self interest get in the way of justice.

I learned that lesson vividly when I was in the Army, serving in Korea during the Vietnam War. As Company Clerk I was seldom directly involved in military justice. A couple of times I helped draft some charges in minor instances and once helped transcribe interrogations as part of an investigation. But in many cases I was privy to the operation of the system on the surface and scuttlebutt behind the scenes. For the most part the system worked reasonably. Sometimes it resulted in trumped-up charges, while in other cases significant crimes or errors were completely overlooked. Why? One reason was that enlisted members often knew of errors and transgressions, including sexual exploits, of others including senior officers. Without any stated threats it seemed that nobody was interested in disciplining those that knew too much, only in helping them avoid problems. Perhaps some of those who avoid discipline today is less for valor than knowledge.

That is why we need independent post-election audits, not overseen by the registrars and Secretary of the State responsible for conducting elections. That is why we need transparency and public verification of elections. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time in executing their responsibilities. Most are innocuous, some result in vulnerabilities, and others are intentional transgressions or fraud – from stealing elections, impeding or assisting candidates in ballot access, to lucrative contracts, to cutting corners. In reality, most employees know of some of their bosses and colleagues skeletons and vice-verse, in the military, in business, and government. Whistle blowers can help but transparency and independence are much reliable.

Lets add the same applies for the NSA revelations of Edward Snowdon. We cannot be sure how extensive the problem of access to information actually is. But there are huge limits on the “trust me” model that says there are limits on how the information is used. Human nature tells that if someone can get at the data it will be used for whatever purpose the person desires, to whatever benefit that person desires, at least in some cases. Say what one will about the low level education or rank of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowdon, they had access to huge amounts of information – they and many others have that access. It does not take that much expertise if you are given the keys to the information vault – we and the Congress are in no position to know what the actual access is.

Sometimes what sounds convincing and workable, is not. We need independent military justice, independent transparent election verification, and independent transparent information security.

OP-ED: Voting Requires Vigilance. Popular Isn’t Always Prudent

Our Op-Ed published yesterday by CTNewsJunkie, outlining the integrity risks of the National Popular Vote Compact, now being considered by the Connecticut Legislature, for the fourth time since 2007.

Our Op-Ed published yesterday by CTNewsJunkie, outlining the integrity risks of the National Popular Vote Compact, now being considered by the Connecticut Legislature, for the fourth time since 2007: Voting Requires Vigilance. Popular Isn’t Always Prudent <read>

by Luther Weeks | Jan 21, 2013 7:16pm
Posted to: Opinion

One third of Americans vote on machines, without the paper ballots we use in Connecticut. Our president is chosen based on faith in those unverifiable machines, vote accounting, and unequal enfranchisement in 50 independent states and the District of Columbia.

In 2000, we witnessed the precarious underpinnings of this state-by-state voting system combined with the flawed mechanism of the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Accounting Act. The Supreme Court ruled votes could not be recounted in Florida, because even that single state did not have uniform recount procedures. What could possibly make this system riskier?

The National Popular Vote Compact now being considered in states, including Connecticut, would have such states award their electoral votes to a purported national popular vote winner. The Compact would take effect once enough states signed on, equaling more than one-half the Electoral College. Then the President elected would be the one with the most purported popular votes. Sounds good and fair at first glance. Looking at the touted benefits and none of the risks many legislators, advocates, and media influence the public to make the Compact popular in some polls. Popular is not always prudent. Voting requires vigilance.

The Compact, cobbled on an already precarious system, would exacerbate its flaws, adding additional risks. Currently errors, voter suppression, and fraud can only sway the result in the few swing states. With the Compact errors, suppression, and fraud in every state would count toward the popular vote total.

Compact supporters overlook and proponents befog the reality that there would be no official national popular vote total available in time for states to choose their electors. The only official popular vote total is the sum of the Certificates of Attainment sent by each state to the national Archivist. They cannot be used for choosing electors, since certificates are not required to be sent until seven days after electors are chosen and are not required to arrive in Washington until fifteen days after the electors must be chosen. Supreme Court decisions in 2000 and 1876 stress that these dates must be strictly followed.

Even if the totals could be obtained in time from each state, they would not be audited and could not be recounted. Compact proponents obfuscate this by describing how some states routinely perform audits or recounts. They conveniently ignore that about one-third of the states do not have audits and recounts; many voting machines cannot be audited; state recounts are based on close-vote margins within a state, so even in those states, recounts would not be triggered by a close national vote. Just as critical, there would be insufficient time for recounts or audits given the strict Constitutional deadlines. The Supreme Court would likely reject any recount going beyond state borders, using the same reasoning used to reject the 2000 Florida recount, as insufficiently uniform.

Additional legal challenges and maneuvers under the Compact would also be available for partisans bent on sending any reasonably close election to the Supreme Court or Congress. States not signing the Compact could delay certifying and transmitting results until the latest deadline. Partisans could dispute results in their states or sue their Secretary of State for using uncertified results from other states, delaying reporting or negating the state’s Electoral College vote.

