|
|
(more...)
, (less...)
Add to My Group(s)
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 5/19/09: Permalink
View Article Stats (1 comment)
Add to My Group(s)
View Article Stats (1 comment)
Connecticut Election Audit: 'Ridiculous, Unacceptable, Unconscionable'
By Bev Harris (about the author)
Become a Fan (3 fans) -- Page 3 of 5 page(s)
http://www.ctvoterscount.org/?p=2009
Introduction
This week the University of Connecticut (UConn) VoTeR Center released reports on post-election audits and memory card testing for the November 2008 election. These reports were announced by a press release from the Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz.
Press Release:
http://groups.google.com/group/ctnewswire/browse_thread/thread/79697b98972a9004? hl=en
Post-Election Memory Card Report: http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/wp-content/uploads/2008-nov-post-v10.pdf
Post-Election Audit Report: http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/wp-content/uploads/2008-Nov-Hand-V10.pdf
Yesterday, in Part 1, we covered the Memory Card Report. Today, in Part 2 we highlight and comment on the Post-Election Audit Report.
We recognize and appreciate that everyone works hard on these programs, performing the audits, and creating these reports including the Registrars, Secretary of the State’s staff, and UConn. We also welcome Secretary Bysiewicz’s commitment to solve the problems identified. Yet, we have serious concerns with the credibility of the audits as conduced and their value, as conducted, to provide confidence to the public in the election process.
Summary Three Reports On The November Post-Election Audits
From the Secretary of the State’s Press Release, December 12th, 2008, headlined: BYSIEWICZ: RESULTS OF POST ELECTION AUDIT SHOW ACCURATE ELECTION DAY MACHINE COUNTS:
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz announced today that post election audits conducted in 10% of all voting precincts in Connecticut have shown extremely accurate machine counts on Election Day November 4, 2008. An initial review of the audit results has been completed by the Office of the Secretary of State, and the results will now undergo a complete, independent analysis by the University of Connecticut’s Voting Technology Research Center under the direction of Dr. Alexander Shvartsman.
“We set a record in Connecticut on November 4th with 1.64 million people casting ballots and Election Day went remarkably smoothly,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “The results of this audit indicate, once again, that the optical scan voting system is secure and extremely accurate. Connecticut voters can be confident in the integrity of our elections and that their votes were counted correctly. Still, I’m not asking anyone to simply take my word for it: that’s why these post-election procedures are so important. We want to shine the light on the electoral process, before and after all votes are cast…
While the audits did uncover accurate machine counts on Election Day, there were discrepancies in isolated cases involving the hand-count audits for some ballots marked with votes for major party candidates who were cross endorsed by minor parties.
From the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition Report ( http://www.ctelectionaudit.org/?p=40 ), January 28, 2009 (I [Weeks] was the lead author of this report):
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.
The Coalition report highlighted many discrepancies in votes and ballot counts that exceded questionable ballot counts and that did not involve cross-endorsed candidates
read: http://www.ctelectionaudit.org/?page_id=65
Become a Fan (3 fans) -- Page 3 of 5 page(s)
Introduction
This week the University of Connecticut (UConn) VoTeR Center released reports on post-election audits and memory card testing for the November 2008 election. These reports were announced by a press release from the Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz.
Press Release:
http://groups.google.com/group/ctnewswire/browse_thread/thread/79697b98972a9004? hl=en
Post-Election Memory Card Report: http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/wp-content/uploads/2008-nov-post-v10.pdf
Post-Election Audit Report: http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/wp-content/uploads/2008-Nov-Hand-V10.pdf
Yesterday, in Part 1, we covered the Memory Card Report. Today, in Part 2 we highlight and comment on the Post-Election Audit Report.
We recognize and appreciate that everyone works hard on these programs, performing the audits, and creating these reports including the Registrars, Secretary of the State’s staff, and UConn. We also welcome Secretary Bysiewicz’s commitment to solve the problems identified. Yet, we have serious concerns with the credibility of the audits as conduced and their value, as conducted, to provide confidence to the public in the election process.
Summary Three Reports On The November Post-Election Audits
From the Secretary of the State’s Press Release, December 12th, 2008, headlined: BYSIEWICZ: RESULTS OF POST ELECTION AUDIT SHOW ACCURATE ELECTION DAY MACHINE COUNTS:
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz announced today that post election audits conducted in 10% of all voting precincts in Connecticut have shown extremely accurate machine counts on Election Day November 4, 2008. An initial review of the audit results has been completed by the Office of the Secretary of State, and the results will now undergo a complete, independent analysis by the University of Connecticut’s Voting Technology Research Center under the direction of Dr. Alexander Shvartsman.
“We set a record in Connecticut on November 4th with 1.64 million people casting ballots and Election Day went remarkably smoothly,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “The results of this audit indicate, once again, that the optical scan voting system is secure and extremely accurate. Connecticut voters can be confident in the integrity of our elections and that their votes were counted correctly. Still, I’m not asking anyone to simply take my word for it: that’s why these post-election procedures are so important. We want to shine the light on the electoral process, before and after all votes are cast…
While the audits did uncover accurate machine counts on Election Day, there were discrepancies in isolated cases involving the hand-count audits for some ballots marked with votes for major party candidates who were cross endorsed by minor parties.
From the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition Report ( http://www.ctelectionaudit.org/?p=40 ), January 28, 2009 (I [Weeks] was the lead author of this report):
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.
The Coalition report highlighted many discrepancies in votes and ballot counts that exceded questionable ballot counts and that did not involve cross-endorsed candidates
read: http://www.ctelectionaudit.org/?page_id=65
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
Bev Harris is executive director of Black Box Voting, Inc. an advocacy group committed to restoring citizen oversight to elections.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
Comments
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
| 1 comments |
To view all comments:
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
Vva - Voter verified audit
by mac Sperry on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 10:44:35 PM