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
Saturday, April 4, 2009
New York Democracy War
A Short History of the New York Democracy Wars
I'm not an investigative journalist or a war correspondent. I'm just an ordinary citizen and voting integrity advocate watching the battle from my vantage point in the hills of Schoharie County.
I am an observer of political currents, political critters and would be captains of commerce. The captains and their lobbyists can be spotted circling the capital buildings when the scent of money is on the air. It is in times like this that politicians can be easily observed engaged in intercourse with said captains and their lobbyists. These exchanges are important to us because the people's treasure is the currency of this drama and our democracy is very much at risk.
The drama of which I speak began earlier but we'll click on the play button at about ten years ago. The militant anti-democracy idealogues had been in exile for several years but they were not still. They had published their plan, an explicit statement of what America's world position should be in the 21st century. It was a blueprint for the America of their dreams and it's execution would depend upon the Republican partisans winning the 2000 election. The Republican party, determined to take the Presidency by any means, and aided by corrupt Florida election functionaries, a seriously unethical and probably criminal voting machine company and a surprising Supreme Court ruling, installed an ignorant puppet as President of the United States in January, 2001.
Spurred into action, ostensibly by the horrors of deformed chads which defied all attempts to discern the will of voters, and recognizing that they needed a more reliable system to control democracy and maintain a permanent Republican government, Congressman Bob Ney, with the guidance of Diebold voting machine company, introduced the Orwellian Help America Vote Act. Ney's no longer a congressman, he's in jail now for unrelated crimes, but the HAVA regulations live on.
Early on in the play a second plot line was introduced, some say with the direct involvement, or at least the passive acquiescence, of the newly installed regime, when angry Arabs from the other side of the world took vengeance on America for it's imperialistic behavior over there. They flew airliners into the capitalists' prayer point knocking down two very tall buildings and killing many, many Americans. This incident instantly endowed the puppet with extraordinary powers he then used to transform our country into a habitat more hospitable for the oligarchs, and repressive of the peons, a habitat more a monarchy or dictatorship than a democracy.
Scoring several wins in the 2002 midterm elections the new authoritarian, monarchical, Commander-in-Chief puppet regime was on a roll. Popular Democratic incumbents were ousted in states where Diebold voting equipment was used but the would be rulers of the world knew they had more work to do to ensure the puppet's second, third and fourth term. A partisan-politicized Justice Dept was put into play aggressively prosecuting trumped up voter fraud cases and threatening to force HAVA compliance in any state which seemed reluctant to deploy electronic voting.
Ohio was the chosen battlefield for 2004. Ohio was home for Ney, the Diebold company (with many election districts served by Diebold machines) and a Secretary of State with a penchant for unethical behavior in the service of the party. The permanent Republican control enterprise had grown in sophistication. There were now talented IT people on board to create a complex "man in the middle" routine for shaping the election results. They pulled it off. The ignorant one was re-installed for a second term.
So it was in 2008 that many of us observers of currents, captains and criminals were at the ready and working hard to prevent New York State from becoming the next battleground lost in electronic service to the permanent power empire builders.
Collectively we had made a hell of a stink in opposition to direct recording electronic voting machines and in favor of a paper ballot system. Then, when a little luck came our way in the form of a state BOE crippled by partisan squabbling and a federal judge short on patience, a paper ballot scanner system was the only system left standing at the very moment of decision. That would be the Sequoia ImageCast combination Ballot Marking Device and ballot scanner. We bought it, and it must be a really good system because we paid way, way too much for it.
An important subplot throughout this drama, little recognized or attended to by politicians, lobbyists or the captains of commerce, was the preservation of democracy. It was a strange battle with politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats both federal and state, and judges all focused lemming-like on the goal of imposing electronic voting upon the citizens of America. It was as if all the aforementioned rodents had experienced an identical Epiphany: To vote requires a machine, and modernity demands that machine be solid-state electronic, and the huge amounts of federal money appropriated for the transition dictated that these machines were to be expensive. And so it came to pass.
Some will describe it as a compromise. The democracy defenders got their paper ballots. The lemmings got their solid-state electronic and expensive ballot marking device/scanner machines. All the Federal money has been spoken for. Everybody should be happy. What more could they want?
The partisan patronage appointees charged with managing our elections really didn't want to have to deal with paper ballots. They had hoped to avoid any of the extra chores paper ballots might require. Obviously, most of the voting machine manufacturers did not get a contract to supply machines. Only two companies will be supplying all of New York State. Of all the actors the ones most ill at ease are the good government groups, election integrity watchdogs and individual democracy defenders. They remain concerned that, absent adequate audits, transparency and citizen participation, the electronic ballot scanners might be programmed to control election outcomes.
Of these patriots many are dissatisfied with the ballots being counted by an electronic machine and are pressing for more extensive audits than provided for in NY law. Some are in court arguing to retain the lever machines rather than trusting a scanner count of ballots. And there are some who so distrust the electronic machines, the companies that make them, the election management bureaucracy and the various other governmental agencies that might otherwise be expected to stand guard over democracy, that they want every paper ballot counted by hand under the caring eyes of the citizens, with the ballot counting chores being handled by randomly chosen citizen volunteers. And they demand, if there is to be a scanner count, it must be relegated to serving as a confirmation of the hand count.
This last group of pro-democracy patriots claim support for their position in none other than New York's HAVA compliance legislation, The Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005. They note that the amended Election Law (Sec.9-211, Sub 3,4 & 5) recognizes the primacy of paper ballots as the official record of an election and reason that official records of an election can not be disregarded or subordinated to an electronic count and therefore the paper ballots must be 100% counted by hand.
Late last year certification testing of the Sequoia ballot marking device/ballot scanner machines, most of which have already been delivered to local Boards of Election, was interrupted when the testing contractor itself was de-certified due to poor performance, inadequate record keeping and inappropriate assurances to machine manufacturers. Testing had barely just resumed when the national economy began to crumble threatening state and local governments with huge budget shortfalls. Sequoia, apparently numb to the world around them, decided the time was right to announce price increases, including a demand for outrageously high license fees for software required to run the machines.
So that's where we are. The New York State election administrators will continue to slog through their partisan differences while conducting machine testing, developing an audit regimen and resolving the software licensing fees issue. Our responsibility, every citizens' responsibility, is to continue defending democracy.
We have to continue hacking away at the election administration lemmings, zombie voting machine reps and other corporate shills who would have us lay down and give them control of elections and our democracy. We will continue to confront, write, call and message anyone and everyone who might be instrumental in developing the election administration procedures and practices which will protect the integrity of our elections.
I'm not an investigative journalist or a war correspondent. I'm just an ordinary citizen and voting integrity advocate watching the battle from my vantage point in the hills of Schoharie County.
I am an observer of political currents, political critters and would be captains of commerce. The captains and their lobbyists can be spotted circling the capital buildings when the scent of money is on the air. It is in times like this that politicians can be easily observed engaged in intercourse with said captains and their lobbyists. These exchanges are important to us because the people's treasure is the currency of this drama and our democracy is very much at risk.
The drama of which I speak began earlier but we'll click on the play button at about ten years ago. The militant anti-democracy idealogues had been in exile for several years but they were not still. They had published their plan, an explicit statement of what America's world position should be in the 21st century. It was a blueprint for the America of their dreams and it's execution would depend upon the Republican partisans winning the 2000 election. The Republican party, determined to take the Presidency by any means, and aided by corrupt Florida election functionaries, a seriously unethical and probably criminal voting machine company and a surprising Supreme Court ruling, installed an ignorant puppet as President of the United States in January, 2001.
