Re: Fwd: Question re. audits in Wisconsin

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Mon Nov 06 2006 - 14:19:20 CST

On Nov 6, 2006, at 2:04 PM, charlie strauss wrote:

> Yeah TAR would be dandy.

I have no disagreement with targeted recounts. The recipe I've
been recommending for some time allows the parties to target
some precincts while retaining random precincts in the mix as
well, with a minimum of 3 precincts recounted (one at random and
one for each party), with additional precincts added to bring the
audit up to the set percentage(s) in the jurisdiction.

I won't argue what the optimal percentages are, in part because
demanding larger percentages tends to encourage sloppier auditing
of each precinct, but primarily because auditing any percentage
is infinitely better than no audits, while arguing the exact
percent is a matter of constant factors.

Keeping some fraction of the audit truly random deters an agreement
between the parties to target their audits away from the fraudulent
precincts -- this could happen where one party is so dominant that
they tell some of their members to register under the opposing party
so that they can serve as pollworkers and observers for the
opposition -- this has happened in Chicago, and not just in the
distant past!

                Doug Jones
                jones@cs.uiowa.edu

_______________________________________________
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 Thu Nov 30 23:17:05 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 23:17:19 CST