Re: Effect of Precinct-size Variation on Audits corrected

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Fri Aug 18 2006 - 23:10:07 CDT


Attached is another file of Torrant County, TX vote count audit sizes
required (assuming Torrant county uses precinct-count optical scan
systems), for Probability = 99% and MaximumMarginShift per Vote Count
(anything higher is assumed to be noticable immediately without an
audit) of 40%.

I've been comparing numbers with Howard Stanislevic, the statistician
working with VoteTrustUSA, who, as it turns out, has been doing
similar calculations of audit sample sizes since June in spite of not
publicly releasing them until this week, but who has not discovered
the numerical solutions for directly calculating the audit sample
sizes that Frank and I are using, and which we will be publicly
releasing soon (hopefully this next week).

Sharing data with Howard prompted me to take a closer look at the
precinct-size-variation calcs as I sent them off to Howard. Hence I
discovered my own programming error. Howard and I get virtually
identical vote count audit size results now using the same inputs.
Some very very minor differences in our two results are probably due
to roundoff differences.

> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:22:34 -0600
> From: "Kathy Dopp" <>
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Effect of Precinct-size Variation on Audits
> corrected

OVC-discuss mailing list

= 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 23:17:08 2006

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