Sue Spivack Interrogates County BOE
July 3, 2009
Mr. Clifford C. Hay, Commissioner and
Mr. Lewis L. Wilson, Commissioner
Schoharie County Board of Elections
PO Box 99
Schoharie, NY 12157
Dear Mr. Hay and Mr. Wilson:
I was glad to receive your letter of May 21, 2009 a few days before I left Cobleskill for an extended trip. Having arrived home and reviewed my April 21 questions and studied your responses, I’m disappointed to find some of your answers incomplete and in one instance inaccurate and misleading.
Here are my comments:
General Questions about the County Board Administration:
Your statement of the Schoharie County BOE goals is helpful and useful to me as far as it goes. However the NY State BOE Mission Statement (http://www.elections.state.ny.us/AboutSBOE.html) states in part “In addition to the regulatory and enforcement responsibilities the board is charged with the preservation of citizen confidence in the democratic process and enhancement in voter participation in elections (my emphasis).” It seems to me that every NYS County Board of Elections is therefore also charged with this mission—to enhance “voter participation in elections.” Please add this to your statement of goals and act accordingly.
Aside from listing your salaries, your statement that qualifications for Commissioners are set by the NYS Election Law is pretty much a non-answer. You give no real job description which would let me know such things as how many meetings with the NY State Board of Elections you must attend each year, how many education and/or training sessions you participate in as new means of voting and counting votes (voting machines, BMD, paper ballots—hand counting vs optical scan machines, etc, are being considered and purchased), how much time (per week/per month?) you spend in the County Board of Election office taking care of Schoharie County election business, and approximately how many days/hours a week/month you put in actually on the job. Please reanswer this question.
Questions about Election Statistics for 2004, 2006, 2008
You say you do not create statistical analyses of the voters. If you spent any time doing statistical studies of our county’s population and the numbers of voters, and sought to seriously compare our participation with NY State and the Nation, you would soon notice how many eligible voters there are compared to the number of registered voters—and realize these are two very different numbers (see comments below for more on this).
I am glad to learn that you file an Annual Report with the NYS Board of Elections. However in the interests of ease of citizen access, and open government and transparency, I ask that you please post these reports on the Board of Election website. Many people do not have the money to pay for printed copies. Every one has free access to the internet at the public libraries. I understand you possess only printed copies of these reports on hand—however they can be easily scanned into a pdf file and posted.
You state that “All eligible voters are registered voters.” and. “Traditionally, Schoharie County voter participation has been higher than either NYS or the US, as seen in the chart below.” Unfortunately your response in paragraph #3 equating eligible and registered voters is completely untrue, which makes the table in paragraph #4 entirely misleading. Eligible Voters are all US citizens 18 years and older who reside in Schoharie County. Registered Voters are those Eligible Voters who have filled out the voter registration form and been OK’d by the County Board of Elections as a Registered Voter.
In the column under Schoharie County, your table gives the percentage of Registered Voters who actually voted in those elections. In the columns under New York and US you are quoting percentages of Eligible Voters who actually voted. You are comparing apples and oranges. (See attached Sheet A with statistics from the US Census Bureau and other sources for more detailed information).
In 2007 Schoharie County had an estimated eligible voting population of 25,658 of whom 19,583 citizens were registered. We had an actual turnout of 14,558 voters which means while 74.3% of Registered Voters voted, only 56.7% of Eligible Voters actually voted. Note how close this 56.7% statistic is to the 2008 New York and US turnout. (see Sheet B-attached table with data sourced from the State BOE and/or the Census Bureau)
Therefore, if you look at the entire population of eligible voters, it is not true that Schoharie County voter participation is higher than either NYS or the US. This response conceals the need in Schoharie County to do much more voter education and voter registration outreach and to involve more eligible voters in the democratic process, in order to “enhance voter participation in elections.”
Re: your voter registration outreach efforts, I’m glad to know all that you are doing. However, since there is an obvious need to increase voter registration (see previous comments), I suggest that instead of waiting for any school or organization to request a presentation from you, that you energetically OFFER these programs to every high school government class in the County. I suggest that you call for citizen volunteers to help you do this kind of outreach to the following groups as well:
· Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of Schoharie County
· Community organizations such as Eagles, Elks, Rotary
· All Veteran’s groups, Business Groups and Libraries
· Voter Registration Tables outside Wal-Mart and Price Chopper and on the SUNY Cobleskill campus
Questions about the November 2009 Election
Please let me know what districts will participate in the OPSCAN Pilot Program. Will you be doing any public education in these districts to prepare voters to use the optical scan machines for the very first time? I believe you should.
I think a pilot project is usually a good thing. However as you have stated, the Op-Scan devices are not certified, therefore I urge you to make sure in every district where they are used that the paper ballots are hand counted and stand as the vote of record. This will provide an excellent and necessary test of the functioning of the Op-Scan machines. I advocate that this be done in OPSCAN Pilot Program districts state-wide.
Local BOE’s are not required to buy from state contract. Since privacy voting booths are not a tested and certified election device, you will not be told what to buy. By waiting for the State OGS to make a choice, I am concerned that more money than necessary will be spent to purchase privacy booths. Schoharie County is already experiencing financial difficulties. I urge you to research simple and inexpensive ways of assembling privacy booths out of tables which the county already owns and cardboard dividers. When you have decided what privacy booths you will be purchasing/assembling, please inform me of the costs.
I urge you to actively recruit poll workers in the same ways (perhaps at the same places and times) you seek to register new voters—by making presentations to high school government classes, to community organizations, at the County Fair, or other places where many local people congregate. There was/may still be some grant money available from the Federal government for recruitment of college students as inspectors. There has been state legislation to allow high school students over 17 years to participate as well. To involve young people in the election process should be a prime goal if we hope to attract young people to the polls.
Final comments
I am a person who values the right to vote, the need to maintain a vigorous and open electoral system, and a system of voting that is affordable, trustworthy and reliable. These are goals I would like to believe you share.. I am a member of the Voting Integrity Project and hoped that you would be open to discussing the formation of a Citizen’s Advisory Board to help accomplish the goals of increasing voter registration and voter participation in elections and self-governance.
To me our democracy is only as healthy and strong as its roots in local districts. When only a little over half the eligible voters turn out for major elections, and far less than half appear at the polls in off-years, I believe our democracy is in trouble. I am also deeply concerned that we are a County already struggling to make ends meet and facing all kinds of budget cuts. I believe that the costs in future years of maintaining and renewing machines and software, and paying corporate fees for Optical Scanners whose inner workings are proprietary secrets will drain County funds away from other important public needs.
I advocate for hand counting of all paper ballots when the time comes that the lever machines are finally abandoned, and even discarding the optical scan machines if they prove inaccurate and unreliable, and (as they already seem to be), prohibitively expensive.
I will continue to try to open a dialogue with you and the County Supervisors on these issues and topics. I believe that all of you in public service must hold in your hearts some of the same ideals as I do in this land of free speech and free people:
· that the more people who are involved in decision making, the more the will of all the people will be carried out,
· and the way we make sure our vote is fair and accurate in our local districts determines the fate of the whole nation.
There must be a way to create a government of the people, by the people and for the people, right here in Schoharie County. I look forward to your response to this letter.
Respectfully,
Susan Spivack
SHEET A Statistics on Eligible, Registered and actual Voters
2004 STATISTICS
USA
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab04c.xls
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 72.1%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 63.8%
New York State
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 67.5%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 60.2%
2006 STATISTICS
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2006/tab04a.xls
USA
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 67.6%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 47.8%
New York State
percent of elegible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 56.6%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 37.6%
2008 STATISTICS
USA
percent of eligible voters (age18+) registered 73.5%
satoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-02-vote_N.html
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) voted 62.3% http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
New York State
percent of eligible voters (18+) registered 91.3% http://elections.gmu.edu/Registration_2008G.html
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) voted 58.6%http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Challenge Provincial Power: The Test
On Quixotic Attempts to Challenge Provincial Power
Select the answer which best describes the actions of the various public officials as set forth in the following paragraphs.
A- Arrogance B- Ignorance
C- Malfeasance D- All of the above
In the fall of 2008 The Voting Integrity Project requested a meeting with the Board of Supervisors subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Board of Elections. We reasoned that, since there was a subcommittee charged with elections oversight and recognizing there was a risk Election Commissioners might not want to meet with representatives of an election integrity advocacy group, that it would be both practical and respectful to recognize the subcommittee’s authority and responsibilities.
We had hoped the members of the Rules and Legislation subcommittee would appreciate that a Citizens’ Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) could be an asset in the accomplishment of their oversight duties while at the same time assisting the BOE in various ways.
Following our initial meeting with the Rules & Legislation Committee months passed while we waited for a follow-up meeting with Board of Elections representatives to be arranged by the committee Chairman. First we were told one or the other Commissioner was in Florida for the winter. Then, finally after more than three months, the committee Chairman returned our calls. He reported that the Election Commissioners refused to meet with us, and…..that the Rules and Legislation Committee was in agreement with the Commissioners’ decision.