Spurred into action, ostensibly by the horrors of deformed chads which defied all attempts to discern the will of voters, and recognizing that they needed a more reliable system to control democracy and maintain a permanent Republican government, Congressman Bob Ney, with the guidance of Diebold voting machine company, introduced the Orwellian Help America Vote Act. Ney's no longer a congressman, he's in jail now for unrelated crimes, but the HAVA regulations live on.
Early on in the play a second plot line was introduced, some say with the direct involvement, or at least the passive acquiescence, of the newly installed regime, when angry Arabs from the other side of the world took vengeance on America for it's imperialistic behavior over there. They flew airliners into the capitalists' prayer point knocking down two very tall buildings and killing many, many Americans. This incident instantly endowed the puppet with extraordinary powers he then used to transform our country into a habitat more hospitable for the oligarchs, and repressive of the peons, a habitat more a monarchy or dictatorship than a democracy.
Scoring several wins in the 2002 midterm elections the new authoritarian, monarchical, Commander-in-Chief puppet regime was on a roll. Popular Democratic incumbents were ousted in states where Diebold voting equipment was used but the would be rulers of the world knew they had more work to do to ensure the puppet's second, third and fourth term. A partisan-politicized Justice Dept was put into play aggressively prosecuting trumped up voter fraud cases and threatening to force HAVA compliance in any state which seemed reluctant to deploy electronic voting.
Ohio was the chosen battlefield for 2004. Ohio was home for Ney, the Diebold company (with many election districts served by Diebold machines) and a Secretary of State with a penchant for unethical behavior in the service of the party. The permanent Republican control enterprise had grown in sophistication. There were now talented IT people on board to create a complex "man in the middle" routine for shaping the election results. They pulled it off. The ignorant one was re-installed for a second term.
So it was in 2008 that many of us observers of currents, captains and criminals were at the ready and working hard to prevent New York State from becoming the next battleground lost in electronic service to the permanent power empire builders.
Collectively we had made a hell of a stink in opposition to direct recording electronic voting machines and in favor of a paper ballot system. Then, when a little luck came our way in the form of a state BOE crippled by partisan squabbling and a federal judge short on patience, a paper ballot scanner system was the only system left standing at the very moment of decision. That would be the Sequoia ImageCast combination Ballot Marking Device and ballot scanner. We bought it, and it must be a really good system because we paid way, way too much for it.
An important subplot throughout this drama, little recognized or attended to by politicians, lobbyists or the captains of commerce, was the preservation of democracy. It was a strange battle with politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats both federal and state, and judges all focused lemming-like on the goal of imposing electronic voting upon the citizens of America. It was as if all the aforementioned rodents had experienced an identical Epiphany: To vote requires a machine, and modernity demands that machine be solid-state electronic, and the huge amounts of federal money appropriated for the transition dictated that these machines were to be expensive. And so it came to pass.
Some will describe it as a compromise. The democracy defenders got their paper ballots. The lemmings got their solid-state electronic and expensive ballot marking device/scanner machines. All the Federal money has been spoken for. Everybody should be happy. What more could they want?
The partisan patronage appointees charged with managing our elections really didn't want to have to deal with paper ballots. They had hoped to avoid any of the extra chores paper ballots might require. Obviously, most of the voting machine manufacturers did not get a contract to supply machines. Only two companies will be supplying all of New York State. Of all the actors the ones most ill at ease are the good government groups, election integrity watchdogs and individual democracy defenders. They remain concerned that, absent adequate audits, transparency and citizen participation, the electronic ballot scanners might be programmed to control election outcomes.
Of these patriots many are dissatisfied with the ballots being counted by an electronic machine and are pressing for more extensive audits than provided for in NY law. Some are in court arguing to retain the lever machines rather than trusting a scanner count of ballots. And there are some who so distrust the electronic machines, the companies that make them, the election management bureaucracy and the various other governmental agencies that might otherwise be expected to stand guard over democracy, that they want every paper ballot counted by hand under the caring eyes of the citizens, with the ballot counting chores being handled by randomly chosen citizen volunteers. And they demand, if there is to be a scanner count, it must be relegated to serving as a confirmation of the hand count.
