Imagine A National Recount. What Could Possibly Be Worse?

I’d love to discuss the Electoral College and the importance of that institution, when you imagine a National Recount.” – Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State, Minnesota

What could possibly by worse?

As we have said before, we understand the appeal of the popular election of the President.  However, CTVotersCount is conditionally opposed to the popular election of the President, in any form, unless and until there are uniform election laws, enforceable, and enforced nationwide. <The Case Against>

Yesterday, the Secretary of the State of Minnesota, Mark Ritchie touched on the same subject in a speech to the National Association of Secretaries of the State (NASS) , winter conference, February 7, 2009 in Washington, D. C.:

“I’d love to discuss the Electoral College and the importance of that institution, when you imagine a national recount.”  -Mark Ritchie

What could possibly be worse?

A close Presidential election under a national popular vote, without a National recount.

SOS Ritchie reinforces our objection to a national popular vote without uniform laws.  Many states have a recount on close vote, but that is based on state totals not national totals.  Where it would be done well, it works under the electoral college to verify that the states votes for President are awarded based on the intentions of all the voters.  However, without other changes in the law a close national total does not imply a close vote in any states and would be unlikely to be close in any but a few states.  A close popular vote to be trusted would require a national recount with uniform standards – high standards such as those demonstrated in Minnesota.

A New Approach To Voter Registration?

The United States is one of the few industrialized democracies that place the onus of registration on the voter. In other democracies, the government facilitates voting by taking upon itself the responsibility to build voter rolls of all eligible citizens. Even in the United States, voter-initiated registration did not exist until the late nineteenth century. It was instituted then in many states with the intention of suppressing unpopular voters, especially former slaves and new European immigrants, and it continues to disenfranchise many Americans to this day.

How about a simple, reliable system similar to the rest of the World?

The United States is one of the few industrialized democracies that place the onus of registration on the voter. In other democracies, the government facilitates voting by taking upon itself the responsibility to build voter rolls of all eligible citizens. Even in the United States, voter-initiated registration did not exist until the late nineteenth century. It was instituted then in many states with the intention of suppressing unpopular voters, especially former slaves and new European immigrants, and it continues to disenfranchise many Americans to this day.

The Brennan Center for Justice has produced a “Policy Summary”, Universal Voter Registration, <Summary> <.pdf>

Too often, when it comes to our election system, policymaking has devolved into partisan wrangling or become bogged down in arcane technicalities.

Today we have the opportunity for a major breakthrough for effective democracy. The 2008 election saw a record number of new voters. New election technology and the implementation of a recent federal law in the states make it possible to overcome the challenges with our voter registration system—the single greatest cause of voting prob lems in the United States. We can now truly modernize the voter registration process by upgrading to a system of universal voter registration—a system where all eligible citizens are able to vote because the government has taken the steps to make it possible for them to be on the voter rolls, permanently. Citizens must take responsibility to vote, but government should do its part by clearing away obstacles to their full participation. The current voter registration system—which is governed by a dizzying array of rules and is susceptible to error and manipulation—is the largest source of such obstacles…

The next Congress can substantially speed up the process by:

  • Establishing a national mandate for universal voter registration within each state;
  • Providing federal funds for states taking steps toward universal voter registration;
  • Requiring “permanent voter registration” systems, so that once voters are registered, they will stay on the rolls when they move; and
  • Requiring fail-safe procedures, so that eligible voters whose names do not appear on the voter rolls or whose information is not up to date can correct the rolls and vote on the same day.

An attractive idea which claims the magical combination of increasing participation in democracy, fairness,and  integrity, while saving  everyone money, reducing frustration for officials, and the public.  We will put this in our “Conditionally For” column, because we would have to see the details of any proposal and see the comments and evaluation of computer scientists, security experts, election officials, and activists.

Letters TO and FROM the Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, mailed a detailed letter to each voter who signed CTVotersCount.org petition. We respond.

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, mailed a detailed letter on January 23rd, to each voter who signed the CTVotersCount.org petition.  We responded on February 2nd with a follow-up letter to Secretary Bysiewicz.

Secretary Bysiewicz letter: <Page1> <Page2>

Our response text:  <.pdf>

TO: The Honorable Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz
CTVotersCount Petition Signers

We have all received the attached letter from Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz.  We thank the Secretary of the State for taking the time to respond to us in a such thoughtful and detailed letter, addressing our petition.

There is much to applaud in the letter and in the operation of the Secretary of the State’s Office.

