Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 22, Issue 15

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Sat Aug 12 2006 - 14:30:11 CDT

I have an Excel spreadsheet that accepts 130,000 without a problem. I
have run the numbers too.

No one has revealed how the 9% of polling booths were selected. If
they publish a spreadsheet with the polling booth identities and the
number of ballots cast at each one then I'll be able to judge whether
the audit may also have been rigged. Otherwise, this could easily be
another sham.

Jerry Lobdill

At 02:00 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:05:32 -0600
>From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Vote recount begins in Mexico
>To: ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>Message-ID:
> <391f105b0608111705i7e4b1e27p8af8dc9c58472393@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> > >
> > > The real questions are:
> > >
> > > 1. If the 11839 polling booths are really
> > > selected at random, and if there is no actual
> > > correlation between fraudulent polling place vote
> > > count and number of votes cast at the polling
> > > place, what is the probability that a recount of
> > > these polling places will uncover at least one instance of fraud?
>
>
>OK. Frank found time to run the numbers for the Mexican 9% audit
>today, plus Frank wrote another little Matlab script to calculate the
>straight-forward probabilities (because N=130,000 total vote counts
>seems to exceed the capacity of Excel hypergeometric function when I
>tried it).
>
>The good news is that the 9% audit that Mexico is currently
>conducting, if it is scientifically conducted, is plenty adequate to
>detect vote miscount down to 0.1%. Smaller audit sample sizes would
>even probably be fine. The probabilities of detecting a level of
>miscount that could be outcome altering was virtually 100% down to a
>0.1% margin between candidates.
>
>I am working on trying to obtain a copy of MatLab for myself so that I
>can run numbers and make modifications myself.
>
>If someone wanted to give us the number of total ballots cast at the
>say 5,000 largest Mexican polling locations, we could calculate new
>numbers to see if the probability would go down slightly, but it does
>appear that the Mexican audit amount (about 9%) is more than adequate.
>
>The one caveat I have is that audits should IMO be designed to audit
>states or counties separately rather than an entire country because
>errors are specific to local election administration.
>
>Kathy
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OVC-discuss mailing list
>OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>
>
>End of OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 22, Issue 15
>*******************************************

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Aug 31 23:17:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CDT