Since the Chairman delivered his message through a third party it was not immediately clear with whom the Election Commissioners were refusing to meet. I needed to know were the Commissioners just refusing to meet with curious and annoying citizens, or were they arrogant enough to refuse to meet with the oversight committee for the purpose of hearing the annoying citizens? Or could it be, that when presented with a threat that both the legislators and the Election Commissioners were loathe to deal with, a mutually agreed upon defense was needed: No!
Some might say the Quixotic citizens failed to recognize the unofficial power relationships at play. There’s a long-standing practice in Schoharie County for the Board of Supervisors to appoint the chairpersons of the county partisan committees as Election Commissioners….regardless of the individual’s experience, skills or abilities. Such is the nature of a feudal patronage system. So it seems that the elected legislators feel greater allegiance to their partisan leadership than to the citizens they are elected to represent.
We suspected that might be the case. That is why we chose to engage the legislative committee. What we misjudged was the timidity of the lawmakers. We had expected to have at least one meeting with the Election Commissioners before they rejected our proposal. It was expected that engagement of the legislative subcommittee would guarantee that opportunity. I suppose we should have known better. Historically, there has been no evidence of legislative oversight. In fact, it more often seems that the Board of Elections leads the subcommittee. We have attended Rules & Legislation Committee meetings which were initiated by the Board of Elections staff, held in the Board of Elections office and organized with an agenda prepared by the Board of Elections staff.
So it seems we might be paddling upstream. I’m OK with that. Jim Hightower is fond of saying that even a dead fish can go with the flow. The Voting Integrity Project folks are very alive and still paddling. Check out the following postings for further clarification of our recent efforts.
Select the answer which best describes the actions of the various public officials as set forth in the following paragraphs.
A- Arrogance B- Ignorance
C- Malfeasance D- All of the above
In the fall of 2008 The Voting Integrity Project requested a meeting with the Board of Supervisors subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Board of Elections. We reasoned that, since there was a subcommittee charged with elections oversight and recognizing there was a risk Election Commissioners might not want to meet with representatives of an election integrity advocacy group, that it would be both practical and respectful to recognize the subcommittee’s authority and responsibilities.
We had hoped the members of the Rules and Legislation subcommittee would appreciate that a Citizens’ Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) could be an asset in the accomplishment of their oversight duties while at the same time assisting the BOE in various ways.
Following our initial meeting with the Rules & Legislation Committee months passed while we waited for a follow-up meeting with Board of Elections representatives to be arranged by the committee Chairman. First we were told one or the other Commissioner was in Florida for the winter. Then, finally after more than three months, the committee Chairman returned our calls. He reported that the Election Commissioners refused to meet with us, and…..that the Rules and Legislation Committee was in agreement with the Commissioners’ decision.
Since the Chairman delivered his message through a third party it was not immediately clear with whom the Election Commissioners were refusing to meet. I needed to know were the Commissioners just refusing to meet with curious and annoying citizens, or were they arrogant enough to refuse to meet with the oversight committee for the purpose of hearing the annoying citizens? Or could it be, that when presented with a threat that both the legislators and the Election Commissioners were loathe to deal with, a mutually agreed upon defense was needed: No!
Some might say the Quixotic citizens failed to recognize the unofficial power relationships at play. There’s a long-standing practice in Schoharie County for the Board of Supervisors to appoint the chairpersons of the county partisan committees as Election Commissioners….regardless of the individual’s experience, skills or abilities. Such is the nature of a feudal patronage system. So it seems that the elected legislators feel greater allegiance to their partisan leadership than to the citizens they are elected to represent.
We suspected that might be the case. That is why we chose to engage the legislative committee. What we misjudged was the timidity of the lawmakers. We had expected to have at least one meeting with the Election Commissioners before they rejected our proposal. It was expected that engagement of the legislative subcommittee would guarantee that opportunity. I suppose we should have known better. Historically, there has been no evidence of legislative oversight. In fact, it more often seems that the Board of Elections leads the subcommittee. We have attended Rules & Legislation Committee meetings which were initiated by the Board of Elections staff, held in the Board of Elections office and organized with an agenda prepared by the Board of Elections staff.
So it seems we might be paddling upstream. I’m OK with that. Jim Hightower is fond of saying that even a dead fish can go with the flow. The Voting Integrity Project folks are very alive and still paddling. Check out the following postings for further clarification of our recent efforts.
