Connecticut Secretary of State Web Page Erroneously Shows Rocky Anderson Carrying Towns of Wallingford and Woodbury

Connecticut seems to have completed its official tally already. See here. The tally shows that Rocky Anderson polled 19,399 votes in the state, but this seems to be an obvious error, because the official tally shows that Mitt Romney received zero votes in Wallingford, and that President Obama received 9,259 votes in Wallingford, and that Anderson received 11,559 votes in Wallingford. There is a similar mistake for the town of Woodbury.


Connecticut Secretary of State Web Page Erroneously Shows Rocky Anderson Carrying Towns of Wallingford and Woodbury — 5 Comments

  1. If this is an official tally, I would strongly doubt that in Wallingford, Romney received 0 votes, compared to 9,259 votes for Obama, 11,559 votes for Anderson, and 75 votes for Johnson. The same story is for Woodbury, where Romney also seems to have received 0 votes, compared to 3,058 votes for Obama, 2,434 votes for Anderson, and 10 votes for Johnson.

  2. There are other errors in three towns that I have heard of.

    In 2008 there was a huge error of 18,000 votes in one count. After several weeks of complaints from activists it was eventually corrected, but also in that election there were seven towns with zero votes for the working families party which was incorrect.

    When we recounted (unofficially) Bridgeport in 2010 there were differences between the counts officially done by Bridgeport moderators and those on the state website. (As well as the large discrepancies we found in the moderators returns).

    Instead of risking getting results from memory cards we use a manual three step process of transcription and addition. There are a lot of subtotals in each of the numbers on the web. The numbers reported actually represent accumulations of many numbers, machine counts, hand counts, often from many districts in a town. These are the same people who claim they cannot count accurately in the ideal conditions of a post-election audit.

    You would think local officials would review the posted results, complain when it does not match, and the expect it to be corrected.
    Local results are a lot of work to get, with 169 towns. Some post them locally but most do not. Fortunately, most candidates accumulate their own results from volunteers at polling places.

  3. There are also obvious errors with several town tallies under the Independent and Working Families columns for state and federal legislative races, such as in Danbury, Washington, and East Windsor, showing those parties having zero (0) votes, unlike in virtually every other town. Danbury is one of the largest towns in the state and I voted there for two of the three candidates listed on the Independent line who ended up being tallied as 0. In the afflicted towns, whenever the Independent tally was shown as 0, so was the Working Families tally. (Note that the Independent and Working Families candidates in these spaces were cross-endorsements of the Republicans and Democrats respectively. I suspect they mistakenly combined the totals under the R and D columns.)

    I wrote an email to the Secretary of State’s office on the morning of November 10th relaying my findings and copied it to some leaders and candidates of these two parties.

  4. None of this meets the screw up in Francisco, CA in
    the June, 2012 election. In that election only the ballots voted by AIP electors should have been counted,
    because all ballot stubs had been printed as American Independent Party of California ballots,

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party of California

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *