Re: A 3-Step Audit Protocol w/ 99% confidence

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
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