From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>

Date: Mon Jul 17 2006 - 23:09:38 CDT

Date: Mon Jul 17 2006 - 23:09:38 CDT

Hello Everyone,

It is a Good Day in our great democracy. :-)

We now have a new scientific method to ensure that election outcomes

in every race are honest and accurate!

The National Election Data Archive (NEDA)'s paper on vote count audits

has been updated and will be updated again soon:

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

and NEDA's Spreadsheet AuditCalculator.xls for

Determining Audit Percentages that would Detect Outcome-Altering Vote

Miscounts has been updated:

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

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

CHANGES TO AuditCalculator.xls:

1. Added an Estimator to help determine more quickly, the number of

vote counts to audit. This will assist users with the currently

trial-and-error process for determining the exact number of vote

counts that should be audited to be sure to detect any miscounts that

alter outcomes.

(I used the estimated function that the Brennan Center recommended but

I adjusted the calculation to take into account "Candidate Margins" so

that the audit will detect the amount of corruption that would alter

outcomes - not just some arbitrary amount of corruption. When I took

a closer look at the Brennan Center appendix G, I noticed that the

Brennan Center made errors in calculating just a couple of the

probabilities and that, contrary to my first glance, they used a

different function than the function that NEDA recommended for

calculating audits over a year ago. The Brennan Center method

conservatively over-estimates the number of counts that need to be

audited to detect an assumed rate of corruption, especially in small

counties with fewer total counts to audit. The reason the Brennan

Center used an estimation is that it provides an easier equation to

solve so that election officials can have an easy way to calculate the

number of machines to parallel test or audit, given the desired

probability for detecting an assumed rate of corruption. However, I

am sure that taxpayers and election officials alike will appreciate a

more exact calculation of audit percentages required to detect

outcome-altering vote miscounts.)

I've asked one of NEDA's most brilliant volunteer mathematicians,

Frank Stenger, to see if he can solve the exact probability equation

so that we can provide a more exact, easier method for independent

auditors to calculate the correct audit percentages that would detect

any outcome-altering vote miscounts, but the equation looks very

difficult, if not impossible, to solve exactly. We may need instead

to provide an (open source) computer program to do the calculations

more exactly and easily.

2. Corrected the maxium rate of vote switching that is used to

calculate the minimum number of counts that must be corrupted to alter

election outcomes. Now it matches the Brennan Center's threat

evaluation assumption of 15% (not the 30% I mistakenly thought

earlier). To be more conservative, people may want to raise this

constant from the 15% to something higher, or wait to see what future

data shows.

3. Fixed some of the spreadsheet formulas to avoid errors or nonsense

in a few special cases.

4. Added instructions for how to use the Audit_Calculator. xls

spreadsheet to obtain the exact number of vote counts to audit to

obtain any desired probability of detecting outcome-altering vote

miscounts.

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

LESSONS LEARNED:

If you play with the Audit_Calculator.xls spreadsheet you will notice:

1. Audit percentages must be higher when the margins between

candidates is smaller.

2. Audit percentages must be higher for counties with fewer vote

counts to audit than for large counties with many voting machines.

(The actual number of vote counts that need to be audited are more

similar across diverse counties than are the audit percentages.)

3. A 1% or 2% audit is entirely inadequate when margins between

candidates become at all close (say under 10%). This new method

should replace those audit statutes.

4. This method can replace existing state election laws that require

100% hand-recounts only for close races because the hand-count

percentage automatically adjusts to the margins between candidates,

whatever they are.

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

WHY THIS NEW PROCEDURE SHOULD BE ADOPTED:

All American patriots agree that vote miscounts should never put the

wrong candidate into office. Therefore, this new method for

calculating the number of vote counts to audit in any election and

race is the correct way to audit all elections and should be adopted

nationwide, replacing systems of 1% state-wide audits such as

California and a few other states currently use.

To clarify my earlier email, another audit method using weaker

statistical procedures, however, will be needed to audit some poorly

designed central count optical scan systems that process mail-in,

overseas, absentee, and military ballots but provide no method for

breaking counts down by precincts. Good central count optical scan

systems like those of Washington State and Oregon can certainly follow

these new procedures recommended now by NEDA and use NEDA's

AuditCalculator.xls spreadsheet.

I am so very excited that America now has a new method for correctly

calculating AUDIT PERCENTAGES to ensure that NO VOTE MISCOUNTS WILL

ALTER ANY ELECTION RESULTS IN ANY RACE in the future!

I have come to understand in the last week, as a result of doing these

mathematical calculations, that a simple 1% or 2% or even 5% audit

procedure is entirely inadequate to meet the needs of ensuring U.S.

election integrity. Audit percentages must be determined by the

requirement to ensure that only correctly elected candidates are sworn

into office following every U.S. election in every race.

You can quote me on that!

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

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT:

Please support NEDA's efforts. We really need your help! Right now we

very much need funding to hire an office assistant and a computer

programmer, or a volunteer office assistant. NEDA also needs either

funding or volunteer attorneys to help craft open records request

letters that are specific to each state's open records laws in order

to obtain the detailed vote count data to uncover vote miscounts in

jurisdictions that conduct no independent audits, some of which use

inauditable voting systems. Please help us if you can.

Please excuse my excited babbling over this new discovery of a

mathematical method to ensure vote count integrity in every race in

every election. What an election nerd I am!

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

THE FUTURE OF ELECTION INTEGRITY LEGISLATION

Now, if America requires independent audits of election outcomes like

every other major industry conducts, we can certainly convince any

competent independent auditors of elections to adopt this new method,

which will transparently achieve the stated goal of all election

officials - to ensure that no vote miscounts wrongly determine any

election outcome.

*>From now on, all independent audit legislation should be written
*

generally to require:

"vote count audits should ensure that election outcomes are not

altered to a high degree of probability"

(say 95%), rather than specify any fixed small audit rate.

I believe that the current Holt HR550 proposed in the U.S. Congress

needs to be rewritten, to require that states conduct county-level

independent randomly-selected audits for all federal elections, not

the US Election Assistance Commission as currently, and that the goal

of the audit (no outcome-altering vote counts with perhaps a 1%

minimum audit in any case) be specified, so that it is clear that the

percentage of vote counts audited is determined by the goal we all

share of honest accurate election outcomes.

Please support our work. Thank you.

Best Regards,

-- ---- 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 Mon Jul 31 23:17:05 2006

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Mon Jul 31 2006 - 23:17:09 CDT
*