Analysis of Voter Registration Performance
A Performance Analysis of the Schoharie County Board of Elections
Introduction: Late last fall, at a meeting of Voting Integrity Project representatives and the Board of Supervisors Rules & Legislation Committee, it was discovered that the committee does not receive regular reports from the Board of Elections Department or the Election Commissioners. We know that the Election Commissioners have addressed the Board of Supervisors when specific circumstances suggest the need to do so, but there have not been periodic reports of performance parameters which the Board of Supervisors, as an oversight body, should receive.
When considering performance evaluation of a governmental unit it is important to understand the mission of that unit. An initial inquiry to the county Board of Elections revealed that the unit does not have a written mission statement. Thus we have chosen to use the New York State Board of Elections Mission Statement as a guide for our evaluation effort. That document closes with this statement: “…the board is charged with the preservation of citizen confidence in the democratic process and enhancement in voter participation in elections." (emphasis added).
The following is offered as both an initial evaluation and a suggested format for future reporting which might serve the needs of the Board of Elections and Board of Supervisors.
Voting Statistics Analysis: This report offers analysis of election data for Schoharie County and several other New York counties, which we hope will serve to identify needed reforms or policy changes.
It will consider population demographics, voter registration numbers, voter turnout and certain other voter behaviors for the past five even-year election cycles while comparing Schoharie County to five other counties of similar population numbers and rural character: Allegany, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware and Essex.
The following statistics were sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau and the New York State Board of Elections or calculated from similarly sourced statistics: (see charts in subsequent post)
Estimated total county population (Est. Pop. Herein)
Estimated 18 years or older county population (eligible voters or EV herein)
County total registered voters (RV)
Recorded voter turnout (TO)
Under vote (UV) (most election results do not report under votes or “blank” as a singular statistic. Instead they offer a total of “blank, void & scattering.” We have chosen to use this number to represent the under vote since void and scattering are only a small percentage of the total.
2008 Voting Statistics: The following table (see subsequent post) is provided for those who want to verify the math or logic of our calculations. Similar data and calculations were used throughout our investigation to provide added statistics and inform our findings.
What we’ve learned There are no big surprises here. Schoharie County seems to chart near the other counties in most categories throughout 2000-2008. This is not say there is no room for improvement, there certainly is. It just means that Schoharie County is not alone and that other counties exhibit similar demographic patterns.
Population Changes: Schoharie County does stand out among the sampled counties in one respect, it has gained a few hundred in total population since 2000 while the other counties have lost significant numbers. Note, however, the across the board increase in Eligible Voters despite population losses in the other counties. These numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in these counties than they were in Schoharie County.
Registered Voters: Schoharie County, with 76.3% of eligible voters registered, ranks second from last to Allegany’s 73.4%. The other counties were all in the low 80th percentile except for top ranking Essex County with 88.7% registered. In Schoharie County one in four eligible voters is not registered. Only Allegany County had a higher percentage with 26.5%. All the other counties have unregistered percentages at least five points lower. Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County.
Voter Turnout: With respect to voter turnout Schoharie County came out on top with 74.3% of registered voters showing up at the polls. We led the other counties by as much as 10 points. However, if the turnout is calculated as a percentage of eligible voters Schoharie County falls in the middle at 56.7%. Obviously the turnout numbers are directly informed by the eligible voters and registered voters statistics.
Under Votes: The 2008 Presidential under vote was very low among the sampled counties. All six counties registered percentages near 1%. But this is not the whole story.
The 2008 general election included a proposition concerning civil service law changes to benefit military veterans. The under vote statistics for this proposition are very telling. Relative to the other counties sampled Schoharie County stood out with the lowest percentage, 57.1%. The other counties ranged from 61.3% to 65.1%. These differences are less instructive than the magnitude of the under votes in all jurisdictions.
Absent the opportunity to question voters we can only speculate as to the causes for such a large number of voters failing to register an opinion on the proposition. It seems likely many voters either didn’t know there was a proposition on the ballot or didn’t have enough information to make a decision. In either case this high under vote seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent. We believe citizens who are made aware of issues and ballot questions will want to make their opinion known. If we are correct in this assumption then simply paying attention to informing the public will result in greater turnout and fewer under votes.
Mandates: Another statistic which should be a cause for concern is the total of under votes plus the unregistered eligible voters number. In some circumstances this statistic could call into question the legitimacy of a candidate’s selection or the true status of a proposition.
In 2008 the Schoharie County unregistered EV population was 6075. This number of citizens not empowered to vote added to the 8318 under vote on the proposition equals 56% of the whole EV population. Thus the decision for this proposition was made by only 44% of Schoharie County’s eligible voters.