Nothing is available, but legal challenges, even in Compact states, to deter a future partisan Secretary of State from failing to follow the Compact.

Supporters and opponents debate other contentions for and against the Compact, most of which are subjective and speculative. e.g. Which is more ideal, the current Federal system or the popular vote? Would small states or large states benefit more from the Compact? Where would candidates campaign and join with PACs in media buys? How equal would every voter actually be, given the state-by-state system of voter enfranchisement, disenfranchisement, suppression, and registration?

An accurate, fair, and credible popular vote requires a uniform, workable national voting system we can trust. That is, a system with uniform enfranchisement, paper ballots, effective audits, and national recounts, enforceable and provably enforced as a prerequisite to a considering a national popular vote.

Luther Weeks is executive director of CTVotersCount.

Bold Steps Beyond Integrity To Improve U.S. Elections

We complete our post-election series with some steps to improve elections beyond election administration and integrity: Campaign finance reform, media reform, and restoring the rule of law.

We complete our post-election series with some steps to improve elections beyond election administration and integrity, to complement our previous posts on steps for Connecticut, and steps for the U.S.

Campaign Finance Reform. Campaign finance has long been a detriment to the fairness of U.S. Elections, along with its close relative, high finance, high access lobbying. We have just seen the tip of the iceberg brought on by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Worse is yet to come, with candidate and corporate learning from each election cycle, with ever deeper penetration into state and local elections.

The current environment has a least three bad effects: Well financed candidates have a huge edge, almost a monopoly on getting on the ballot; they campaign and vote in alignment with their wealthy and corporate backers, rather then the majority of their constituents; officials spend an inappropriate amount of time on financing their campaigns, to the detriment of their duties.

The complete solution would seem to require a Constitutional Amendment not only addressing citizenship of Corporations, but also explicitly authorizing the regulation and limitation of campaign finance. Yet, there is more that needs to be done, and can be done now: The FEC should enforce the law prohibiting coordinating with campaigns; Congress should enact stronger disclosure provisions; the IRS should tax religious organizations that cross the line in endorsing candidates; Congress can enact public financing with laws such as the Fair Elections Now Act.

Media Reform. We find this the most important basic and bold requirement for many reforms. Perhaps if we had effective media reform, the people would have the information to elect better candidates despite financing. Perhaps elected officials would act more in the public interest when the public and officials had access to more robust and complete information on domestic issues and international affairs. Media reform would likely lead to election reform in all dimensions.

Media reform is a tough nut to crack, when the media establishment is itself part of the corporate establishment benefiting form the current system as do all corporate interests, plus benefiting directly from campaign advertising and corporate advertising. But media need not be limited to the media establishment, it does not have to be limited and choked by the corporate media model. For what is possible, what our Founders intended, and how to restore the media necessary for democracy, we suggest John Nichols’ book, The Death and Life of American Journalism.

Restore the Rule of Law. When laws are not enforced, selectively, or unequally enforced we lose the basis of democracy. We have mentioned campaign finance laws for the separation of “independent” groups from campaigns, and taxing the mixing of religion and endorsement, yet election laws need to be enforced. If laws are too complex to follow then we risk selective prosecution. With financial interests bankrolling campaigns is it any wonder that Wall Street has not been prosecuted? It should be. Laws should be enforced, especially those that are blatantly ignored, with disastrous results. We reference Glen Greenwald’s With Liberty and Justice for Some.

PS: Just yesterday, Greenwald provided another example of selective prosecution, which also impacts media freedom.

Basic and Bold Steps To Improve U.S. Elections

As we said for our Connecticut steps, this short list. We would be completely pleased if all of these reforms were addressed in the near term. There are many other possible and useful reforms.

We continue with National steps to complement steps for Connecticut. Basic steps that cost little, should almost be assumed. Bold steps that could transform the system, and transcend knee-jerk half steps.

Mandate Paper Ballot, Optically Scanned Nationwide, paying for the conversion. (BOLD). Paper ballots are easily auditable and recountable. Extend the Help America Vote Act to pay for the conversion. Paper ballots also have advantages in reducing long lines, economical equipment, and by definition provide for a system that works when power or equipment fails.

Mandate Independent Audits and Recounts. (BASIC). We audit almost every other government function independently. Why not the most basic democratic function. We could start with improved version of past “Holt Bills”.

Fix the 12th Amendment and Electoral Count Act. (BASIC) We just do not have a Presidential election system we can trust. We have seen the worst of it in 2000, 2004, our ancestors lived through it in 1876. It is past time to have a uniform, rational, predefined system for determining the President, without games and questions. Such a system would be one prerequisite for a national popular vote.

Pass and Enforce a Federal Right To Vote. (BASIC for any other democracy). Voters should have an equal right to vote from state to state. Who gets to vote should be the same everywhere. There should be reasonable and equitable access to voting. Government should bare some responsibility for a rational voter registration system. The Civil Rights Act has worked well for minorities in formerly discriminatory states – we need something similar for equal rational voting rights.

