Guest Post: Discrepancies in vote counts

The SOTS [Secretary of the State’s] reporting of election results appears to have improved since 2008. That year, many votes on the Working Families Party line went unreported or were lumped in with the counts on the Democratic line…

However, the SOTS or the town officials seem to have overlooked some votes for Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Marsh: in Bozrah and Shelton, the SOTS reports 0 votes while the Hartford Courant reports 27 and 198 respectively.

[CTVotersCount applauds David Bedell for his extensive efforts in checking results and encourage officials to correct the vote counts reported as official by the Secretary of the State and for his posting his report here. It is important that all votes be accurately reported for third parties because that is the basis for ballot access in future elections.]

This year, after some initial confusion over some towns (e.g., East Windsor), the WFP results are now on the SOTS website; at least, there are no zeros in the WFP column. However, the SOTS or the town officials seem to have overlooked some votes for Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Marsh: in Bozrah and Shelton, the SOTS reports 0 votes while the Hartford Courant reports 27 and 198 respectively.

[Some examples sent David sent earlier – Editor]

Shelton Votes For Governor

There appears to be an error in the election results for Governor published by the SOTS. For the town of Shelton, SOTS reports 0 votes for Tom Marsh (Independent). But the Shelton Town Clerk reports 198 votes for Marsh (see email pasted below):

—————————————-
> From: m.domorod@cityofshelton.org
> To: dbedellgreen@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: omitted election results for Shelton
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:22:53 -0500
>
>
>
> Mr. Bedell,
>
> Tom Marsh received the following votes in the City of Shelton:
>
> Districts 1 & 2 = 59 votes; Districts 3,4,5 & 6= 139 votes ; total of 198
> votes
>
>
> Margaret Domorod
> City/Town Clerk

Darien Votes for Comptroller

There appears to be an error in the election results for Comptroller published by the SOTS. For the town of Darien, SOTS reports 0 votes for Joshua Katz (Libertarian) and 0 votes for Hugh Dolan (Independent). But the Darien Town Clerk reports 66 votes for Joshua Katz and 70 votes for Hugh Dolan (see email pasted below):

—————————————-
> From: DRajczewski@darienct.gov
> To: dbedellgreen@hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:50:48 -0500
> Subject: RE: omitted election results for Darien
>
> Mr. Katz received 66 votes and Mr. Dolan received 70 votes.

CT Post: Recount shows widespread miscalculations

Given the circumstances I am not surprised that the Coalition found such differences. However, understanding how it happened does not justify complacency, it calls for appropriate action. Connecticut voters deserve a more accurate and resilient system. Democracy requires it.

Last week the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition completed the recount of all ballots in Bridgeport in conjunction with the Connecticut Post Newspaper, with the cooperation of the City of Bridgeport and its election officials.

Here are links to the CTPost’s coverage today, followed by my summary opinion:

Lead story: Recount shows widespread miscalculations <read>

If you cast a photocopied ballot in last month’s gubernatorial election in Bridgeport, there’s a 1 in 4 chance your vote was miscounted.

How we counted: How the recount was conducted <read>

How election day went: Diaries tell of election chaos <read>

Results in more detail: Bridgeport election recount – The totals <read>

Columnist Opinion: Time for Bridgeport’s Democratic registrar of voters to go <read>

An editorial: Voting process in need of reform <read>

Officials in Bridgeport and in Hartford need to take a look at the process. For one thing, the secretary of the state should have the authority to intervene in the case of, say, a municipality that has ordered an obviously inadequate number of ballots.

Wading through the bags of ballots and talking with the officials involved also hammered home the point that an election is a human endeavor, a relatively complex exercise run by people who are well-intentioned but just as susceptible to error, fatigue, frustration and anger as any of the rest of us.

In an ideal world, an election being the cornerstone of our way of doing things, it should be carried out with a nonpartisan professional at the helm and not left the sole responsibility of party loyalists like registrars of voters.

