Howard Stanislevic says Larger Audits Required to Confirm 2006 US House Races

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 14:18:14 CST

Howard asked me to let people know that he does not support fixed rate
audits. (See Howards December 2006 VoteTrustUSA article below. The
last time I'd heard Howard support Holt's fixed audit proposal was in
Aug or Sept it is true.)

The problem with this article (below) by Howard IMO is:

1. Election officials erroneously interpreted Howard's analysis to
mean: "Great, this proves that a 2% Audit works great in all but 14.7%
of election races", and

2. By using 400 total vote counts to do his calculations, Howard
over-exagerates the efficacy of a 2% audit in the many cases when
there are fewer than 400 vote counts being audited, and

3. Howard says "this is not adjusted for precinct-size variation" as
though that is the only problem with his analysis, which also neglects
to adjust for the variability for the number of total vote counts in
an election.

Here is Howard's article showing his position against flat rate
audits, that unfortunately election officials and people like Holt are
using to bolster their case in support of flat rate audits:

(I have no clue why VoteTrustUSA imagined that their deliberate
refusal to report about or publish any of my work, waiting to report
any election audit mathematics until Howard replicated it, and their
hiding the fact from the public that I am one of the top experts in
the field of election audit mathematics, would produce a good outcome
for their goal of achieving election integrity. I am sorry that I
didn't reveal these problems with VoteTrustUSA a long time ago because
their actions have endangered our chances to have fair elections in
2008 - although it certainly did help put VoteTrustUSA in a good
position.)

-----------------------------------

Larger Audits Required to Confirm 2006 US House Races
By Howard Stanislevic, VoteTrustUSA E-Voter Education Project

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2135&Itemid=26
December 20, 2006

The verdict is in. This year's 401 contested US House seats resulted
in closer electoral outcomes than the 400 seats that were up for grabs
in the 2004 election. This means larger audits would have been
necessary this year than in 2004 to actually confirm the results
independently of electronic vote counting software.

For the following calculations, we assumed a 99% probability of
miscount detection (confidence level), 400 precincts per Congressional
District on average and the possibility of up to a 20% undetected vote
shift per precinct.

For the following calculations, we assumed a 99% probability of
miscount detection (confidence level), 400 precincts per Congressional
District on average and the possibility of up to a 20% undetected vote
shift per precinct.

Based on these assumptions, in 2004, 57 outcomes (14.3%) of the 400
contests required more than a 2% random audit of precinct totals to be
confirmed. This year, using the same assumptions, 99 races (24.7% of
the 401 contests) would require more than a 2% audit to confirm their
outcomes.

-- 
----
Kathy Dopp
http://electionarchive.org
National Election Data Archive
Dedicated to Accurately Counting Elections
Subscribe to announcements by emailing election-subscribe@uscountvotes.org
Please donate or volunteer.
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body
and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day," wrote
Thomas Jefferson in 1816
_______________________________________________
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 14:12:48 2008

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