This calculation might not be as significant when considering a national question such as the aforementioned 2008 proposition. However, when the vote concerns a county question or candidate this calculation would be much more important. A local political candidate elected with less than 50% of eligible voters could be said to have not received a mandate. Likewise a ballot question “decided” by less than a majority of the citizens entitled to vote could be subject to challenge.
Observations & Recommendations: The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance. Many of these citizens could be drawn into greater community involvement, participation in our democratic system and possibly even active political life, if they were invited to become registered voters. This is important, full participation is necessary for democracy to work.
It is not appropriate or constructive to assume that all the unregistered eligible voters remain so of their own volition. Among the most common responses from citizens as to why they don’t vote are “I don’t know anything about the candidates” or “I don’t understand politics.” The relative stability of the statistics seem to indicate that voter registration efforts up to now have not been successful, or that there has been no actual effort made to increase voter rolls. In either case it seems obvious that our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded. Newspapers, civic groups, churches, government agencies, and advocacy groups, all need to be drawn into a coordinated community effort to register citizens as voters.
The statistics also present a powerful argument that present efforts to inform citizens concerning candidates and ballot questions are inadequate. Responsibility for informing the public should not be left only to the political candidates and their supporting partisan organizations. There is a role for government and the media in this effort as well. In years past sample ballots were printed in the newspaper. This practice should be revived. We are also aware of some jurisdictions which actually mail sample ballots to each household prior to election day. Such an effort could be made part of the present post card verification process. For such a mailing to be fruitful as a voter registration effort it will have to be posted to all households early enough to facilitate registration. Radio and cable television must also be utilized to familiarize voters with the candidates and issues.
The voter education effort should be the corner stone of any effort to increase voter registration and voter participation. We believe, that having been adequately informed of the candidates and issues, more citizens will want to be registered and will be motivated to go to the polls on election day.
Unanswered Questions: Typical of such an inquiry this investigation raised more questions than it answered. There is much more work to be done.
We have documented differences but have not tried to discover the causes or reasons beyond what is obvious from the numbers. It could be very informative to compare the administrative structures of the several county governments and their respective Boards of Elections. Is there a County Administrator? Is there a legislative oversight committee? What is the Board of Elections staffing? Is there a professional administration culture prevalent in the county government, including the Board of Elections? For example, is there an administrator or director of the Board of Elections Department and does the department have a written procedure manual with job descriptions and a mission statement? It would also be interesting to compare the media services, community organizations, income levels and government services available in each county.
It’s hard to know what you do not know until you look and ask. We encourage the Board of Supervisors to undertake similar investigations regularly. The research is not very time consuming or difficult. Much of the information is readily available in the public domain. If there is one outcome we would like to see above all else it is that the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors pay more attention to such looking and asking.
This small study has revealed the need for action on a couple of fronts. The Voting Integrity Project hopes that this report points the way forward and assists both the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Elections in the execution of their duties.
Significant Findings:
“Note, however, the across the board increase in Eligible Voters despite population losses in the other counties. These numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in these counties than they were in Schoharie County.”
“The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance.” “In Schoharie County one in four eligible voters is not registered.” “Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County.”
“…this high under vote seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent.”
“…it seems obvious that our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded.”
Introduction: Late last fall, at a meeting of Voting Integrity Project representatives and the Board of Supervisors Rules & Legislation Committee, it was discovered that the committee does not receive regular reports from the Board of Elections Department or the Election Commissioners. We know that the Election Commissioners have addressed the Board of Supervisors when specific circumstances suggest the need to do so, but there have not been periodic reports of performance parameters which the Board of Supervisors, as an oversight body, should receive.
When considering performance evaluation of a governmental unit it is important to understand the mission of that unit. An initial inquiry to the county Board of Elections revealed that the unit does not have a written mission statement. Thus we have chosen to use the New York State Board of Elections Mission Statement as a guide for our evaluation effort. That document closes with this statement: “…the board is charged with the preservation of citizen confidence in the democratic process and enhancement in voter participation in elections." (emphasis added).
The following is offered as both an initial evaluation and a suggested format for future reporting which might serve the needs of the Board of Elections and Board of Supervisors.
Voting Statistics Analysis: This report offers analysis of election data for Schoharie County and several other New York counties, which we hope will serve to identify needed reforms or policy changes.
It will consider population demographics, voter registration numbers, voter turnout and certain other voter behaviors for the past five even-year election cycles while comparing Schoharie County to five other counties of similar population numbers and rural character: Allegany, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware and Essex.
The following statistics were sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau and the New York State Board of Elections or calculated from similarly sourced statistics: (see charts in subsequent post)
Estimated total county population (Est. Pop. Herein)
Estimated 18 years or older county population (eligible voters or EV herein)
County total registered voters (RV)
Recorded voter turnout (TO)
Under vote (UV) (most election results do not report under votes or “blank” as a singular statistic. Instead they offer a total of “blank, void & scattering.” We have chosen to use this number to represent the under vote since void and scattering are only a small percentage of the total.
2008 Voting Statistics: The following table (see subsequent post) is provided for those who want to verify the math or logic of our calculations. Similar data and calculations were used throughout our investigation to provide added statistics and inform our findings.
What we’ve learned There are no big surprises here. Schoharie County seems to chart near the other counties in most categories throughout 2000-2008. This is not say there is no room for improvement, there certainly is. It just means that Schoharie County is not alone and that other counties exhibit similar demographic patterns.
Population Changes: Schoharie County does stand out among the sampled counties in one respect, it has gained a few hundred in total population since 2000 while the other counties have lost significant numbers. Note, however, the across the board increase in Eligible Voters despite population losses in the other counties. These numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in these counties than they were in Schoharie County.
Registered Voters: Schoharie County, with 76.3% of eligible voters registered, ranks second from last to Allegany’s 73.4%. The other counties were all in the low 80th percentile except for top ranking Essex County with 88.7% registered. In Schoharie County one in four eligible voters is not registered. Only Allegany County had a higher percentage with 26.5%. All the other counties have unregistered percentages at least five points lower. Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County.
Voter Turnout: With respect to voter turnout Schoharie County came out on top with 74.3% of registered voters showing up at the polls. We led the other counties by as much as 10 points. However, if the turnout is calculated as a percentage of eligible voters Schoharie County falls in the middle at 56.7%. Obviously the turnout numbers are directly informed by the eligible voters and registered voters statistics.
Under Votes: The 2008 Presidential under vote was very low among the sampled counties. All six counties registered percentages near 1%. But this is not the whole story.
The 2008 general election included a proposition concerning civil service law changes to benefit military veterans. The under vote statistics for this proposition are very telling. Relative to the other counties sampled Schoharie County stood out with the lowest percentage, 57.1%. The other counties ranged from 61.3% to 65.1%. These differences are less instructive than the magnitude of the under votes in all jurisdictions.
Absent the opportunity to question voters we can only speculate as to the causes for such a large number of voters failing to register an opinion on the proposition. It seems likely many voters either didn’t know there was a proposition on the ballot or didn’t have enough information to make a decision. In either case this high under vote seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent. We believe citizens who are made aware of issues and ballot questions will want to make their opinion known. If we are correct in this assumption then simply paying attention to informing the public will result in greater turnout and fewer under votes.
Mandates: Another statistic which should be a cause for concern is the total of under votes plus the unregistered eligible voters number. In some circumstances this statistic could call into question the legitimacy of a candidate’s selection or the true status of a proposition.
In 2008 the Schoharie County unregistered EV population was 6075. This number of citizens not empowered to vote added to the 8318 under vote on the proposition equals 56% of the whole EV population. Thus the decision for this proposition was made by only 44% of Schoharie County’s eligible voters.
This calculation might not be as significant when considering a national question such as the aforementioned 2008 proposition. However, when the vote concerns a county question or candidate this calculation would be much more important. A local political candidate elected with less than 50% of eligible voters could be said to have not received a mandate. Likewise a ballot question “decided” by less than a majority of the citizens entitled to vote could be subject to challenge.
Observations & Recommendations: The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance. Many of these citizens could be drawn into greater community involvement, participation in our democratic system and possibly even active political life, if they were invited to become registered voters. This is important, full participation is necessary for democracy to work.
It is not appropriate or constructive to assume that all the unregistered eligible voters remain so of their own volition. Among the most common responses from citizens as to why they don’t vote are “I don’t know anything about the candidates” or “I don’t understand politics.” The relative stability of the statistics seem to indicate that voter registration efforts up to now have not been successful, or that there has been no actual effort made to increase voter rolls. In either case it seems obvious that our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded. Newspapers, civic groups, churches, government agencies, and advocacy groups, all need to be drawn into a coordinated community effort to register citizens as voters.
The statistics also present a powerful argument that present efforts to inform citizens concerning candidates and ballot questions are inadequate. Responsibility for informing the public should not be left only to the political candidates and their supporting partisan organizations. There is a role for government and the media in this effort as well. In years past sample ballots were printed in the newspaper. This practice should be revived. We are also aware of some jurisdictions which actually mail sample ballots to each household prior to election day. Such an effort could be made part of the present post card verification process. For such a mailing to be fruitful as a voter registration effort it will have to be posted to all households early enough to facilitate registration. Radio and cable television must also be utilized to familiarize voters with the candidates and issues.