We applaud the openness of the Secretary of the State’s Office, their willingness to listen to citizens, their willingness to meet with advocates, and their efforts to improve the election and post-election audit process.  We especially appreciate the Office’s and Deputy Lesley Mara’s cooperation in supporting the start and ongoing efforts of the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition, specifically in letting us know the dates of audits scheduled by towns and responsive sharing of the audit reports.  Your work with UConn on voting security studies and memory card testing is truly unique and valuable.

Like the Secretary of the of the State’s Office, CTVotersCount works with several national, state, and Connecticut groups to improve voting integrity.  We appreciate Deputy Mara’s review of the “Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits” to which we contributed and endorse.

We agree to disagree whether the audits as performed are “inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective” and that our audit law is the “strongest in the country”.

We agree “that all audit activities should occur in public”.  We note disappointment that our request at the meeting on January 16th and via email, to have the audit follow-up site visits opened to public observation and notification provided to us, was not acted upon.

We join with you, Secretary Bysiewicz, in standing for the criticality of continuing the audits.  We appreciate your support of our petition requests to perform the audits sooner, 100% memory card pre-testing, and the institution of an independent audit board.  There are many additional items that we remain committed to as listed in our petition, the Coalition recommendations, the Principles and Best Practices, and the recently released “League of Women Voters Audit Report”.

We also join with you, Secretary Bysiewicz, in recognizing that audits are a small price to pay to provide integrity and confidence to the voters of Connecticut.

Sincerely,

Luther G. Weeks
Executive Director

CC:  The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor
Co-Chars and Members, Government Administration and Elections Committee

League Of Women Voters: Report On Election Auditing

Includes many of the same recommendations in the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits and expands the scope to include auditing of the whole election process.

Includes many of the same recommendations in the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits and expands the scope to include auditing of the whole election process: <web intro> <Report .pdf>

This report consists of four key parts: Recommended Guidelines for Election Audits, Criteria for an Election Auditing Law, Glossary of Election Audits Terminology, and Election Audits Resources. These sections are intended to be used together in their entirety.

Report: CT Nov 08 Election – Large Differences From Optical Scanner Totals

We conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence…Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently

In some cases as many as twenty-four (24) fewer ballots were counted by hand than recorded by optical scanners. For individual candidate races, vote counts between hand counts and scanner tapes varied by as much as three-hundred-sixty-six (366) votes in one race or as much as 46% in another.

We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Read the press release, full report and excerpts at CTElectionAudit.org

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Connecticut’s November 2008 Post-Election Audits Report
Large Differences From Optical Scanner Totals

Coalition Calls On Legislature To Act

The Coalition noted large differences between reported results by electronic voting equipment and the hand count of ballots by election officials across Connecticut. In some cases as many as twenty-four (24) fewer ballots were counted by hand than recorded by optical scanners. For individual candidate races, vote counts between hand counts and scanner tapes varied by as much as three-hundred-sixty-six (366) votes in one race or as much as 46% in another. Most officials attributed the widespread differences to the inability to count votes accurately by hand.

In this report, we conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued lack of
• standards,
• detailed guidance for counting procedures, and
• consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

We also note continuing failures to follow audit and chain-of-custody procedures.

Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently.

Several audit supervisors attributed discrepancies between machine counts and hand counts to human limitations; other supervisors attributed these to inaccurate scanners. We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “Given the variation in the counting procedures used, there is no way to distinguish when officials or machines counted accurately or inaccurately. When differences are dismissed as human counting errors, it is unlikely that an audit would identify an election error or fraud should that occur.”

Cheryl Dunson, League of Women Voters of Connecticut’s Vice President of Public Issues, stated, “We have reorganized our recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature. Along with improvements to laws, and audit procedures, we recommend that an Independent Audit Board be established.”

Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director, Connecticut Common Cause said, “Gaps in ballot chain-of-custody, election accounting, and the post-election audits must be addressed to assure integrity and provide confidence to the voters of Connecticut”

Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said “This is our fourth report showing similar weaknesses in the post-election audits. After these reports and five public hearings around the state, it is time for the Legislature to act.”

Read the press release, full report and excerpts at CTElectionAudit.org

Bysiewicz Intends To Run For Governor

“Our economy is in dire straights,” she said. “We have a desperate need for strong leadership in our state. People are looking for new leadership full of action and creative ideas full of vision.”

From the Middletown Press <read>

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz intends to file the official documents to run for governor.

Bysiewicz said she is not yet certain when she will do so, but Monday she said she has received encouragement for the idea.

“I am planning on filing papers and I haven’t filed them yet, but I will be in the near future,” Bysiewicz said.

The current economic situation calls for an influx of ideas and ways to solve problems, Bysiewicz said.

“Our economy is in dire straights,” she said. “We have a desperate need for strong leadership in our state. People are looking for new leadership full of action and creative ideas full of vision.”

Be Careful What You Ask For

Article in Akron Beacon Journal expresses concerns with a statewide recount. What about a nationwide recount? What would the National Popular Vote cause?

We have nothing against the well intentioned voters and legislators supporting the National Popular Vote Agreement. We encourage them to recognize and consider the impact of unintended consequences.

Article in Akron Beacon Journal expresses concerns with a statewide recount. What about a nationwide recount? <read>

Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy did not know she had defeated Republican Steve Stivers in a central Ohio congressional race until Dec. 5, more than a month after the 2008 general election.

The mix-up was the result of a contest too close to call when the polls closed, uncounted and disputed provisional and absentee ballots, tag-teaming lawyers and a litany of litigation.

For Ohio at large, that race exposed the continuing weaknesses in the state’s elections system.

Luckily for this state and the nation, the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain was not close.

Imagine the chaos that would have ensued if Ohio were the last state standing in the presidential race because of uncounted provisional and absentee ballots. It’s not a stretch to think we would have been — and unless problems are addressed, could well be — the next Florida from 2000.

We have two points to make relative to this article.

First, we disagree with the thrust of the article that there is something wrong with counting carefully after a close election.   We are not familiar with the Ohio details, but waiting to Dec 2nd to get it right is well worth it.  Since we have absentee ballots, provisional ballots, military and overseas ballots they should be counted, especially when they may change the result.  These voters demonstrate a higher commitment to democracy, often working harder to vote than the average voter.

We  support of the careful process in Minnesota in the recent Coleman/Frankin statewide recount.  We have a national obsession, stoked by the media and apparent winners, with knowing the election results almost immediately.  We jump to the conclusion that the winner of the first approximate count on election night is actually the winner, even though there are many votes not yet counted and frequent errors in the reporting and accumulating of results.

If we want every vote to count and count accurately, then we need to take the time to get in right every time.  That includes counting very carefully when the results are close.

Second, imagine national popular election of the President.  Would we have a nationwide recount as careful as the Minnesota recount?  I doubt as we can rely on every state to do as good a job.  Some states without paper trails could not under any circumstances.  Could the country wait for a good job to be accomplished in all 50 states, with the media and the questionable initial winner pushing to complete the job?  Would there be endless suits?  Voters, parties and candidates going to court to challenge accuracy in many states.  With the National Popular Vote Agreement, could each state’s voters go to court against their state challenging the award of their electoral votes based on questionable counts from other states?  Could they go to court against those states for providing questionable numbers?

Worse.  Right now many states have recounts on close votes.  If there were a close presidential vote, only the states with close votes would actually do a recount – perhaps none.  But since every vote, every error  and every fraud could change the result, a close vote should require a national recount.  Even then, every state has its own way/standards for recounts.

Faced with 1) the facts of questionable counts, 2) the media and questionable winners sturring up worries, complaining of delays while filing suits, and 3) all the law suits – what would happen?  Would every reasonably close presidential election be decided by the Supreme Court?

The myth of every vote being equal, the risks of error and fraud, and the potential for legal chaos is why we are opposed to the popular election of the President, in any form, unless and until there are uniform election laws, enforceable, and enforced nationwide.

We have nothing against the well intentioned voters and legislators supporting the National Popular Vote Agreement.  We encourage them to recognize and consider the impact of unintended consequences.

Optical Scanners “Extremely Accurate” – In MN

the “gross” error rate is about 1 in 1000, or a gross accuracy of 99.91%.

Andrew Appel has analysed the official results of the Minnesota recount and pronounced them “Extremely Accurate”, <read>

There were 2,423,851 votes counted.

The recount added a total of 1,528 votes to the candidates, and subtracted a total of 642 votes, for a gross change of 2170 (again, not including absentee ballot qualification). Thus, the “gross” error rate is about 1 in 1000, or a gross accuracy of 99.91%.

Another Short Story: Courtney and Working Families Votes Uncounted

Another story of candidates and parties shorted votes. This time it is the Working Families Party and Joe Courtney.

