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

From: Ginny Ross <ginnypdx_at_comcast_dot_net>
Date: Wed Jan 24 2007 - 13:22:13 CST

In a follow up post, Howard Stanislevic posted this. I was not able to
forward it earlier because it had not been attached in the forwardable
portion of the post:

"If you read my paper and Dr. Ron Rivest's paper, they will explain the
whole thing"--
1. Rivest, On Estimating the Size of a Statistical Audit
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/%7Erivest/Rivest-OnEstimatingTheSizeOfAStatisticalAudit.pdf
2. Stanislevic, Random Auditing of E-Voting Systems: How Much is Enough?
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/VTTF/EVEPAuditing.pdf

I hope this makes the post more complete. I believe the precinct
approach is still not going to prove effective and need to lobby for
intensive /standards /such as 99% confidence.

Ginny Ross

Kathy Dopp wrote:
>> 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
>
>

_______________________________________________
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