The voter education effort should be the corner stone of any effort to increase voter registration and voter participation. We believe, that having been adequately informed of the candidates and issues, more citizens will want to be registered and will be motivated to go to the polls on election day.
Unanswered Questions: Typical of such an inquiry this investigation raised more questions than it answered. There is much more work to be done.
We have documented differences but have not tried to discover the causes or reasons beyond what is obvious from the numbers. It could be very informative to compare the administrative structures of the several county governments and their respective Boards of Elections. Is there a County Administrator? Is there a legislative oversight committee? What is the Board of Elections staffing? Is there a professional administration culture prevalent in the county government, including the Board of Elections? For example, is there an administrator or director of the Board of Elections Department and does the department have a written procedure manual with job descriptions and a mission statement? It would also be interesting to compare the media services, community organizations, income levels and government services available in each county.
It’s hard to know what you do not know until you look and ask. We encourage the Board of Supervisors to undertake similar investigations regularly. The research is not very time consuming or difficult. Much of the information is readily available in the public domain. If there is one outcome we would like to see above all else it is that the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors pay more attention to such looking and asking.
This small study has revealed the need for action on a couple of fronts. The Voting Integrity Project hopes that this report points the way forward and assists both the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Elections in the execution of their duties.
Significant Findings:
“Note, however, the across the board increase in Eligible Voters despite population losses in the other counties. These numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in these counties than they were in Schoharie County.”
“The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance.” “In Schoharie County one in four eligible voters is not registered.” “Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County.”
“…this high under vote seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent.”
“…it seems obvious that our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded.”
Voting Study Press Release
Voting Integrity Group Releases Elections Study
For Immediate Release: 30 June 2009
Contacts: W. Stinson, 518.287.1463, airhead@midtel.net
S. Spivak, 518.234.3840, sspivack@nycap.rr.com
The Voting Integrity Project, an initiative of the Peacemakers of Schoharie County, has published a performance critique of the county Board of Elections. The study compares Schoharie County voter registration, election turnout statistics and other data with those of five other upstate counties with similar population numbers: Allegany, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware and Essex.
The group has been outspoken in its advocacy for secure paper ballot voting, and against the so-called touch-screen electronic voting machines, for the past few years. “It’s not good enough to have trustworthy voting systems. For democracy to thrive citizens must be informed, engaged and actually go to the polls.” said Voting Integrity Project Coordinator Wayne Stinson. “We have begun to look at what needs to be done to improve citizen participation.” he continued.
Representatives of the Voting Integrity Project had met with Schoharie County Supervisors last fall to propose creation of a Citizens’ Advisory Board for Election Administration but the initiative was blocked when Election Commissioners refused to meet with the group. “It was very frustrating to have the Election Commissioners refuse to even listen to our proposal and disappointing that the Supervisors were not willing to move the process forward.” said Project member Susan Spivack.
The Voting Integrity Project has decided to continue their efforts without the cooperation of the Board of Elections or the Election Commissioners. “We will do what we can to identify problems and develop suggestions for correction or improvements. We would have liked to have the Board of Elections cooperation but we will still be able to provide the Supervisors with useful information.” Stinson said.
The report is critical of the Schoharie County Board of Elections voter registration efforts stating “The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance. …one in four eligible voters is not registered.” It also noted “[The] numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in [the other] counties than they were in Schoharie County. Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County. …our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded”
The study also found “…[the] high undervote (instances where a voter does not indicate a choice) seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent.”
For Immediate Release: 30 June 2009
Contacts: W. Stinson, 518.287.1463, airhead@midtel.net
S. Spivak, 518.234.3840, sspivack@nycap.rr.com
The Voting Integrity Project, an initiative of the Peacemakers of Schoharie County, has published a performance critique of the county Board of Elections. The study compares Schoharie County voter registration, election turnout statistics and other data with those of five other upstate counties with similar population numbers: Allegany, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware and Essex.
The group has been outspoken in its advocacy for secure paper ballot voting, and against the so-called touch-screen electronic voting machines, for the past few years. “It’s not good enough to have trustworthy voting systems. For democracy to thrive citizens must be informed, engaged and actually go to the polls.” said Voting Integrity Project Coordinator Wayne Stinson. “We have begun to look at what needs to be done to improve citizen participation.” he continued.