My Summary Opinion

I add my thanks to everyone involved: The Connecticut Post for its leadership, initiative, and support of the recount; the City of Bridgeport, especially the election officials for their open and friendly cooperation; the other Coalition members: The Connecticut League of Women Voters, Connecticut Common Cause, and The Connecticut Citizens Action Group; and most of all the fifty-six (56) citizens committed to democracy who volunteered over 115 full days to the project, on short notice, many taking 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 full days and more to contribute to this effort.

Time for Bridgeport’s Democratic registrar of voters to go

Bridgeport hearing expose issues beyond ballot shortages

“Training was not evident. Professionalism was not evident,”

Update: OnlyInBridgeport video of former GAE Chair, Rep Chris Caruso. Articulates the problems, possible solutions, and obstacles, including impeachment

Hartford Courant, AP coverage <read>

when she arrived at her polling place around 1:15 p.m., she found poll workers yelling at one another. She said she was handed a ballot that looked like a photocopy without any explanation.

“It made me feel very uneasy. Training was not evident. Professionalism was not evident,” she said.

Representative Chris Caruso, former Chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee once characterized our voting system as the “Wild West” was there:

State Rep. Chris Caruso, D-Bridgeport, was among those who called for the resignation of Sandi Ayala, the city’s Democratic registrar of voters…

Caruso said he believes many voters were disenfranchised on Election Day, discouraged from voting because they had to wait two or three hours for a ballot. He called on the U.S. Attorney to investigate what happened in Bridgeport and whether any criminal activity took place. A similar request was made by the state Republicans.

Some residents said they were embarrassed by the election fiasco, saying it’s the latest black eye for the city that has been besieged over the years by budget problems and a former mayor who went to prison on corruption charges.

Yet others spoke up for the registrars, saying they were overworked on Election Day, didn’t have enough help and face difficulty finding competent people to work at the polls once a year.

Update: More reporting from CTNewsJunkie <read>

Update: OnlyInBridgeport video of former GAE Chair, Rep Chris Caruso. Articulates the problems, possible solutions, and obstacles, including impeachment <view>

Editorial: Understand all the Symptoms, Explore the Options, Then Act

Editorials and legislators are already reacting and taking sides to solve the “ballot printing” problem.
It is critical to understand the entire scope of issues and inadequacies in all aspects of the election process; then review all the options, look for local best practices in Connecticut and explore what other states do well; then and only then develop a comprehensive cure. This is the common sense way to proceed, unfortunately it is hard work from start to implementation. Otherwise we are destined to react to one problem at a time, with one expensive, disruptive band-aid after another.

Background: Reacting to one symptom at a time

The problems in Bridgeport stem directly from a series of errors and faults. The specific details will likely come out in calmer times. They include a combination of:

Ordering an unjustifiably low number of ballots based on past history
No review of that order in the light of Obama’s visit and the predicted closeness of the election
Lack of awareness in polls and/or city hall of the pending lack of ballots
Lack of timely reaction to the pending and actual lack of ballots
Lack of detailed standards for handling pending and actual lack of ballots

Solutions also revolve around ballot printing. The obvious solutions to the “ballot printing” problem:

Legislating enough ballots for all voters plus some spares
Not leaving ballot printing to the judgment of local officials
Legislating a minimum based on a formula based on past similar elections
Formal procedures to initiate, obtain, and protect emergency ballots
State funding of ballot printing

Editorials and legislators are already reacting and taking sides e.g. <Editorial NH Register> <AP: Lawmakers will try to fix ballot problems>. We point out that printing 100% of ballots would average on the order of $500,000 a year over printing enough for expected voters plus a generous margin, while post-election audits average on the order of $120,000 per year.

We are seeing several even more wide ranging reactions triggered by the problem with ballots. They include changing from optical scan to more risky, unproven, and expensive solutions: Touch Screens (DREs) are expensive, lead to long lines, unauditable, risky, and expensive. Internet voting is unproven, expensive, unauditable, risky and expensive. Others include making the Secretary of the State an appointed official.

Editorial: Understand All The Symptoms, Explore Options, Then Act

Ballot printing is only one weakness in the current system. Other major weaknesses include, but are no means limited to:

Inadequate ballot security and chain of custody
Lack of standards and uniformity in all aspects of election management, especially ballot security, post-election audits, and recanvasses.
Inaccurate, unreliable, non-transparent accumulation of vote totals for certification which also are critical to determine recanvass levels, and ballot access for third parties
Inadequate training of and for election officials at all levels
Lack of oversight and inspection of compliance in all areas including, election management, ballot security, post-election audits, and vote accounting
Ambiguous, incomplete, hard to comprehend manuals, procedures and directives
Our laws have not been fully updated to reflect optical scanning and paper ballots. Overall there is ambiguity between the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of the State, Elections Enforcement, and the 339 registrars of voters

After the 2007 election, in early 2008 the General Administration and Elections Committee of the Legislature held five public hearings, one in each of our Congressional districts to understand issues with the first optical scan election. Yet little has changed. Perhaps it is time for more hearings covering a range of issues surrounding voting in Connecticut – not just in every district but also multiple hearings focused on various areas of election management.

It is critical to understand the entire scope of issues and inadequacies in all aspects of the election process; then review all the options, look for local best practices in Connecticut and explore what other states do well; then and only then develop a comprehensive cure. This is the common sense way to proceed, unfortunately it is hard work from start through implementation.

Otherwise we are destined to react to one problem at a time, with one expensive, disruptive band-aid after another – following a series of unnecessary election controversies.

Warning: NO Internet Voting In CT – A Scam or just misleading calls to voters?

“People have been stopping into the office to express concern over telephone calls that they’ve received in which they are directd [sic] to a web site where they believe they’re being told they can vote online,”

From the New Canaan Patch: Residents Report Concerns About Possible Voter “Scam” <read

Town Clerk says it’s not quite a scam, but not it’s not quite right, either.

Responding to reports that prospective voters have been approached by an organization inviting them to “vote online,” Town Clerk Claudia Weber said the outreach campaign is not quite a “scam,” but some of the information being offered is not completely accurate.

“People have been stopping into the office to express concern over telephone calls that they’ve received in which they are directd [sic] to a web site where they believe they’re being told they can vote online,” Weber told Patch.

She said Rep. John Hetherington, the registrar of voters and Republican Campaign Headquarters have received similar calls from concerned residents.

Weber said the callers identify themselves as part of The Legacy Foundation. They direct prospective voters to a password protected website for an organization called Democracy Depends on You!

“Once they get onto the site, they’re actually invited to request an application for an absentee ballot,” Weber said. Applying for an absentee ballot is legal. Weber says the problem is the language on the site.

With a password provided by the caller, prospective voters see the following message:

As you know, our Democracy depends on Americans from every part of our great country exercising their right to vote. Few elections have generated the enthusiasm of the election to be held this November 2nd.

For a multitude of reasons, you can avoid the long lines at the polls and vote early from the comfort of your own home.

Download and complete your application for absentee voting now. “There are only certain reasons to vote by absentee,” Weber said. “Wanting to avoid lines is not one of them. You can vote by absentee ballot if you are going to be absent during voting hours, bcause of illness or physical disability, if you are in service in the armed forces, if your religion forbids secular activity on that day, or if your required performance as an election official precludes you from getting to your polling place to vote.”

Patch was shown the Democracy Depends on You! website homepage, which provides no address or phone number. The site says it is “Paid for by the Alliance for America’s Future – not affiliated with LongDistanceVoter.com”.

The Alliance for America’s Future homepage says its mission is “dedicated to educating and advocating sound economic and security policies that will foster growth, prosperity, and peace for America’s future.”

We looked up the Alliance for America’s Future on Google, it seems to be a 527 linked to Mary Cheney.

Update: New Hampshire too <read>

Post-Election Audit Report: Incremental Improvement – New Integrity Concern

Citizen observation and analysis shows some improvements along with a newly uncovered problem with the random selection process…We conclude that August post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of:

failure in the integrity of the random district selection process,
lack of standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies,
weaknesses in the ballot chain of custody, and
lack of, consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

the list of polling districts for the random audit drawing was missing some districts and is otherwise inaccurate and ambiguous. The integrity of the audit requires an accurate list of districts that is verifiable by the public. We have extended our recommendations to the Legislature to include an efficient fix to this problem.

