Weird Times in Shelton

Was this a recalculation or a recount of the votes (0.00 / 0)

Elsewhere Secretary Bysiewicz has said that this election had no recounts because of close races.

The web site seems quite unreliable.  Most results posted there are the result of three human transcriptions and one or more additions between the machine tape, the hand counters, and the result that is posted.

Also do you know who or what law actually mandated it?

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 15:36:56 PM UTC

It is weird (0.00 / 0)

... especially since the numbers in town (with a Himes win) were confirmed by both the town/city clerk and the Registrar's office the day after the election.

Even stranger - the one district (D3, Shelton Intermediate) that was audited was the only one in which Himes still posted a win.

Anyway, if anyone would like to examine Shelton's "current" numbers, you can see them here -- District 1 and 2 are in the 3rd CD and are not included, and the only Himes/Shays number not included is for hand-counted ABs (which Shays won 23 to Himes 19+0+0).

I was unable to get these numbers to match the original SOTS numbers (Shays 7114 to Himes 7434) or the Shelton-offered numbers (7114 to 7434+621) with an hour of messing with them, but if anyone else can figure out what numbers might have been transposed to get to the earlier results I'd love to hear what you find. The other question I have is when the results were amended relative to when the list of randomly-selected audits were announced -- I have a call into the SOTS office but couldn't get an answer last week.

In the meantime, the Shelton situation has inspired me to do a casual survey of Registrars' offices, to see if they would object to including a copy of the paper tapes from the voting machines with the Head Moderator's returns that are submitted to the SOTS on election night (or to the State Police the next morning), and all of them thought that was fine. I'll be talking it over with my state rep (on the GAE committee) at a meeting this coming Monday.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 17:24:04 PM UTC

NB (0.00 / 0)

I picked up these results on the day they were doing the audit, so any revisions from that audit would not be included in this tally.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 17:26:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Faxing the Head Moderators' Return and tapes is not sufficient (0.00 / 0)

1)
It would be better if they faxed in all the Moderators' Returns from each polling place, the tapes, and the central count absentee ballots.

The Head Moderators' Return is a hand transcription of the Moderators' Returns, which has a hand transcription of the machine tape.

2)
Faxing it in is not enough.  The Secretary of the State should post the images of the tapes and the Moderators' Returns on the web site.

What you see on the state web is a transcription and addition of numbers on the Head Moderators' Report.

3)
While we are at it they should also fax in and the Secretary post the Checklist Report, which contains the number of voters signed in at the polls.

A side benefit of all this is that we have found that some of these tapes and reports have not been signed, while others are filled out in pencil.  Posting them quickly would encourage officials to sign, discourage penciled in changes later, and encourage local and state officials to put in the correct numbers and add correctly as it would be so much easier for the public to discover the errors.

A final side benefit is that the public, candidates, and parties could audit the paper work aspect of the election to our hearts content at no cost to the state or local government, other than the cost of doing it accurately in the 1st place.

This is also a good example of why we should audit the whole process: all paperwork, all elections, all races, all questions, and originally hand counted as well as machine counted ballots. If we used statistically based audits we could audit some races much less than we do and audit others more.  Auditing all the paperwork would include auditing the checklists vs. the checklist report vs. the tapes and ballot counts.  It could include auditing the number of ballots ordered, delivered, and remaining blank etc.  

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 18:16:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

right, that's what the tapes are about (0.00 / 0)

... it would be nice if the tapes were posted online as well, but not the end of the world if they were merely publicly viewable at the SOTS office in Hartford.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 18:39:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not go ahead and post all results locally now? (0.00 / 0)

In large towns such as Bridgeport, there would be a minimum of 25 tapes to send to Hartford.  There could be another tape if absentee ballots are centrally counted on another machine.  My understanding is that towns can either feed the absentee ballots through during the day (and they then become merged into the overall count because they are nondifferentiated)or they can count them separately.  At least one town I know of feeds them through a backup machine and produces a separate tape for absentees.  

I feel like we spend a lot of time trying to get to some consensus on the simplest things related to election transparency and security.  If each town willing to send the tapes to SOTS would post them on the town ROV website along with a PDF copies of the head moderator's return and the individual district moderators' returns, citizens could have a look at their town results and officials would be very  motivated to get it right.

