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

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 19:20:11 CST

> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:39:25 -0800
> From: Ron Crane <>

> A related problem with the audit schemes is that their assurance factors
> rely upon the assumption that each precinct has the same probability of
> being miscounted.

That statement is very far from the truth. If you read any of our
audit work, what our work assumes is that a fraudster has ultimate
knowledge and ability to target their miscount to the fewest possible
number of vote counts and throws only enough vote counts to just
barely swing the election so that we have to find the fewest corrupt
counts possible and must therefore have sufficient audits to detect
the most devious clever fraudster.

> At the end of the day the preciseness of the recount is much less important that the satisfaction of the people and candidates that the election was fair.

Speak for yourself ;-) I would far rather KNOW with high confidence
that the election was fair than have voter confidence that it was fair
since voters seem to so cluelessly have high confidence when it is
totally unmerited.

> <>when
> Diebold slammed the barn door shut on a horse that's by now halfway
> to Katherine Harris' summer home,

Ha ha. Funny One. What that your words too Arthur?

Kathy Dopp
National Election Data Archive
Dedicated to Accurately Counting Elections
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 Tue Jan 1 14:12:49 2008

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