Representatives of the Voting Integrity Project had met with Schoharie County Supervisors last fall to propose creation of a Citizens’ Advisory Board for Election Administration but the initiative was blocked when Election Commissioners refused to meet with the group. “It was very frustrating to have the Election Commissioners refuse to even listen to our proposal and disappointing that the Supervisors were not willing to move the process forward.” said Project member Susan Spivack.
The Voting Integrity Project has decided to continue their efforts without the cooperation of the Board of Elections or the Election Commissioners. “We will do what we can to identify problems and develop suggestions for correction or improvements. We would have liked to have the Board of Elections cooperation but we will still be able to provide the Supervisors with useful information.” Stinson said.
The report is critical of the Schoharie County Board of Elections voter registration efforts stating “The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance. …one in four eligible voters is not registered.” It also noted “[The] numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in [the other] counties than they were in Schoharie County. Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County. …our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded”
The study also found “…[the] high undervote (instances where a voter does not indicate a choice) seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent.”
6.25.09 Letter to Board of Supervisors
The Schoharie County Board of Supervisors
Post Office Box 429
Schoharie, NY 12157
Honorable Supervisors,
The Voting Integrity Project is committed to supporting election integrity and strengthening our democracy. This we endeavor to accomplish through promotion of secure voting technologies and practices, advocacy for an informed and engaged electorate, and expansion of the franchise.
We had been working for several months to initiate a conversation with the Schoharie County Board of Elections and the county Board of Supervisors concerning the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration.
We began by requesting a meeting with the Board of Supervisors subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Board of Elections Department. We reasoned that, since there was a subcommittee charged with elections oversight it would be the logical starting point. It also seemed respectful and practical to recognize the subcommittee’s authority and introduce our proposal to them first.
We had hoped the Rules and Legislation subcommittee would appreciate that a Citizen Advisory Committee could be an aid in the accomplishment of their oversight responsibilities while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way.
After our initial meeting with the Rules & Legislation Committee months passed while we waited for a follow-up meeting with Board of Elections representatives to be arranged by the committee Chairman. Finally, after more than three months, the R&L Chairman advised that the Election Commissioners had refused to meet with us and that the Rules and Legislation Committee was in agreement with their decision.
While it is very disappointing to be unable to engage county legislators and department heads as we had hoped, the Voting Integrity Project will nevertheless continue to strive for improved election integrity, voter confidence and citizen participation in the democratic process.
In the next few months the Voting Integrity Project will offer the Board of Supervisors observations and specific suggestions concerning election administration which we hope will be received in the same spirit as they are offered, a spirit of community, shared responsibility and respect for democratic principles.
For the Voting Integrity Project, Peacemakers Action Committee Co-signers
Susan Spivack
Nancy Sheehan
Katherine Hawkins
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator Ann C. Adams
Cynthia Wilson
CC: Board of Elections
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Post Office Box 429
Schoharie, NY 12157
Honorable Supervisors,
The Voting Integrity Project is committed to supporting election integrity and strengthening our democracy. This we endeavor to accomplish through promotion of secure voting technologies and practices, advocacy for an informed and engaged electorate, and expansion of the franchise.
We had been working for several months to initiate a conversation with the Schoharie County Board of Elections and the county Board of Supervisors concerning the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration.
We began by requesting a meeting with the Board of Supervisors subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Board of Elections Department. We reasoned that, since there was a subcommittee charged with elections oversight it would be the logical starting point. It also seemed respectful and practical to recognize the subcommittee’s authority and introduce our proposal to them first.
We had hoped the Rules and Legislation subcommittee would appreciate that a Citizen Advisory Committee could be an aid in the accomplishment of their oversight responsibilities while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way.
After our initial meeting with the Rules & Legislation Committee months passed while we waited for a follow-up meeting with Board of Elections representatives to be arranged by the committee Chairman. Finally, after more than three months, the R&L Chairman advised that the Election Commissioners had refused to meet with us and that the Rules and Legislation Committee was in agreement with their decision.
While it is very disappointing to be unable to engage county legislators and department heads as we had hoped, the Voting Integrity Project will nevertheless continue to strive for improved election integrity, voter confidence and citizen participation in the democratic process.
In the next few months the Voting Integrity Project will offer the Board of Supervisors observations and specific suggestions concerning election administration which we hope will be received in the same spirit as they are offered, a spirit of community, shared responsibility and respect for democratic principles.
For the Voting Integrity Project, Peacemakers Action Committee Co-signers
Susan Spivack
Nancy Sheehan
Katherine Hawkins
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator Ann C. Adams
Cynthia Wilson
CC: Board of Elections
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