I have read the statutes about who stores what in CT and they say that the clerk stores the moderators' returns (but that the head mod's return can be destroyed after the results reported are entered in some sort of official register/town record).  I am curious as to whether the clerks in reality are storing these returns, or if the ROvs end up storing them.

Think about what that storage situation would mean:  no other eyes other than those directly involved in the election would actually see the corroborating data for the results presented.  If the documents were never produced, no one would ever know. (Hmmm...Is that why the FOI response rate in CT towns is so poor?)

I think this is an area where what actually happens versus what is on the books is worth understanding.

I would love it if the SOTS would post this info on the state website, but why wait when there is no reason why an ROV who wants to make things transparent in their town could not go ahead and post this info? We live in a state that imho is fond of its merry go rounds, and reasons for nonaction explained away by another body (the legislature, the budget, SEEC, SOTS.  the ROVs, rinse and repeat) far outstrip bold commitment to get the mission accomplished in any way possible.

A start-local approach while getting a statewide system going allows bold and committed ROVs to forge a path forward and give feedback as to the results of this effort, perhaps encouraging others to do the same (or learn how to do it better and differently from any problems encountered)

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 15:19:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

start local approach (0.00 / 0)

I agree with the following:

If each town willing to send the tapes to SOTS would post them on the town ROV website along with a PDF copies of the head moderator's return and the individual district moderators' returns, citizens could have a look at their town results and officials would be very  motivated to get it right.

I commend you for trying to monitor the vote count.  If you want me to talk to the Weston ROV, I can talk to the Democratic ROV.  Do you want us to post our vote count on the town web site, or the DTC blog?  The latter is easier to do.  I think the Republicans control the town web site, since they control the Board of Selectmen.

---

by: bur @ Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:03:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's up to you. (0.00 / 0)

If your purpose, aside from my suggestion, is to make town results more transparent and the process more open, then the ROV site is more likely to be seen by Dems and GOP members of public alike.  Hopefully good governance  is not a partisan issue, but you never know.

IF you wish to do it as a DTC service and experiment with the idea, and the DTC is on board, then that's a different approach (and maybe the town could link to the DTC website at least).

IF it were my town and I knew the ROV, maybe I'd start and ask him/her if it's something they'd like to do on their website, whether they thought they could engage the support of their counterpart ROV.

Otherwise, the DTC could do it -- it's public info so any port in a storm - go for it and I hope you are successfula nd I can look forward to seeing it!

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:41:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW (0.00 / 0)

All the Registrars I spoke with had no problem including extra documents in what they send to the SOTS.

However, I did my tour of the district on the Wednesday two weeks after the election, and the only towns that had the individual moderator's returns available were Fairfield and Newtown. The rest still had them locked up.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 20:07:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stranger still (0.00 / 0)

... there was a one-registrar conducted recount during the period when the ballots are supposed to be sealed.

Uh oh.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 21:42:50 PM UTC

That is OK (0.00 / 0)

Recounts are supposed to be completed within 5 days of the election.  Moderators can call for such recounts.

Some states do it the opposite from Connecticut.  In MN the audits were completed in something like 5 days and the recounts did not start for two weeks, and go on for about two weeks.

What we need is a reliable chain-of-custody for ballots and sealing for much more than 14 days as we have now.  The minimum should be until audits and all questions arising from audits are complete.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 00:34:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stranger still (0.00 / 0)

I heard that there was NOT a recount in Shelton, just a review of the reported totals and checking the math involved.  The newspapers often screw up information.  They also often do not distinguish between an audit and a recount.

Here's info on a recount:  "Sec. 9-311. Recanvass in case of discrepancy. (a) If, within three days after an election, it appears to the moderator that there is a discrepancy in the returns of any voting district, such moderator shall forthwith within said period summon, by written notice delivered personally, the recanvass officials, consisting of the mechanic or mechanics, at least two checkers of different political parties and at least two absentee ballot counters of different political parties who served at such election, and the registrars of voters and the clerk of the municipality in which the election was held. Such written notice shall require such clerk to bring with him the depository envelopes required by section 9-150a, the package of write-in ballots provided for in section 9-310, the absentee ballot applications, the list of absentee ballot applications, the registry list and the moderators' returns and shall require such recanvass officials to meet at a specified time not later than the fifth business day after such election to recanvass the returns of a voting machine or voting machines or absentee ballots or write-in ballots used in such district in such election."  