Update 1/15: Add Sherman and Plainfield to the list

Another story of candidates and parties shorted votes.  (Previous story with links to earlier reports of inaccurate reported results)  This time it is the Working Families Party and Joe Courtney.

Update 1/15: Add Sherman and Plainfield to the list

***************Original post************************
David Bidell noticed nine cases where the Working Families Party got zero votes.

Checking today, we see that according the Secretary of the State’s website, in Colchester, the votes for representative in the 2nd district are:

Sullivan-Rep: 2474
Courtney-Dem: 5120
Deshefy=Green: 175
Courtney-WKF: 0
Vachon: 1

But Courtney and the Working Families Party should have been credited with 208 more votes!

The question in an email from David Bidell:

Dear Ms. Bray:

I saw  published election results that Joe Courtney beat Sean Sullivan
5,120-2,474 in Colchester.  Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Scott Deshefy (Green), and how many of Courtney’s votes
werecast on the Working Families Party line?  I am trying to assess the
impactof third-party voting in CT.

Thank you for your assistance.

The response from the Colchester Town Clerk, Nancy Bray:

Hello Mr. Bedell:
Happy to answer your questions; G. Scott Deshefy received 175 votes for
Congressman.  Joe Courtney received 208 votes under the Working Families
line.  Anything else you need, please feel free to e-mail or call me.

Update 1/15:

From David Bidell to Plainfield Registrars:

I saw  published election results that Joe Courtney beat Sean Sullivan
3,952-1,746 in Plainfield.  Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Scott Deshefy (Green), and how many of Courtney’s votes were
cast on the Working Families Party line?  I am trying to assess the impact
of third-party voting in CT.

From Sonia Chapman, Plainfield:

J Courtney received 280 votes from working families and S Deshefy recieved
107 votes

From David Bidell to Sherman, Assistant Town Clerk Ellen Hipp:

I saw published election results that Chris Murphy beat David Cappiello
1,026-1,024 in Sherman.  Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Harold Burbank (Green), Thomas Winn (Independent), and how many
of Murphy’s votes were cast on the Working Families Party line?  I am
trying to assess the impact of third-party voting in CT.

From Assistant Town Clerk Ellen Hipp:

Burbank – 16
Winn – 15
Murphy Working Parties – 48
Murphy Unknown – 24

Unknown votes are when a person votes for a candidate under 2 different
parties and only one vote is counted.

Petition Delivered: 994 Connecticut Voters Call For Action

We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.

We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy. Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

Today, we delivered our petition to the Governor, Secretary of the State, Government Administration and Elections Committee, and the Connecticut General Assembly <read petition>

We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.

We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy.  Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

Here is the complete  text of our cover letter:

The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor
The Honorable Susan M. Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Connecticut General Assembly                                                              January 9, 2009

Re:       Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections (2009)

Nine-hundred-ninety-four (994) voters of Connecticut request that laws be enacted to enhance integrity and confidence in elections as outlined in the attached petition.

Over the last year and since the petition was initiated, several relevant developments have transpired:

  • Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits has been released and endorsed by The Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, The American Statistical Association, and others.  These principles closely parallel the details in the petition.
  • Connecticut has completed four post-election audits.  The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition has issued three reports indicating that the current post-election audits are inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective.  These reports also uncovered extensive gaps in ballot chain-of-custody and frequent failures to follow procedures.
  • A series of five public hearings were conducted in 2008 by the Government Elections and Administration Committee demonstrating significant gaps in election integrity.
  • Nationally, the November 2008 election went smoothly, however, in that election and others over the year, several problems have demonstrated the risks of error and fraud in our voting systems.  Several of these errors highlight the critical need for effective post-election audits and manual recounts to assure the voters’ intent is realized.
  • In Connecticut the November 2008 election and post-election audits has once again demonstrated the need for significant improvements in our chain-of-custody and post-election audits.  In addition discrepancies between results posted online by the Secretary of the State’s Office and the actual results have highlighted the need for a more effective and transparent system for reporting and totaling votes.
  • Finally, the fiscal situation in Connecticut and the Nation has become critical.  We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy.  Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

CTVotersCount has prepared, with suggested text, an act that will fully meet the requirements outlined in the Principles and the petition.  We also have available alternative text with minimal fiscal impact that would significantly increase the effectiveness of post-election audits and the integrity of elections in Connecticut. We ask that you give full consideration to our concerns in the petition in the 2009 legislative session.

Also attached are the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits, copies of original signatures on paper, and a list of all signers both paper and online.