Prohibit Internet Voting, while Serving Military and Overseas Voters (BASIC) Internet, online, email, and fax voting should be outlawed until the Internet is safe for business, military, and government. The lack of safety is recognized in every other area. We need to assist military and overseas voters with online absentee applications, and ballots returnable in a single envelope. The Military needs to take responsibility to assure every member has the opportunity and support necessary to vote, if they so choose.

As we said for our Connecticut steps, this short list. We would be completely pleased if all of these reforms were addressed in the near term. There are many other possible and useful reforms.

Basic and Bold Steps To Improve Connecticut Elections

We offer the following short list of items for improvement without breaking the bank. Basic steps that cost little, should almost be assumed. Bold steps that could transform the system, and transcend knee-jerk half steps.

As we said last time, “There were many problems! Will we learn anything? Will be do anything? Will we help or aggregate the situation? …Next time it could be different…for better or for worse.” We offer the following short list of items for improvement without breaking the bank. Basic steps that cost little, should almost be assumed. Bold steps that could transform the system, and transcend knee-jerk half steps.

Do for Elections what we have done for Probate. (BOLD) Many of our problems are caused or aggravated by our archaic town by town two+ elected registrars system. Many improvements, reforms. and economy of scale are limited by this system (e.g. early voting, professionalization, and a strong ballot security). We would favor a system of regional civil service professional leaders, perhaps monitored by elected registrars. The starting point would be a blue-ribbon commission reviewing best practices from other states and recommending a comprehensive solution to Connecticut. The goals would be to Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize.

Avoid long lines caused by disasters, human failings, and unexpected turnout. (BASIC) There were three types of disaster that effected polling places this year, at least two in Connecticut, and an impending disaster looming. The causes were 1) unexpected turnout which should be a cause for celebration, but not for for celebrating causing upset voters or to propose knee-jerk solutions 2) Human failure to compute how many lines are needed and how to split them. 3) Storm related requirements to move polling places.What is needed is a standard maximum for the number of voters assigned to single checkin lines for various elections.Collapsing twenty-two polling places into nine is a reasonable thing, but failure to add a few more people to main additional checkin lines is poor economy.

The Presidential Ballot lines managed by Town Clerks, will be replaced by central Election Day Registration (EDR) added to the duties of Registrars. Connecticut’s version of EDR is much more involved than the Presidential Ballot and lightly specified in the law. Registrars and the Secretary of the State need to determine the staffing, equipment, and procedures necessary to serve the law and the public without long lines. The legislature should specify more details in the law (e.g. What exactly is an EDR Ballot? Is the EDR location a Polling Place? Could most EDR voters use a scanner and avoid the costly absentee counting process now required? Are those in line at 8:00 PM entitled to register and vote? What happens when a town does not respond in a timely manner to the legally required “immediate” response from another town?)The current law and model emergency plan provides no guidance in handling EDR when the state registration database or phone lines are unavailable. Contingencies need to be planned in advance and uniform statewide.

Fix the Post-Election Audits to actually provide confidence (BASIC). The audits can be improved without significant expense. Less or equal counting could be done, with better statistical confidence, and more comprehensive coverage. No ballots should be exempt from the audit, originally hand counted and centrally counted absentee ballots should be subject to audit. Standards should be set for determining when to investigate differences between audit and election counts. There is a need for better, standard procedures, and training in performing the audit, along with timely, independent reporting of results and oversight.

Automate Responsively, not Expensively.(Medium BOLD) We have the expensive Help America Vote Act, which was costly and only partially effective. We must avoid knee-jerk reaction. (e.g. calls for expensive Early Voting(*) to cure ling lines, which can be cured by a simple, economical incremental increase in checkin lines, while Florida and Ohio dramatically demonstrate that Early Voting is not guaranteed to be a cure.) We offer the following items:

Electronic Checkin connected via the internet to the voter registration database. This would improve the accuracy of checkin accounting, provide for faster cross-district transfers, and should have been a prerequisite to EDR, and provide for full polling place EDR. We caution that it will have initial and onging costs for equipment, registration system, and connections. There has to be enough equipment to cover the necessary lines as it does not speedup checking, along with paper backup for emergencies.

Electronic Results Returns and district Moderators Returns. The Secretary of the State has prototyped a system. It is a good start, yet Registrars logistical concerns need to be addressed. It should be made mandatory by law. It is not costly, but could greatly contribute to accuracy and transparency.

Automate Post-Election Audits. The technology is emerging as practical. It would provide much stronger audits, without the hassles for officials with hand counting. Costs need to be determined. It must be done in a way that provides public transparency and confidence. One more item that would be facilitated if the 169-town system went the way of the green-eye-shade.

This is a short list. We would be completely pleased if all of these reforms were addressed in the near term. Yet, we could and often do suggest many other reforms, some can be accomplished by the Secretary of the State, others by the Legislature. Here we have emphasized economical and strategic steps mostly in the hands of the Legislature.

(*) We do not oppose Early Voting. It can be done well and securely, and poorly. We do believe that to do it well and fairly in Connecticut would be very difficult in Connecticut while we have the 169-town independent election system. In any case, it is not economical.