This last group of pro-democracy patriots claim support for their position in none other than New York's HAVA compliance legislation, The Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005. They note that the amended Election Law (Sec.9-211, Sub 3,4 & 5) recognizes the primacy of paper ballots as the official record of an election and reason that official records of an election can not be disregarded or subordinated to an electronic count and therefore the paper ballots must be 100% counted by hand.
Late last year certification testing of the Sequoia ballot marking device/ballot scanner machines, most of which have already been delivered to local Boards of Election, was interrupted when the testing contractor itself was de-certified due to poor performance, inadequate record keeping and inappropriate assurances to machine manufacturers. Testing had barely just resumed when the national economy began to crumble threatening state and local governments with huge budget shortfalls. Sequoia, apparently numb to the world around them, decided the time was right to announce price increases, including a demand for outrageously high license fees for software required to run the machines.
So that's where we are. The New York State election administrators will continue to slog through their partisan differences while conducting machine testing, developing an audit regimen and resolving the software licensing fees issue. Our responsibility, every citizens' responsibility, is to continue defending democracy.
We have to continue hacking away at the election administration lemmings, zombie voting machine reps and other corporate shills who would have us lay down and give them control of elections and our democracy. We will continue to confront, write, call and message anyone and everyone who might be instrumental in developing the election administration procedures and practices which will protect the integrity of our elections.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Citizen Advisory Board Proposed to BOE
The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County
Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043
2 January 2009
Schoharie County Board of Elections
PO Box 99
Schoharie, NY 12157
Commissioners Wilson, Hay,
Snowdon and Davies-Griffin
Last month representatives of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project met with the Board of Supervisors Rules & Legislation Committee to introduce a proposal for increased citizen participation in election administration and cooperation with the Board of Supervisors.
Specifically we suggested creation of a Citizens Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) which would cooperate with the Rules & Legislation Committee and the Board of Elections.
The Rules & Legislation Committee agreed that the next step must include discussions with Board of Elections representatives and suggested this take place at a subsequent committee meeting. Chairman Brandow has indicated he will schedule that meeting after consultation with your office.
For your interest we have enclosed copies of our communications with the Rules & Legislation Committee which introduce the CABEA concept. Please note the concept and the suggested areas of cooperation are most certainly a work in progress which will require your input to produce a viable end product. I encourage you to contribute your expertise to the development of this idea.
As always we are available at your convenience to discuss this proposal. Please feel free to contact us at 518-287-1463 or airhead@midtel.net .
For the Voting Integrity Project
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
CC: Rules & Legislation Committee
Enclosures: R&L Comm. Ltr., To Begin The Conversation, Democracy in Election Administration.
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County
Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043
2 January 2009
Schoharie County Board of Elections
PO Box 99
Schoharie, NY 12157
Commissioners Wilson, Hay,
Snowdon and Davies-Griffin
Last month representatives of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project met with the Board of Supervisors Rules & Legislation Committee to introduce a proposal for increased citizen participation in election administration and cooperation with the Board of Supervisors.
Specifically we suggested creation of a Citizens Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) which would cooperate with the Rules & Legislation Committee and the Board of Elections.
The Rules & Legislation Committee agreed that the next step must include discussions with Board of Elections representatives and suggested this take place at a subsequent committee meeting. Chairman Brandow has indicated he will schedule that meeting after consultation with your office.
For your interest we have enclosed copies of our communications with the Rules & Legislation Committee which introduce the CABEA concept. Please note the concept and the suggested areas of cooperation are most certainly a work in progress which will require your input to produce a viable end product. I encourage you to contribute your expertise to the development of this idea.
As always we are available at your convenience to discuss this proposal. Please feel free to contact us at 518-287-1463 or airhead@midtel.net .
For the Voting Integrity Project
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
CC: Rules & Legislation Committee
Enclosures: R&L Comm. Ltr., To Begin The Conversation, Democracy in Election Administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