And for a close vote recount: Sec. 9-311a. "... In the case of state and district offices, the Secretary of the State upon tabulation of the votes for such offices shall notify the town clerks in the state or district, as the case may be, of the state and district offices which qualify for an automatic recanvass and shall also notify each candidate for any such office. When a recanvass is to be held the municipal clerk shall promptly notify the moderator, as defined in section 9-311, who shall proceed forthwith to cause a recanvass of such returns of the office in question in the same manner as is provided in said section 9-311. In addition to the notice required under section 9-311, the moderator shall before such recanvass is made give notice in writing of the time when, and place where, such recanvass is to be made to each candidate for a municipal office which qualifies for an automatic recanvass under this section..."  

---

by: snap @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 01:47:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Weird numbers in Stamford too (0.00 / 0)

... on the Constitutional Convention. The original number they sent to the SOTS office was 41,775 "no" votes. That was amended to something like 23,000 "no" votes due to an "Excel error," I'm told. That's a pretty big error. The original number is still posted on the SOTS web site.

Don't know if any of the other Stamford numbers are wrong.

What's Susan Bysiewicz doing these days? Is she aware of any of this?  

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 13:54:10 PM UTC

Why not call or write? (0.00 / 0)

Might as well find out first hand.

It would be interesting to find out whether the SOTS takes any action other than make sure SOTS has accurately recorded what was sent to them.  For example, do they examine the results in any way to notice discrepancies in vote totals like the previously mentioned Stamford results?

It would appear not, but I would love to be proven wrong on this one.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:52:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

it was an excel error (0.00 / 0)

and the numbers (townwide total and absentee columns for Q1) were right where you would have expected them to be -- the sum immediately next to that was obviously in error.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 18:19:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you clarify that? (0.00 / 0)

Did someone type the wrong number into Excel?

Was there an incorrect formula in Excel?

Did excel have a software Error?

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 19:31:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vote Count Integrity (0.00 / 0)

This is a very important discussion.  I think it deserves to be on the front page.

BTW -- Does anyone know whether the Bridgeport vote count for CT-4 was audited?

---

by: bur @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 15:25:59 PM UTC

No so important, that anyone has even recommended this diary (0.00 / 0)

I just did.

Also see my Bridgeport answer below which I meant to be a reply.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 16:52:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Partially (0.00 / 0)

The following three districts were selected in Bridgeport:

Hallen School 126-3
Park City Magnet School 1
Luis Munoz Marin School 1

So CT-4 was audited in those districts.

I have not yet received the results from Bridgeport from the Secretary of the State's office.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 16:47:38 PM UTC

So what is the bottom line? (0.00 / 0)

Checking the "sots.ct.gov/elections" page, it appears that Jim won by just over 3,000 votes.  But does that figure include the votes for Jim included in the Working Families Party tally?  Or not?  Does it mean that Jim won by 3k plus 8k (WFP) and change?  

Confused.

BTW, has anyone taken a look at the totals for New Canaan, Alabama and Darien, Mississippi?  They are about as right-wing as all-white suburbs of Selma or Atlanta.  They both maintain 3:1 Republican to Democratic registration ratios, and went heavily for McCain/Dorkbrain- oops! Sorry! I meant McCain/Palin as well as Shays.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 16:29:15 PM UTC

Good One/Two thomashooker ! (0.00 / 0)

"New Canaan, Alabama" and "Darien, Mississippi"

Excellent! The "turkey effect" must be wearing off.

Incidentally, more to a comment above, I called the SOTS office on November 5th and spoke to the person (yes, one person!) who said she was entering the data "as fast as I can".

Crazy me...I think that the issue with the vote tallies are related to technophobia and can be solved by weird things like direct uploads and multiple entry and compare procedures.

Hmmmm.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 15:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Point (0.00 / 0)

There are several ways and components of solving this.  My whole solution starts with:

1) Dual entry and checking by the Secretary of the State's office.

2) Actually sending(faxing) the original Moderators' Returns and machine tapes in and posting them, so they can be compared to the SOTS web results.

3) Actually putting in all the data at the SOTS office, not just summary data, then a computer could do the adding.

(currently the SOTS site only has summary data which is difficult to reconcile with the Moderators' Returns.)

