Re: Independent audits of Verified Paper Trail elections

From: <SomeThoughts_at_aol_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jun 26 2006 - 21:54:16 CDT

 lobdillj@charter.net writes:

> This would suggest that the law ought to be written so that X is the
> variable, selected to provide a constant statistical confidence level.
>

Bingo.

This is what I wrote earlier in a private email:

It may be better to talk in terms of reliability - eg: we want an audit that
makes us 80%, or 90%, or 99% sure that there was no cheating going on. Then
you need to add in rules about what happens when you find a problem. The
question becomes - how sure are you that it did (not) change the outcome? Do you
check some more? So the bottom line question becomes, how can we know, with a
reasonable certainty, that there was not enough cheating/errors to change the
outcome of the race? There is no simple answer to this, but it's clear that 1% is
an insufficient answer.

Of course, there are no rules in California as to what to do when a 1% audit
spots problems.

Jim Soper

510 258 4857

_______________________________________________
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 Fri Jun 30 23:17:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 23:17:12 CDT