# Fwd: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 21, Issue 21

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Fri Jul 21 2006 - 08:40:45 CDT

Hi Kathy,

I'm working on your suggested task (below).

Your original equation is correct, and if we have to live with
something other than a closed form solution, so be it. We can comfort
ourselves in that event with the knowledge that even if we had a
linear system of simultaneous equations instead of a polynomial
equation of Cth degree, election officials would still not be able to
understand the math. :-)

Jerry

>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:12:49 -0600
>From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp@gmail.com>
>Subject: [OVC-discuss] Our "Election Integrity" equation solution is
> an approximation
>To: uscv_stats@uscountvotes.org, "Open Voting Consortium discussion
> list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>Message-ID:
> <391f105b0607200012xe9b9fc3v2b3682233710812f@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>NEDA may or may "not" be able to derive a better formulaic
>approximation of the probability formula (We are using the same
>original equation that we derived over a year ago to calculate audit
>percentages that has been extensively peer-reviewed but are trying to
>solve it for one of the variables). Frank and I are still working on
>it, but a one-step exact solution is not looking hopeful. The election
>integrity equation to solve has several factorials of the variable to
>be solved for in it and it is thus difficult (or impossible?) to solve
>directly.
>
>The good news is that as precise as desired answer to the number of
>vote counts to audit in order to have a desired degree of probability
>of detecting outcome-altering vote miscount can be determined with a
>computer program or by trial and error using a spreadsheet.
>
>The new equation that I set up last week is only trivially different
>than our extensively peer-reviewed and agreed to original probability
>equation of over a year ago. I have merely introduced a small new
>calculation to make the audit percentage detect outcome-altering vote
>miscount.
>
> The method Frank tried for solving the equation depends for its
>precision, on the size of the number of total vote counts being a
>large number, which is not true in many counties. I had given Frank
>the formula to solve without sufficiently informing him of its
>real-life constraints.
>
>The great news is that a computer program to solve the "election
>integrity" vote count audit equation will be a simple one - by working
>backwards until the correct probability is obtained - almost like a
>simple search algoritm that can be quickly narrowed down, with an
>approximation function to specify exactly where to begin the search,
>and a probability to check the accuracy of the results.
>
>Having a computer program to solve the problem, rather than a simple
>formula may make it more difficult to get it adopted as the standard -
>but it is easily-explainable to anyone who knows any college-level
>probability, and so the scientists of NIST, who set such standards,
>will easily understand it.
>
>I have updated NEDA's audit paper with an explanation and table in its
>appendix, and the excell spreadsheet will explain it to most people.
>
>http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Paper_Audits.pdf
>
>and
>
>http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/ and get
>AuditCalculator.xls
>
>If anyone wants to take on the project of creating a program to
>calculate the correct audit percentage for detecting outcome-altering
>vote miscount, or fixing up the spreadsheet that now lets people
>calculate it by trial and error, that would be terrific. I'm buried
>without enough funding to hire any help.
>
>--
>----
>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

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

_______________________________________________
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 23:17:06 2006

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