(some individual numbers on the SOTS site represent a sum of 256 individual numbers)

All this must be put into law by the Legislature to make it happen uniformly across the state.  Otherwise local towns will continue to fail to follow the Secretary of the State's procedures and the Secretary of the State's Office will continue to not enforce procedures, because everyone believes they are not enforceable.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 16:17:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Luther Weeks for Secy of the State (0.00 / 0)

Except you would not enjoy all the picnics, fundraisers, and ribbon cutting type activities she puts up with...

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 20:21:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Related Subject (0.00 / 0)

Accuracy in Connecticut and elsewhere has chilling implications for another issue that will likely come up in the 2009 Legislative session:

The National Popular Vote Agreement.

See the diary:  http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/sh...  

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 21:59:11 PM UTC

Statement of the Vote, canvass of returns, and certification (0.00 / 0)

The article Scarce linked above says that the actual official statement of the vote -- the official record of results -- is not due for 60 days from time of election:

Sec. 9-322a. Clerk to file listing of returns. Within sixty days following each regular state election, the town clerk of each town divided into voting districts shall file with the Secretary of the State a consolidated listing, in tabular or summary form, of the official returns of each such voting district for all offices voted on at such election, including the total number of votes cast for each candidate, the total number of names on the registry list, and the total number of names checked as having voted, in each such district. Each listing filed under this section shall be retained by the Secretary of the State not less than ten years after the date of the election for which it was filed.

Below I have box quoted what I can find in statutes about producing the results that lead to certification.   I offer it toward the goal of illuminating this part of the election process.

Is anyone familiar with the complaint process or what is involved in these canvasses?

Sec. 9-318. Canvass of votes for state officers. The votes for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, Treasurer, Comptroller and Attorney General shall be canvassed by the persons authorized to receive and count the same, within thirty days next after they were cast, unless a complaint under the provisions of section 9-324 is pending, in which case such canvass shall not be made until after the third Monday of December next after they were cast. In making such canvass, the votes upon the returns made by presiding officers shall be counted in conformity to the decision of the judge of the Superior Court or of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, and such canvass shall be in conformity to such decision, and a fair list of such votes made to conform to the original returns of the presiding officers, as corrected or affected by the finding or decision of such judge, with the original returns of the presiding officers and certified copies of the decision of such judge, shall, on the first day of the session, be laid before the General Assembly, which shall declare who are elected to said offices respectively.

Sec. 9-319. Canvass of votes for state senators and representatives and judges of probate. The votes for state senators, state representatives and judges of probate, as returned by the moderators, shall be canvassed, during the month in which they are cast, by the Treasurer, Secretary of the State and Comptroller, and they shall declare, except in case of a tie vote, who is elected senator in each senatorial district, representative in each assembly district and judge of probate in each probate district. The Secretary of the State shall, within three days after such declaration, give notice by mail to each person chosen state senator, state representative or judge of probate of his election

Sec. 9-320. Returns of municipal elections by clerks. Elected town clerk who is registrar of vital statistics ex officio. (a) The clerk of each municipality shall, within ten days after the municipal election, return to the Secretary of the State a statement of the name, post-office address and term of each person elected to office in such election. If an elected town clerk is registrar of vital statistics, ex officio, such return shall so indicate. Each municipal clerk neglecting to make such return shall be fined not more than twenty-five dollars.

---

by: greenpeas @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM UTC

PS: Anyone know what the canvass consists of? (0.00 / 0)

Is there any process for identifying and resolving identified/reported discrepancies that were not presented as complaints, or is a canvass merely a tally of returns as presented regardless of whether they pass the smell test (9000 votes in Stamford for the con con that were not also voted for president??)  to determine winner absent a complaint?

---

by: greenpeas @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

clerk sends results within 60 days (0.00 / 0)

OK, one more snippet from statutes:

Sec. 9-322a. Clerk to file listing of returns. Within sixty days following each regular state election, the town clerk of each town divided into voting districts shall file with the Secretary of the State a consolidated listing, in tabular or summary form, of the official returns of each such voting district for all offices voted on at such election, including the total number of votes cast for each candidate, the total number of names on the registry list, and the total number of names checked as having voted, in each such district. Each listing filed under this section shall be retained by the Secretary of the State not less than ten years after the date of the election for which it was filed.

So - is it possible that the vote discrepancies were not formally challenged, the certification of the vote went ahead, and that they should be corrected in the statement of the vote presented at start of next term (early January)?

---

by: greenpeas @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM UTC