You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Percentage-Based versus Statistical-Power-Based Vote Tabulation Audits [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 03:39 PM
Original message
Percentage-Based versus Statistical-Power-Based Vote Tabulation Audits
Advertisements [?]
"Tiered percentage audits specify a percentage of precincts to be audited, depending on the reported winning margin."

"This approach addresses the need to audit more when margins are narrower..."

"Statisticians and a growing number of election experts have urged replacing fixed percentage audits with audits that employ a statistically grounded criterion of efficacy. Here we present a power-based audit which determines the number of precincts that must be sampled to achieve a specified power level for each election contest. In addition to the desired power, the sample size will depend on the reported victory margin, the value ofWPM, and both the number and size-distribution of the precincts."

"Since a key purpose of a post-election vote tabulation audit is to provide a check on the original tabulations, procedures should verify election results without trusting any part of the software used in voting."



Percentage-Based versus Statistical-Power-Based Vote Tabulation Audits

Authors: McCarthy, John; Stanislevic, Howard; Lindeman, Mark; Ash, Arlene S.; Addona, Vittorio; Batcher, Mary
Source: The American Statistician, Volume 62, Number 1, February 2008 , pp. 11-16(6)
Publisher: American Statistical Association



Abstract:

Several pending federal and state electoral-integrity bills specify hand audits of 1% to 10% of all precincts.

However, percentage-based audits are usually inefficient, because they require large samples for large jurisdictions, even though the sample needed to achieve good accuracy is much more affected by the closeness of the contest than population size. Percentage-based audits can also be ineffective, since close contests may require auditing a large fraction of the total to provide confidence in the outcome.

We present a plausible statistical frame-work that we have used in advising state and local election officials and legislators. In recent federal elections, this audit model would have required approximately the same effort and resources as the less effective percentage-based audits now being considered.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asa/tas/2008/00000062/00000001/art00002


A free full text pdf version is available:
pdf: http://verifiedvoting.org/downloads/TAS_paper.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC