From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>

Date: Wed Jan 24 2007 - 13:10:58 CST

Date: Wed Jan 24 2007 - 13:10:58 CST

*> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:05:35 -0800
*

*> From: Ginny Ross <ginnypdx@comcast.net>
*

*> Subject: [OVC-discuss] A 3-Step Audit Protocol w/ 99% confidence
*

*>
*

Ginny,

Of course I support this protocal because it is exactly based on my

audit work and every method in it is exactly equivalent to my and Ron

Rivest's work and was probably devised after I wrote my last paper

which explained how to use Ron Rivest's formula for election audits. For

anyone who wants to better understand the foundations of this 3-step

(it's really more than 3 steps) audit protocal that is based on my

work, please read the two following papers which explain it more

clearly:

My most recent paper explaining how to correctly apply Ron Rivest's

formula to election audits:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/ElectionAuditEstimator.pdf

and Ron Rivest's original paper which gives an over-estimate of the

exact audit sample sizes that must be used (the numbers Rivest calls

"optimal" audit sizes and compares his own estimated numbers to are

the numbers that may be directly obtained by using the numerical

algorithm in my and Frank Stenger's paper):

http://theory.csail.mit.edu/~rivest/Rivest-OnEstimatingTheSizeOfAStatisticalAudit.pdf

and my election integrity audit paper explain the algorithm (more

simply I think) to determine the number of precinct vote counts which

is corrupt to detect:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/ElectionIntegrityAudit.pdf

To understand the algorithms this "3-step audit protocal" uses to

calculate the number of corrupt precinct vote counts to use in

calculations, see pp.8 to 10 and the appendix B pp. 19 and also in the

program in appendix B.

Did these guys who proposed this "3-step audit protocal" also neglect

to cite my work? It is helpful to readers if authors would cite the

originators of work since it gives readers resources to go to to

understand things better and let's them know who the experts are that

they may consult with and ask questions. It is really not wise, nor

is it ethical, to neglect to cite the original work of others because

it puts the wrong people out in front of the group as leaders in an

area that they may not be leaders in and further puts people out in

front of the group as leaders who may be less than ethical since they

did not honestly cite the work of others upon whose work their own was

based. I"m not saying that the proponents of the "3-step audit

protocal" neglected to cite my work. I don't know since I did not read

their original work.

Best,

Kathy

_______________________________________________

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 Tue Jan 1 14:12:47 2008

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Tue Jan 01 2008 - 14:12:51 CST
*