Full Report, Press Release etc.<Audit Coalition Post>

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Coalition Finds Small Improvements and New Problem in
Connecticut Post-Election Audits

Citizen observation and analysis shows some improvements along with a newly uncovered problem with the random selection process

This is the sixth major post-election audit observation report by the Coalition since the adoption of optical scanners and paper ballots statewide.

Coalition Executive Director, Luther Weeks noted, “Unfortunately, we discovered that the list of polling districts for the random audit drawing was missing some districts and is otherwise inaccurate and ambiguous. The integrity of the audit requires an accurate list of districts that is verifiable by the public. We have extended our recommendations to the Legislature to include an efficient fix to this problem.”

League of Women Voters of Connecticut President, Cheryl Dunson said: “Compared to previous audits, the Coalition noted continuing incremental improvements in the attention to detail, following procedures, and in the chain-of-custody by election officials. We caution that the primary audit is simpler and shorter than those for November elections which may account much more accurate counting this time.”

We conclude that August post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of:

failure in the integrity of the random district selection process,
lack of standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies,
weaknesses in the ballot chain of custody, and
lack of, consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

Each of these items individually could impact the integrity of the statewide post-election audit and calls into question the credibility of the entire post-election audit.

Although most of our general observations and concerns remain, we observed improvements in following audit procedures, in the accuracy of the counting, and in the completion of forms.

Connecticut Citizen Action Group Executive Director, Tom Swan said, “The integrity of the entire audit is dependent the ballot chain-of-custody and on every step of the audit being accurately accomplished in a consistent, transparent, and professional manner. We continue to support our past recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature for improvement in the post-election audit laws, counting procedures, and chain-of-custody.”

Weeks added, “We look forward to the post-election audit of the November election. We hope to see significant improvement in following procedures along with more accurate counting, demonstrated in the November post-election audit which will involve more extensive, complex counting. ”

Observers came from the membership ranks of the coalition partners — The League of Women Voters of Connecticut, The Connecticut Citizen Action Group, Common Cause Connecticut, and Connecticut Voters Count. Without volunteer observers, nobody but a small number of local election officials would know what happens in post-election audits.

New Overall Audit Integrity Concern

A new concern surfacing this year is the inaccurate list of districts used in the random selection process which is required by law to be based on all of the districts used in the election. This directly impacts the integrity and credibility of the entire post-election audit.

Issues In Three Towns

Several districts in one town were selected, but in one case in the municipality, the ballot bag contained only blank ballots. In subsequent discussions with the registrar, she reported that a novice moderator in a multiple district polling place had sealed all voted ballots in one bag and all unused ballots in another bag. [As far as we know, this district was never counted as was not included in Audit Reports from the Secretary of the State.]

In the one district: The official Audit Report indicates 1703 machine counted ballots but only 688 manually counted ballots counted in the audit. In that same audit report 188 ballots are listed for one party with a total of 254 votes in the race audited for that party. The huge difference may represent poor counting procedures and lack of understanding of the audit procedures, however, we have no way of determining the accuracy of the audit nor of the official reporting of results. Our observer’s comments:

They never counted the ballots first…One team referenced the Tally Sheet from Election night. They recounted their votes until the figures agreed… Checking was done to the Tally Sheet off the Moderator’s report not the machine tape… I did not observe a machine tape, only the Moderator’s return with the Tally Sheet. When I asked if they had a machine tape, I was told no by one of the Registrars. When I asked if there was a tape in the ballot bag, I was told no… I have concern about the number entered on the “LT Gov”

These results may represent incompetence. However, incompetence uninvestigated transparently leaves an opening to cover-up fraud and error. The Secretary of the State’s Office had reviewed district results, yet apparently did not notice these large differences until it was pointed out by the coalition.

In one of the last district reports provided to the Secretary of the State’s Office: In one district in one municipality which audited three districts there was a significant difference between the machine counts in one race and the hand count reported. For two candidates the machine counted 262 and 154 votes while the hand counts were 132 and 78 votes for those same candidates.

Full Report, Press Release etc.<Audit Coalition Post>

Update from CTNewsJunkie: Questions Raised As State Finishes Post-Primary Audit <read>

Will The World’s Largest Democracy beat the U.S. to full VVPR?

Scientists and Whistleblower(s) made their point. Now, India heading toward all voter verifiable paper records.

In late August we covered the arrest of voting integrity advocate Hari Prasad for receiving a voting machine used in India for testing. Researchers with the help of Whistleblower(s) obtained the voting machine and demonstrated its vulnerabilities.

Now, encouraging news from India, via Rop Gonggri. <read>

Yesterday there was a meeting of all the national political parties in India, and it appears the ECI has finally given in: they are now looking at alternatives where the voter sees his/her vote on a piece of paper which can be counted by hand. Here, they also did that, which was just a first step to having the machines scrapped. It’s going to be interesting to see whether the Indian government thinks they can drag on the existing solution until something new is ready. (They tried that here, didn’t work.)

Too early to cry victory, but certainly another big step forward. Now the charges against Hari Prasad, the man who spent time in jail for daring to notice that the emperor had no clothes on, need to be dropped (TODAY GENTLEMEN!) and Hari needs to be fully rehabilitated. Then a strict deadline for scrapping black-box voting needs to be imposed. Then the details of any new voting system need to be worked out. There is already talk of allowing a hand-count only if a judge permits it, which is of course far too restrictive.

Currently the U.S. is a mixture of paper ballots, optical scan paper ballots, DREs (Touch Screen) with Voter Verifiable Paper Records (VVPR(*)), and DREs with no paper voter verifiable record. India is all a simple electronic machine with no paper record.

I would not go quite as far as Rop. He would have paper ballots with all hand counting. I believe we are better off with paper ballots and optical scanning giving the record of occasional official shenanigans and the spotty record in manual counting by Connecticut officials.

(*) VVPR, Voter Verifiable Paper Records include those produced by DREs and Paper Ballots – paper ballots are much preferred, since they must be filled out by voters. The paper records produced by DREs are inconvenient to verify and are often not actually verified by voters.

Podcast: What’s the matter in Tennessee?

Allegations of massive election fraud, voter suppression, intimidation, and election manipulation in Shelby County, Tennessee. 10 candidates have filed a lawsuit.

Note to Connecticut voters: Instead of our check-off lists, many states require voter signed poll books. They can help resolve questions like those raised in Tennessee.

Allegations of massive election fraud, voter suppression, intimidation, and election manipulation in Shelby County, Tennessee. 10 candidates have filed a lawsuit.

Wrong database used which said voters had already voted – official explanation proves false
Over 5000 voters illegally turned away
100% unverifiable voting, 100% unverifiable poll books.
3221 more votes than voters recorded in poll books
White Republican candidates win in 70% black, democratic areas
Signed poll tapes found in trash
A month and a half after the election, the certified election results have not been released

Interview of Bev Harris by Brad Friedman. Bev says she has never heard so much lying by election officials and Bev has heard it all!

The interview starts about half way into the show. In the first half Brad defends Acorn and attacks the idea of massive voter fraud vs. election fraud <post with podcast>

All we can say is that where there is smoke [screens] there is often fire. And without transparency and credibility there will always be doubt.

Note to Connecticut voters: Instead of our check-off lists, many states require voter signed poll books. They can help resolve questions like those raised in Tennessee. In the podcast, Bev points out that the electronic poll books do not contain any voter signatures and are totally unverifiable. In Connecticut we use paper check-off lists. In many states voters must each sign paper poll books or lists, but in Connecticut it is a poll worker checking off names on the list. So we pretty much always have had the paper equivalent of the unverifiable system in use in Tennessee – there is no guarantee that a poll worker might by mistake check off the wrong name causing concern if you come in and your name is already checked off, or fraud could be created by checking off some extras and adding some corresponding ballots. An electronic system would be easier to manipulate on a large scale than a paper one. Yet a paper list with voter signatures can be verified to a much greater extent, can reduce the chance of the wrong voter being checked off or signed, and provide evidence to distinguish between a voter trying to vote twice and attempted fraud.

Warning: New link to check your CT Voter Registration – Not Always Accurate

It has come to our attention that the voter information provided by the Secretary of the State’s new web tool is inaccurate in some cases.

We learned this in the course of discovering a loophole in the integrity of the post-election audit random drawing process.

It has come to our attention that the voter information provided by the Secretary of the State’s new web tool is inaccurate in some cases.

We learned this in the course of discovering a loophole in the integrity of the post-election audit random drawing process:

This spring we realized that there was no way for us to verify the accuracy of the list of polling districts subject to se4lection in the 10% random drawing for post-election audits. Each time we had attended the drawing we checked a list of districts supplied by the Secretary of the State’s office against the slips placed in the barrel and occasionally founds some differences to correct. This spring, it occurred to us that we did not have a way to verify the list of districts we were given. In subsequent discussions with the Secretary of the State’s Office, we learned that municipalities are not obligated to send lists of polling places to the Secretary of the State. Municipalities are requested to do that, most do, but are not required to. The Secretary of the State’s Office has proposed legislation to mandate that information be sent, but like many bills it was never passed by the Legislature.

Subsequently we proposed that the list of districts be determined by extracting them from the Secretary of the State’s web feature for voter polling place look up. Unfortunately, we learned that was also an unreliable source of a list of polling places, and must therefor be supplying incorrect information to some voters. The point was brought home to us when we called on of the towns selected for audit in the most recent random drawing: The district chosen in the town for audit did not currently exist. The non-existent district was replaced by an alternate in another town, yet without a good lists of districts required an audit loophole is created since existing districts not included in the drawing could be known in advance and therefor guaranteed not to be audited.

Reviewing the Secretary of the State’s press release sent on August 5th, we see that another potential cause of inaccuracy was initially disclosed: <read>

The website will also provide the location of the individual’s polling place. Users must be aware that occasional special conditions can force changes in
polling places. For the most up to date location, voters should check with their town offices and local registrar of voters.

However, we caution that we can find no similar caution of disclaimer on the website itself associated with the lookup feature. The only mention is in the posted press release.

Update: 9/4/2010

I observed a post-election audit yesterday. Both districts selected in the random drawing were incorrectly identified by district numbers. Fortunately, the locations were correct and each polling place had only one district. Perhaps the problem is pervasive.

************Original Post 8/5/2010

Link to the Secretary of the State’s website to check that you are registered to vote:<click> More voting information: <click>

While we applaud the Secretary and her staff for making this available, we have one suggestion: Include the party affiliation in the results. We find that many voters do not recall their affiliation, if any. Having that available would reduce much confusion and unnecessary work for voters and registrars.

Governments Hide Information; People Take Risks for Democracy

This kind of intimidation will hit the hearts of volunteers and no volunteer will come forward if this kind of thing happens in future, that’s the reason I’m going to take in on, and I’ll face it, so that the volunteers get inspired by me…whatever research we have done, whatever work we have done is right

– Hari Prasad

J. Alex Halderman, Freedom To Tinker: Electronic Voting Researcher Arrested Over Anonymous Source <read view>

The Government of India, the world’s largest democracy, insists that its voting machines are safe and secure. Yet, they refuse to let researchers have access to test the machines. Apparently a concerned insider obtained a voting machine and made it available to researchers who analyzed the machine and pointed out several security flaws. So as governments do to whistle blowers and those who bring uncomfortable facts, they have arrested the Indian member of the research team in an effort to determine the source of the voting machine and to intimidate. In the words of Hari Prasad (from the video):

This kind of intimidation will hit the hearts of volunteers and no volunteer will come forward if this kind of thing happens in future, that’s the reason I’m going to take in on, and I’ll face it, so that the volunteers get inspired by me…whatever research we have done, whatever work we have done is right…

Two weeks ago at the EVT/WOTE conference there was a panel on these voting machines, shortly after the warrant for Hari was issued. It was a heated, open, and fair discussion between researchers and representatives of the Indian Government. The Election Commission is not evil, they believe they are doing the right thing, but the effect is bureaucracy protecting itself. The result of the panel was a letter from researchers and attendees to the Indian Election Commission (I am one of many signers).

Electronic Voting Researcher Arrested Over Anonymous Source

What are they hiding? Contrary to their statements, the voting machines are not tamper proof.